Opinion ID: 2053901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecution and Alibi Witnesses

Text: Defendant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate alibi and prosecution witnesses before trial. In his affidavit, defendant states that he gave the names of five alibi witnesses to counsel and that he wanted these witnesses called at trial. These witnesses included Mazell Howard, Kathy Wilson, John Marlow, Dorothy Johnson, and Albert Johnson. To support a claim of failure to investigate and call witnesses, a defendant must introduce affidavits from those individuals who would have testified. Without affidavits, this court cannot determine whether these witnesses could have provided any information or testimony favorable to defendant. ( Ashford, 121 Ill.2d at 75, 117 Ill.Dec. 171, 520 N.E.2d 332.) Defendant has provided no affidavits from Kathy Wilson, Dorothy Johnson, or Albert Johnson. Because defendant has failed to submit affidavits from these proposed witnesses, we will not consider them further. ( Thompkins, 161 Ill.2d at 163, 204 Ill.Dec. 147, 641 N.E.2d 371.) With regard to John Marlow, defendant did file an affidavit. We have already addressed the usefulness of Marlow's affidavit. Defendant also provided an affidavit purportedly from Mazell Howard. This affidavit introduced by defendant, however, is unsigned and is therefore insufficient to provide support for the post-conviction petition. Even assuming that the subject matter of this unsigned statement is accurate, it does not provide an alibi for defendant. Although Howard denies some of the statements attributed to her in the police reports, Howard merely states that she was in an apartment with Marlow and defendant on the day of the shooting. Marlow and defendant left the apartment together at some point, but Howard did not know where defendant was going. Howard acknowledges that she was not with defendant at the time of the shooting. Defendant also argues that counsel failed to investigate any of the State's witnesses who presented testimony either in court or by stipulation. In particular, defendant argues that counsel failed to investigate Bailey. With regard to Bailey, we note that defendant raised the same ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal. Accordingly, this court has already addressed the issue, and the issue is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. With regard to other witnesses, defendant has offered no affidavits to support his allegation that counsel failed to investigate or to show what these witnesses would have contributed to the defense. Thompkins, 161 Ill.2d at 163, 204 Ill.Dec. 147, 641 N.E.2d 371.