Opinion ID: 2242801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Introduction by Defense

Text: Defense witness Dennis Fox was a Pontiac inmate and a member of defendant's gang. Defendant's trial counsel elicited from Fox testimony that members of defendant's gang roamed at will in the vicinity of the murder, that they could kill anyone they wished, and that they would kill any eyewitness to a gang killing. The State's evidence against defendant included two eyewitnesses to the murder. Easley, 148 Ill.2d at 292-93, 170 Ill.Dec. 356, 592 N.E.2d 1036. The record shows that defense counsel presented several witnesses such as Fox who testified not only that the State's eyewitnesses were not where they testified they were, but further, that there could not have been any eyewitnesses. If there were, defendant's gang would have killed them. Defendant now contends that appellate counsel should have argued that trial counsel's strategy was constitutionally deficient and prejudicial. As with defendant's failure to object to the State's introduction of gang evidence, this issue is res judicata ( Flores, 153 Ill.2d at 277-78, 180 Ill.Dec. 1, 606 N.E.2d 1078). Easley, 148 Ill.2d at 323-33, 170 Ill.Dec. 356, 592 N.E.2d 1036. Defendant cannot now argue that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that trial counsel improperly admitted evidence that this court has previously concluded to be nonprejudicial. However, as evidence of prejudice from appellate counsel's conduct, defendant attached to his post-conviction petition affidavits of several jurors from defendant's trial. The jurors averred essentially that they felt uneasy about street gangs, and they feared gang retaliation. According to defendant, this evidence shows that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's introduction of gang-related evidence. The jurors' affidavits cannot help defendant. It is well established that a statement by a juror taken after the jury has rendered its verdict, has been polled in open court, and has been discharged will not be admitted to impeach a juror's verdict. People v. Brisbon, 164 Ill.2d 236, 257, 207 Ill.Dec. 442, 647 N.E.2d 935 (1995) (and cases cited therein). How or why the jury reached its decision collectively or how or why individual jurors considered the evidence are not matters of proper inquiry after the verdict has been reached. People v. Chatman, 52 Ill. App.3d 631, 634-35, 10 Ill.Dec. 441, 367 N.E.2d 1050 (1977). We do not consider the jurors' affidavits. Defendant also attached to his post-conviction petition a report by John Hagedorn, who is a sociologist and an expert on street gangs. In his report, he conceded that the gang-related evidence may not have changed the outcome of the guilt phase of the trial. However, he opined that the gang-related evidence exercised considerable influence on the jury in the penalty phase of the trial. In other words, if the gang issue had not been such a major focus of the trial, I believe the jury would have been substantially less likely to ask for the death penalty. We disagree. We conclude that defendant fails the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. On direct review, this court concluded: Regardless, though, of whether the case had been submitted to the jury with or without the gang evidence, the jury would still have been presented with the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the murder as well as the physical evidence in support of the State's case against defendant. Accordingly, we hold that defendant was not denied his right to a fair and impartial trial by the introduction of the gang evidence. Easley, 148 Ill.2d at 330, 170 Ill.Dec. 356, 592 N.E.2d 1036. We note that, in contrast to the guilt phase of the trial, the gang-related evidence was admissible at the penalty phase. See People v. Brown, 172 Ill.2d 1, 47-48, 216 Ill. Dec. 733, 665 N.E.2d 1290 (1996) (and cases cited therein). Thus, in terms of the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that, but for the introduction of gang evidence by defendant's trial counsel, the result of the guilt phase of the trial would have been different. Also, due to the aggravation evidence, which we will discuss later, this conclusion applies likewise to the penalty phase of the trial. Therefore, appellate counsel was not constitutionally deficient for failing to argue the issue. The circuit court properly dismissed this claim.