Opinion ID: 2094772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to Discover and Present Evidence to Support Defendant's Claim of Torture

Text: Defendant, who was represented by several different attorneys before his trial, asserts that each of these attorneys, along with his trial counsel and his post-trial counsel, was ineffective for failing to properly discover and present evidence that (1) Area 2 Lieutenant Jon Burge, who defendant alleges participated in torturing him, has a documented pattern of leading and participating in similar acts of torture; (2) Burge and the detectives who served under him had contemporaneously beaten and abused other suspects and witnesses in defendant's case; and (3) defendant suffered psychological injury from the torture. Defendant also contends that his direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the ineffectiveness claim with respect to his pretrial and trial counsel. Defendant asserts that Luther Hicks, who represented defendant on his motion to suppress, was aware both of the details of defendant's torture allegations and that a red-haired officer along with Detectives Pienta, Marley, Daniel McWeeny, and Raymond Madigan were involved. Defendant alleges that Hicks should have discovered that the red-haired officer was Burge. Further, Hicks should have discovered that his supervisor was representing Andrew Wilson and that Wilson had raised similar torture allegations against Burge. Moreover, defendant contends that Hicks should have questioned other assistant public defenders to determine if their cases involved similar torture allegations at Area 2. Defendant concludes that, had Hicks properly conducted this investigation, he would have discovered almost 50 other victims of torture at Area 2. Further, defendant asserts that Hicks should have discovered that Burge had actively participated in a systemic policy and practice of torture while at Area 2 and was involved in at least 50 incidents while he was there. Moreover, he claims that Hicks should have discovered that Pienta had been involved in prior acts of beating while working with Burge. After the other officers had finished, McWeeny would often act as the good cop who would help the prisoner if he would cooperate. The problem with defendant's argument is that much of the information relating to other allegations of torture would simply not have been discoverable by Hicks at the time of the suppression hearing in 1987. At approximately the same time that defendant's case was proceeding, defendant's current attorney, G. Flint Taylor, Jr., was representing Wilson in a federal suit against the City of Chicago, Burge, and other officers. Notwithstanding the fact that Taylor had available to him the full panoply of the civil discovery process, he did not discover the vast majority of the information upon which defendant now relies until February 1989, two years after Hicks filed defendant's motion to suppress. Moreover, Taylor discovered the information relating to the other allegations of torture only because he was assisted by an anonymous police department informant. Additionally, beyond interviewing anyone who had ever been a prisoner at Area 2, we can conceive of no manner in which Hicks reasonably could have obtained this information. At the time, the OPS had no reports indicating that several other people had been tortured. Defendant has identified no other available source that could provide this information. After reviewing defendant's allegations and considering the facts that were known when Hicks filed the motion to suppress, we will not find Hicks ineffective for failing to discover information that only an informant could provide. Because defense counsel would not have discovered this information, defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to investigate. Defendant also alleges that Hicks should have investigated other contemporaneous allegations of torture from Caine, Arbuckle, and Illya Rowland. To support his claim with respect to Caine, defendant attaches Caine's original and amended motions to suppress. These motions allege that Caine was not informed of his Miranda rights, that the police officers promised him leniency, that the police officers struck him in the head and kicked him in the stomach, and that he was intoxicated when he gave his statement. The motions, however, do not identify any of the officers involved or describe with any particularity misconduct similar to what defendant suffered. Without some evidence indicating that the same officers or supervisors were involved or that the same type of misconduct was involved, we have no basis upon which to conclude that this evidence was relevant to defendant's claims. See People v. Hobley, 159 Ill.2d 272, 312, 202 Ill.Dec. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992 (1994) (holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible, in part, because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant). Rowland's affidavit alleges that the officers told him to implicate defendant, but it does not assert that the officers mistreated him. Arbuckle, in his affidavit, states that an Area 2 lieutenant (whom he later identified as Burge) threatened him. He does not allege, however, that Burge or any other officer used physical coercion. His allegations are limited to asserting that the officers verbally threatened him. Because these allegations are quite different from defendant's, we are unable to conclude that they are relevant to defendant's claim. See Hobley, 159 Ill.2d at 312, 202 Ill.Dec. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992. After reviewing the evidence submitted by defendant, we are unable to conclude that defendant has demonstrated that, had Hicks interviewed these witnesses, a reasonable probability exists that the result of the suppression hearing would have been different. As for defendant's claim about evidence of a psychological injury, defendant has not explained why Hicks would request a psychiatric examination of defendant. Defendant has not alleged that he told Hicks that the torture caused him psychological damage. Moreover, defendant has not alleged that any of his actions would have placed Hicks on notice that defendant had suffered a psychological injury. Without some evidence that would indicate to Hicks that defendant had suffered a psychological injury, we are unable to conclude that Hicks acted in an objectively unreasonable manner when he failed to secure a psychiatric examination of defendant. Defendant also alleges that Hicks was ineffective in his presentation of hearsay evidence during defendant's motion to suppress. At the motion, Hicks sought to introduce etchings made by defendant in the interrogation room after he had been interrogated. Photographs that Hicks sought to introduce revealed the following etchings on the bench in the interrogation room: I lied about murders police threatened me with violence slapped and suffocated me with plasticno phoneno dad signed false statement to murders (Tonto) Aaron. Sign false statements to murder, Tonto on statements is code word Aaron. Additionally, the photographs revealed the phrase Aaron lied etched in the door of the room. During the motion to suppress, Hicks argued that the etchings were admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule. The trial court rejected Hicks' argument. On appeal, defense counsel argued that the statements were admissible (1) as spontaneous declarations, (2) as prior consistent statements, and (3) under the doctrines of curative admissibility or completeness. This court rejected each of those claims. Patterson, 154 Ill.2d at 452-54, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16. Defendant now claims that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective because they advanced the wrong arguments. Defendant explains that the etchings were admissible at the motion to suppress not because they fell within an exception to the hearsay rule but because hearsay is admissible at pretrial hearings in which the trial court is determining the admissibility of evidence. The appellate court has recognized that hearsay evidence is admissible during a motion to suppress, even though it is not admissible at trial. People v. Lesure, 271 Ill.App.3d 679, 680, 208 Ill.Dec. 201, 648 N.E.2d 1123 (1995). Moreover, federal law supports defendant's argument. Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) provides, in relevant part, Preliminary questions concerning    the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court   . In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. (Emphasis added.) Fed.R.Evid. 104(a). The Supreme Court has explained that no automatic rule precludes the admission of hearsay when a trial court is determining the admissibility of evidence. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 175, 94 S.Ct. 988, 995, 39 L.Ed.2d 242, 252 (1974); see also United States v. Bolin, 514 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir.1975) (holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress). After reviewing the cases cited by defendant, we agree with defendant that they support his contention that hearsay evidence is admissible during a hearing on a motion to suppress. That, however, is not sufficient to grant defendant relief on his claim. Under Strickland, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had this evidence been presented, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. Given the context of defendant's claim, that means that he must demonstrate that a reasonable probability exists that, had his appellate attorney argued on appeal that Hicks was ineffective, this court would have agreed. To do so, this court would have had to reach the conclusion that a reasonable probability exists that, had the etchings been introduced as admissible hearsay, the trial court would have concluded that defendant's confession should have been suppressed. With this conclusion, we cannot agree. When Hicks presented the pictures of the etchings during the motion to suppress, the trial court, in addition to excluding them from evidence as hearsay, specifically found that it did not believe that defendant had established that the etchings in the pictures were in the same condition as the etchings were when defendant allegedly made them. Moreover, the trial court twice stated that it believed that the etchings were not relevant to the motion to suppress. As noted by the Court in Matlock, although hearsay may be admissible during motions to suppress, the trial court is entitled to give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 175, 94 S.Ct. at 995, 39 L.Ed.2d at 252. Here, we know exactly how much weight the trial court would have given it, had the court considered it: none. While this conclusion is by no means binding on any subsequent trier of fact, it is sufficient to allow us to conclude that, even if Hicks had argued that the etchings were admissible hearsay, no reasonable probability exists that defendant's confession would have been suppressed.