Opinion ID: 857197
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney Ineffectiveness

Text: Monroe contends that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of trial counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). This claim, as we have said, is based on his counsel’s omission to present the testimony of Monroe’s brother and sister-in-law, both in support of his motion to suppress his post-arrest statements and at trial. Isabell and Chris Estavia lived on the first floor of the same two-flat building where Monroe resided, and they were present when the police took Monroe into No. 10-3407 21 custody. They would have testified that the police rushed into the building, harassed the Estavias, threatened to harm the family’s dog, then forced their way upstairs to the second floor, where Monroe lived with his mother, and ignored Monroe when he asked to contact a lawyer. Notably, the Estavias were not witnesses to the events culminating in Monroe’s post-arrest statements at the police station, or to the events underlying the criminal charges against Monroe. Even so, Monroe contends that their testimony would have supported his effort to suppress his post-arrest statements as well as his trial defense, by simultaneously casting doubt on the veracity of police witnesses and bolstering his own credibility as to the events surrounding his postarrest statements. To prevail on the claim, Monroe was required to show both that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the relevant proceedings (here, the motion to suppress his post-arrest statements as well as the trial) would have been different but for his counsel’s failings. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; e.g., Gutierrez v. Anglin, 2013 WL 466074, at  (7th Cir. Feb. 8, 2013). As we noted earlier, the Illinois Appellate Court sustained the summary dismissal of this claim, finding that Monroe had satisfied neither of Strickland’s two criteria. At the outset, the court pointed out that the Estavias’ representation that the police had burst into their home was contradicted by the parties’ stipulation, in conjunction with Monroe’s motion to quash his 22 No. 10-3407 arrest, that the police had remained in the vestibule of the home while waiting for Monroe. R. 20 at 246-47. The Estavias’ additional contention that the police had harassed them and threatened their dog was inconsistent with the argument of Monroe’s counsel, again in connection with the motion to quash, that police had used “trickery” to get Monroe to accompany them to the police station. R. 20 at 247. In view of these conflicts, the court saw no reason to doubt that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to have the Estavias testify in support of the motions to quash and to suppress; nor could Monroe show that he was prejudiced in the sense that the trial court might have credited Monroe’s contention that his post- arrest statements were the product of coercion. R. 20 at 247-48. As for the trial, the court noted that the Estavias’ testimony would have carried little weight with the jury given their familial connection with Monroe and also given that Monroe himself did not testify about any misconduct that occurred at the time of his arrest; it was therefore reasonable for Monroe’s counsel to exclude them from the witness list. R. 20 at 248. Moreover, given what the court deemed to be the overwhelming evidence of Monroe’s guilt, the court could discern no prejudice stemming from that decision. R. 20 at 248-49. Because the state appellate court considered and rejected the ineffectiveness claim on its merits, and correctly looked to Strickland as the governing precedent in doing so, see R. 20 at 245, Monroe must show No. 10-3407 23 that the court’s resolution constituted an unreasonable application of Strickland. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see, e.g., McNary v. Lemke, 2013 WL 673653, at  (7th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013). He cannot satisfy this burden. The outcome of Monroe’s motion to suppress his postarrest statements turned on what happened at the police station rather than anything that occurred at Monroe’s home. Monroe testified that police locked him alone in an interview room, ignored his requests for an attorney, and punched him when he refused their demands to tell them what happened. In denying the motion to suppress, the state trial court credited the State’s witnesses over Monroe. R. 31-2 at 232-33. The Estavias, of course were not present and had no knowledge of what occurred at the police station; they could only have testified to what occurred at Monroe’s home, before he was taken to the police station. Monroe theorizes that their testimony that the police burst into the home and threatened to kill the family dog, and ignored his request to telephone a lawyer, would have bolstered Monroe’s credibility with respect to what occurred at the police station. Although not wholly without force, Monroe’s theory is far from compelling given the Estavias’ lack of knowledge as to what happened after Monroe was taken from his home, and it falls far short of showing that the outcome of the suppression hearing might have been different had the Estavias testified. Moreover, as the appellate court pointed out, there were certain credibility issues with the Estavias, given 24 No. 10-3407 the conflict between their prospective testimony and (a) the argument of Monroe’s counsel at the motion to quash that the police had persuaded Monroe to accompany them through “trickery,” and (b) the parties’ stipulation at the motion to quash that the police, upon their arrival at Monroe’s residence, had waited for him in the building’s vestibule. Monroe has a point when he suggests that the court may have made too much of the purported conflict between the Estavias’ version of the arrest and his counsel’s representation to the trial court that the police had persuaded Monroe to accompany them to the police station by “trickery.” As Monroe’s brief points out, counsel uttered the word “trickery” once, just before the court ruled on the motion to quash and as the parties were summarizing their positions. R. 31-2 at 184. His counsel went to on say that Monroe had not accompanied the police voluntarily, but instead had “yielded to their force.” R. 31-2 at 184-85. And, as we have discussed, there is no dispute that the police placed Monroe in handcuffs immediately outside of his residence, whatever may have occurred inside.4 So the Estavias’ version of events would not necessarily have undermined the basic premise of Monroe’s motion to quash, which was that Monroe was arrested at his home. But their testimony would have conflicted head-on with the parties’ stipula- 4 Counsel’s theory may have been that the police deceived Monroe into leaving his residence voluntarily, only to find himself placed in handcuffs once the police had him outside on the front porch. No. 10-3407 25 tion that the police, upon arriving at the residence, had waited for Monroe in the vestibule. R. 31-2 at 134. The State certainly would have raised the conflict in opposing the motion to suppress, and that would have been a significant blot on the Estavias’ credibility. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the state court to characterize the failure to call the Estavias as witnesses in support of the suppression motion as a legitimate strategic decision rather than as a lapse in professional judgment that weakened Monroe’s motion to suppress. As to the trial, it is even more difficult to see how the Estavias’ testimony might have made any meaningful contribution to the defense case. Again, their testimony would only have related to Monroe’s arrest. But the circumstances of his arrest, beyond when and where it took place, were not even mentioned at the trial, notwithstanding the fact that Monroe testified and the circumstances of his arrest certainly were within his knowledge. Monroe renews his assertion that his brother and sister-in-law would have bolstered the credibility of his own testimony that the police had punched him repeatedly at the station, giving the jury reason to credit his contention that his post-arrest statements, including in particular his written statement, were the product of coercion. But, again, the Estavias were not witnesses to what occurred at the police station at the hands of the detectives who interviewed Monroe; they would only have testified as to the alleged misbehavior of altogether different officers in arresting Monroe. And, 26 No. 10-3407 as the Illinois Appellate Court recognized, given their familial connection to Monroe, their credibility would have been subject to doubt. In sum, the support that their testimony might have provided to the defense case was too weak to have required a competent attorney to call them as trial witnesses and to show that Monroe was prejudiced by his attorney’s omission to do so.