Opinion ID: 3134365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Conviction Discovery Requests

Text: During the post-conviction proceedings below, defendant requested that he be permitted discovery in order to analyze the following items: fingerprint evidence collected by the State from the Adams crime scene; the blood-like substance found in his truck; and the four $100 bills found in his truck. Defendant asserts that, if permitted discovery of these items, he may be able to place other possible suspects at the Adams crime scene, show that the blood-like substance in his truck did not belong to the victim, Adams, and, finally, show that the four $100 bills were proceeds from his bank loan. The circuit court denied all these requests. Defendant alleges reversible error in the circuit court's denial. The circuit court has inherent discretionary authority to order discovery in post-conviction proceedings. People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill. 2d 175, 183 (1988). Circuit courts should exercise this inherent authority with caution, however, because post-conviction proceedings afford only limited review and because there would exist in those proceedings a potential for abuse of the discovery process. Daley, 123 Ill. 2d at 183. The circuit court correctly denied the discovery requests. The requests amount to a fishing expedition in an attempt to create some doubt of defendant's guilt. Post-conviction proceedings are limited to providing a forum for the litigation of constitutional claims that were not presented in the original proceedings. Daley, 123 Ill. 2d at 182. Defendant's discovery requests go beyond this limited scope and, as a result, were properly denied.