Opinion ID: 2219110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Prosecutorial Abuse of Discretion

Text: Defendant charges that the State's Attorney abused his prosecutorial discretion by failing to investigate available information implicating other persons in these crimes. According to defendant, this information concerned admissions by a certain Dennis Johnson. Attorney Martin Carlson, defendant's former appellate attorney, testified in defendant's behalf at the hearing in aggravation and mitigation. Carlson testified that in 1980 he spoke with Dennis Johnson concerning the case, in the presence of Rene Brown. Five years later, Carlson prepared an affidavit based upon notes and his memory. The affidavit was read into the record. According to the affidavit, Johnson told Carlson that he knew the real perpetrators responsible for the crimes, and that one such person was a close friend whose name Johnson would not disclose. Johnson claimed to have knowledge concerning the actual perpetrators and said that he would consider having one of those persons speak with Brown. Upon cross-examination, Carlson acknowledged that his notes indicated that Brown had met with Johnson's unidentified friend and that Brown had related that the person virtually admitted he shot Schmal. Brown, however, would not tell Carlson this person's name, wanting to employ his own approach to the investigation and Carlson agreed. Carlson also admitted that he had spoken to defense counsel on several occasions, but did not tell him that Brown knew the name of the killer. Neither did Carlson contact the police or the State's Attorney's office upon learning that Brown possessed this knowledge. A letter which defendant had written to the prosecutors after his death penalty hearing was also made a part of the record. In the letter, defendant requested that the prosecutors reopen their investigation and recall the prosecution inasmuch as Johnson had information implicating other persons. Defendant also referred to Warden and Roberts' article in the Chicago Lawyer which indicated that others had committed the crimes. During the hearing's closing argument, defense counsel again referred to the Dennis Johnson information and said that it had been known for some time prior to trial. The State's Attorney has the responsibility of evaluating evidence and other pertinent factors and determining what, if any, offense may be charged. ( People v. Rhodes (1967), 38 Ill.2d 389, 396, 231 N.E.2d 400.) The prosecutor is vested with wide discretion in enforcing the criminal laws. ( Marcisz v. Marcisz (1976), 65 Ill.2d 206, 210, 2 Ill.Dec. 310, 357 N.E.2d 477.) However, it is the State's Attorney's duty to see that justice is done not only to the public at large but to the accused as well. ( People v. Pohl (1964), 47 Ill.App.2d 232, 241-43, 197 N.E.2d 759.) ABA Standards further provide that the prosecutor, as the chief law enforcement official of his jurisdiction, ordinarily relies on police and other investigative agencies for investigation of alleged criminal acts, but he has an affirmative responsibility to investigate suspected illegal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other agencies. ABA Standard 3-3.1(a) (1980). See also Ware v. Carey (1979), 75 Ill.App.3d 906, 914, 31 Ill.Dec. 488, 394 N.E.2d 690. Based upon the record before us, and these several considerations, we fail to see how the State's Attorney abused his discretion in this case. The record is silent as to whether the Dennis Johnson lead was ever investigated by the State. Since the information was apparently known to even the media prior to defendant's trial, if any assumptions are to be made, it seems more reasonable to assume that such a lead was investigated. Furthermore, it is apparent from the testimony of Carlson that such a lead was never considered worthy of pursuit even by the defense. We therefore decline to find that the State's Attorney abused his discretion in his conduct of the investigation.