Opinion ID: 2029757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Decher-Mayes Testimony

Text: Finally, defendant raises two issues concerning prosecution witnesses Mary Decher and Daniel Mayes. These two witnesses gave testimony that placed defendant in the car believed to have been used by the murderer. Defendant gave them conflicting statements about how he came into possession of the vehicle. Defendant claimed in his petition that Decher and Mayes must have been offered leniency by the State in exchange for their testimony and that the evidence of a deal with the State was never disclosed to him. Defendant argues both that the State violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), to disclose the promise of leniency and also that his attorney was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Decher and Mayes about whether they were offered anything in exchange for their testimony. We note initially that defendant's claim of a promise of leniency is entirely speculative. The evidence that defendant attached to his post-conviction petition in support of this claim is a series of police reports showing that when the police questioned Decher and Mayes, they admitted that they were involved in the sale of stolen property with defendant. Defendant infers from this that they must have been offered leniency in exchange for their testimony. Because defendant has failed to provide any evidence that there was in fact a promise of leniency, his petition was subject to dismissal on that basis alone. However, we will briefly address his claims on the merits. Under Brady, the State has an obligation to disclose evidence that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or to punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d at 218. Evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481, 494 (1985); People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill.2d 472, 486, 215 Ill.Dec. 59, 662 N.E.2d 1199 (1996). Assuming arguendo that Decher and Mayes were promised leniency in exchange for their testimony and that this agreement was not disclosed to the defense, defendant simply cannot show a reasonable probability that the result would have been different if his attorney would have been able to introduce evidence of the deal. As we noted in our opinion on direct appeal, the evidence in the case was not closely balanced, and the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Miller, 173 Ill.2d at 194-95, 219 Ill.Dec. 43, 670 N.E.2d 721. The testimony of Decher and Mayes was helpful in that it tied defendant to the vehicle likely used by the murderer. However, there was other evidence connecting defendant to the vehicle. See Miller, 173 Ill.2d at 177-78, 219 Ill.Dec. 43, 670 N.E.2d 721. And, more importantly, there was plenty of evidence to convict defendant even without their testimony, including defendant's own incriminating statements and the DNA evidence that conclusively linked him to the crime. See Miller, 173 Ill.2d at 174-78, 219 Ill.Dec. 43, 670 N.E.2d 721. Thus, assuming there was an undisclosed promise of leniency, defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by not having this information. For the same reason, defendant cannot meet the second prong of the Strickland test on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Defendant simply cannot show a reasonable probability that, had his attorney cross-examined Decher and Mayes about promises of leniency in exchange for their testimony, that the jury would not have convicted him. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant an evidentiary hearing on this claim.