Court Opinion

ID: 9732903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:43:02.562473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:56.326884
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE FREEMAN, dissenting: In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, defendant, as petitioner, argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel for several reasons. I take issue with the majority’s analysis and resolution of at least two of defendant’s claims. Because there is an unreasonable risk that this defendant was unfairly sentenced to death, I dissent. Voir Dire Defendant claims ineffectiveness in that his trial counsel, during voir dire, failed to raise the issue of racial bias to the venire in accordance with Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28, 90 L. Ed. 2d 27, 106 S. Ct. 1683 (1986), and People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422 (1993). The majority correctly notes that when a capital defendant is on trial for an interracial crime the defendant is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned about racial bias. 175 Ill. 2d at 269-70. The majority errs, however, in its statement of how the right is invoked and, correspondingly, in its analysis of counsel’s failure to assert the right in this case. In his petition, defendant asserted that he had requested that counsel make a Turner inquiry; however, counsel refused. The majority, finding that defendant’s post-conviction testimony to that effect was contradicted by counsel’s testimony, holds that "[t]he issue was thus one of credibility,” and the trial court did not find defendant credible on this point. 175 Ill. 2d at 270. The majority then holds that because the court found that defendant himself made no such request of counsel, counsel was not required to make the inquiry. 175 Ill. 2d at 270. The majority misstates the law concerning how the right to a Turner inquiry is invoked. Turner does not contemplate that a defendant, who is represented by counsel, will, in the first place, be aware of such an entitlement, or that the defendant will, in the second place, specifically request that his attorney make such an inquiry. That a defendant himself fails to request the Turner voir dire does not deprive him or her of his entitlement to such an inquiry. Many of the rights of an accused, including constitutional rights, are such that only trained experts can comprehend their full significance. By its analysis, the majority effectively grafts onto the Turner entitlement a new requirement — that the defendant as client must request the inquiry. However, Turner merely holds that "a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias. *** Also, a defendant cannot complain of a judge’s failure to question the venire on racial prejudice unless the defendant has specifically requested such an inquiry.” Significantly, the Court in Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492, 112 S. Ct. 2222 (1992), in setting out the requirement for a revers e-Witherspoon inquiry, relies largely on the reasoning in Turner and uses much the same language. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 736, 119 L. Ed. 2d at 507, 112 S. Ct. at 2233 ("[p]etitioner was entitled, upon his request, to inquiry discerning those jurors who,” prior to termination of the case, had predetermined the issue of death (emphasis added)). I have not heard it suggested that, because the defendant himself does not request the reverse-Witherspoon inquiry, counsel is not required to inquire. Entitlement to a Turner inquiry, like the entitlement to the reverse-Witherspoon inquiry, is far too important to depend on the request of an untrained criminal defendant. Knowledge of a constitutional entitlement to inquiry on matters such as a predisposition to impose death or, in this case, on racial bias, is within the knowledge of the criminal defense attorney, not the client. Thus, the viability of defendant’s Turner claim does not turn on whether the post-conviction court disbelieved that defendant, as client, requested that counsel make such an inquiry. The majority next reasons that since defendant did not request the Turner inquiry, whether to conduct such an inquiry became a matter of trial strategy, not subject to the Strickland ineffectiveness analysis (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)). 175 Ill. 2d at 270. Certainly, what questions will be posed on voir dire may properly fall within the bounds of trial strategy. However, counsel’s failure to inquire on Turner racial bias was not converted to a strategic decision merely because defendant failed to request such an inquiry. Strategic decisions are those decisions which flow from counsel’s particular knowledge and expertise. Thus, while a decision on whether to voir dire on particular issues may be a matter of trial strategy, the absence of voir dire on such issues might just as well be a matter of ineptitude, inexperience, lack of preparation or unfamiliarity with basic legal principles. In such case, the failure to voir dire amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 4 — 5.2 (2d ed. Supp. 1986). Here, it is significant that counsel had been admitted to the bar for only a two-year period prior to being assigned this, his very first, capital case. While the extent and nature of counsel’s legal experience alone do not necessarily support a conclusion of ineffective assistance, those facts take on particular significance in the evaluation of a Turner claim. This is so because voir dire pursuant to Turner is available to capital defendants only. Unless there is evidence here to support a finding that counsel’s failure to request a Turner inquiry flowed from his particular knowledge and expertise concerning the nature and purpose of the Turner inquiry, there can be no basis upon which to conclude that such a failing was the result of trial strategy. Proper resolution of the issue requires more than cursory consideration; it necessarily involves thorough review and consideration of counsel’s post-conviction affidavit and testimony in the context of his conduct of voir dire. Based upon my review, I believe that the record supports the conclusion that counsel was unfamiliar with the Turner entitlement and his failure to voir dire was, therefore, not a matter of strategy. In his affidavit, counsel first states that, during voir dire, he asked each potential juror whether there was anything about defendant that would cause him or her to be biased or prejudiced. His purpose in asking that question was to address the issue of racial prejudice because defendant was black. Counsel next states that he "had no reason for not asking a question of the venire on voir dire whether the race of the victim would be a factor in causing them to be biased or prejudiced against Mr. Lear.” Finally, counsel states that he might have discussed with defendant asking a question concerning racial bias because of the victims’ race, and he may have said that such a question would get the jurors "pissed off” and that they would be there three weeks and he may have preferred not to harp on the victims’ race because he might have thought that that was more harmful, although he did not recall. The only definitive statements concerning voir dire in counsel’s affidavit are that: (1) he was concerned about racial bias and (2) he had no reason for failing to request the Turner inquiry. The remainder of counsel’s statements concerning what he might have thought regarding a Turner inquiry can only be characterized as tentative and equivocal at best. Counsel’s subsequent direct examination testimony at the post-conviction hearing is consistent with the statements in his affidavit. After being shown his affidavit, counsel testified concerning the Turner inquiry in much the same equivocal manner as his statements in his affidavit. Particularly telling are the prosecutor’s cross-examination questions and counsel’s answers thereto. "Ms. Dobrinic [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Now, did you ever in the course of your relationship have — well, did [defendant] ever express a concern that he might be an African-American defendant being tried in a predominantly Caucasian county? Mr. Grigsby [Defense Attorney]: I am sure that there would have been some discussions regarding that. Usually that subject came up whenever I represented African-Americans in this county. Ms. Dobrinic: Mr. Grigsby, as a trial attorney and under the circumstances that we were in being in Effing-ham, Illinois, with the defendant, did you think it was proper to find out jurors attitudes toward race — or let me say this. Did you think it was important to find out their attitudes towards race? Mr. Grigsby: Well, yes, I thought that was important. Ms. Dobrinic: Do you feel like you did that by your voir dire of these jurors? Mr. Grigsby: Yes, I felt that the race issue was brought out during the voir dire by the questions. Ms. Dobrinic: Did you find it necessary to specifically ask jurors are you prejudiced against African-Americans? Mr. Grigsby: No, no, because the jurors understood the question and would volunteer any prejudice they had.” Four things are apparent from counsel’s affidavits and testimony and none of them suggest strategy with respect to Turner: (1) counsel was concerned about racial prejudice in predominantly white Effingham County; (2) counsel had no reason for failing to request a Turner inquiry; (3) counsel "might have” chosen not to inquire regarding Turner racial bias because it "might have” been more harmful and (4) counsel believed his inquiry concerning prejudice toward the defendant was sufficient to prompt a volunteer admission concerning any type of racial bias. Based on counsel’s statements and testimony, I would not find that his failure to request a Turner inquiry was in fact trial strategy. Counsel stated that he was concerned about prejudice in predominantly white Effingham County. So concerned about racial bias was counsel that he specifically questioned and excused those particular jurors who would judge partially based on defendant’s race. Though actively inquiring and ferreting out any biased juror prior to the commencement of trial, counsel now offers that he might have chosen not to additionally inquire concerning interracial crime bias because such an inquiry might have harmfully focused the jury’s attention on that fact. Even if I could disregard the tentativeness of counsel’s stated reason, given counsel’s concern and conduct at voir dire with respect to racial bias the reason lacks validity. Counsel questioned each juror on racial bias toward defendant as an African-American and excused any juror who expressed an inability based upon race to be impartial. It is therefore unlikely that this same counsel would believe that a Turner voir dire, like his general racial bias voir dire, would be harmful or that it would not have had the similarly desired effect of affording him the opportunity to also excuse any juror who would judge partially because the defendant was black and the victims were white. Defense counsel’s harmful effect reason is, to me, questionable for additional reasons. First, each juror was voir dired individually, out of the presence of any other potential jurors. Secondly, individual jurors were already focused during voir dire on the issue of race by defendant’s prejudice inquiry. Third, the record does not reveal that counsel proposed withholding the race of the victims from the jury once trial commenced. Finally, concerning counsel’s cross-examination testimony, it is not plausible, as counsel suggests, that the jurors, because they had been voir dired concerning prejudice toward defendant, would have volunteered any Turner prejudice. There was nothing which would have prompted any juror to offer such information during voir dire. Counsel stated in both his affidavit and in his testimony that the jury did not learn of the victims’ race until after trial had commenced. By then, of course, it was too late to guard against the risk of the kind of partiality contemplated by Turner. In my view, if in fact counsel was concerned that racial bias might hinder the jury’s ability to judge impartially, as I believe defense counsel in this case genuinely was, that concern would have logically prompted an informed counsel to utilize every known legal tool to eliminate that bias. Given counsel’s concern and conduct on the issue of bias toward defendant, coupled with his equivocation as to why he “might” not have additionally conducted a Turner inquiry, I believe that counsel’s failure to inquire is more reasonably explained as a lack of awareness or unfamiliarity with Turner and defendant’s entitlement to an inquiry regarding interracial crime bias. Further, the majority of this court can place little reliance on the post-conviction court’s disposition of this claim. The post-conviction judge, in rejecting defendant’s voir dire claim, made the following findings: the jurors were individually voir dired and were asked questions indirectly which would detect bias against the defendant for race or otherwise; (2) defendant was consulted personally as to each juror; (3) several jurors were excused because of racial bias; and (4) the evidence does not support the fact that defendant specifically requested any particular question and, even if he did, there is no reason to believe the jurors’ responses would be any different than those reached by the questions they were asked. It appears that the post-conviction judge, like the majority, misperceives both the import and the requirements under Turner. Inquiry with respect to prejudice against a defendant as an African-American is not the inquiry deemed important by Turner and is, therefore, insufficient to satisfy Turner’s requirements. In point of fact, voir dire on racial bias is not required in a capital case simply because the defendant happens to be of African-American descent. Turner seeks to address that particular brand of racial prejudice which would cloud jurors’ objectivity when the crime is interracial. Thus, while counsel’s inquiry concerning bias toward defendant eliminated those jurors who harbored racial prejudice based upon the defendant’s descent, that same inquiry was ineffective to detect that bias which potentially exists when the defendant is African-American and the victim is Caucasian. In this case, the victims’ race was not made known to the jurors until after the jury had been impaneled and trial had commenced. Counsel’s voir dire with respect to prejudice against defendant as an African-American did nothing to satisfy the requirements under Turner or to safeguard against interracial crime bias. Further, it is simply impossible to conclude, as did the post-conviction court, that the jurors’ responses pursuant to Turner would not have been different had the inquiry been made. In sum, I would find that counsel’s failure to request Turner voir dire was not based on any particular strategy, but rather on inexperience with capital cases and his lack of familiarity with the Turner entitlement. Further, in light of counsel’s own expressed concern and conduct regarding the potential for racial bias in Effing-ham County, this court cannot conclude with any degree of certainty that, once the jurors learned of the interracial nature of these offenses, their ability to be impartial was unaffected. I would therefore find that Strickland has been satisfied on this particular claim and remand for a new sentencing hearing. The Shooter Defense Defendant’s defense theory at trial was that his separately tried codefendant, Randy Thomas, and not defendant, shot both victims. Defense counsel failed to present this defense at trial. Defendant and Thomas were both charged with the commission of these offenses. Defendant is shorter in stature than is his codefendant, Thomas. Prior to trial, Bob Bishop, the surviving victim and a material witness in this case, made a statement to a newspaper reporter, Jacqueline Price, that the taller of the two men (Thomas) entered the store first and while the shorter man (defendant) distracted Bishop with a question regarding directions, the taller man shot Bishop. Bishop did not see who shot McAnarney, the nonsurviving victim involved in these offenses. At trial, Bishop testified that defendant entered the station and asked for the rest room. Thomas, who was taller than defendant, then asked Bishop how far it was to Chicago. A few moments later Bishop was shot in the neck. Defense counsel did not impeach Bishop with his prior inconsistent statements to the reporter. Further, counsel did not present either testimony or an offer of proof concerning the statements made to the reporter. Defendant asserts that these failings, which deprived him of the presentation of his defense at trial, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The majority, recalling Bishop’s trial testimony, concludes that even had counsel been able to impeach Bishop’s testimony, no different result would have yielded. In support, the majority notes that Bishop unequivocally identified Thomas as the man who stayed in front of him and asked the distance to Chicago. Further, witnesses testified that defendant had the gun in his waistband as he left the gas station after the robbery; when defendant was picked up by police he had the murdered victim’s wallet in his pocket and there was dried blood on defendant’s shoe. Finally, the majority notes that on redirect, Bishop explained that he was distracted while making the statement to the reporter. 175 Ill. 2d at 272. I am not as assured as is the majority that the same result would yield had defendant been given the opportunity to present his shooter defense. Bishop’s post-conviction affidavit, which is consistent with his statements to the reporter, contradicts his trial testimony. In his affidavit, Bishop states that, although he has difficulty remembering details of the shooting, it is his belief that the first person who entered the station, and who asked where the bathroom was, is the one who shot him, while the second person, who sought directions, distracted Bishop’s attention. "I told [the reporter] something about the tall one, it seemed to me at the time that the first one in was pretty tall.” It was Bishop’s recollection that the first defendant to enter the station was taller than the second one who entered. Bishop states in his affidavit that he does not know who shot him. We have two accounts of the event by Bishop, one given through trial testimony and another in his post-conviction affidavit: one which suggests that the taller man, Thomas, was the shooter and another which suggests that defendant, the shorter man, was the shooter. So much for Bishop’s unequivocal identification of Thomas as the man who sought directions. Further, that defendant was seen with "the gun” in his waistband does not necessarily support a conclusion that he was the shooter. Additionally, the fact that defendant had the murdered victim’s wallet supports a conclusion that he robbed the victim, not that he also shot the victim. Finally and significantly, although there was testimony that defendant’s shoe bore human blood, there was no testimony to the effect that the blood matched the blood of either of the two victims in this crime. Importantly, defendant was found guilty of a fatal shooting which had occurred only weeks prior to this offense. It is, therefore, conceivable that the blood on defendant’s shoe was from that prior incident. Also worth noting, during deliberation, the jurors asked to have Bishop’s testimony reread to them. That request was denied, and the jury instead tendered the following question, "Bob Bishop’s question concerning identity of man who asked distance to Chicago.” Further, although there had been no impeachment testimony concerning the relative heights of each defendant and where each stood in relation to Bishop at the time of the shooting, in closing argument, both the defense and the State, in its rebuttal, argued those points to the jury. Counsel in his affidavit states that he was aware of Bishop’s inconsistent statements; however, he did not interview Bishop prior to trial. At trial he did not call Bishop as a witness (see 134 Ill. 2d R. 238), nor did he, on cross-examination, question Bishop on the issue of the relative height of the assailants. In light of all of the facts concerning this defense, I am hard-pressed to conclude, as does the majority, that the presentation of the defendant’s shooter defense would have made no difference, particularly with respect to sentencing. There was no direct evidence that defendant was the shooter; not even Bishop, who was present during the course of the offense, knows who shot him or McAnarney. The jury, by its question concerning Bishop’s testimony and after hearing conflicting arguments on the shooter defense, appears to have placed particular significance on that issue during its deliberation. Incidentally, on direct appeal, we held that the exclusion of the reporter’s potential impeachment testimony was proper, as there was no inconsistency in Bishop’s testimony that would justify the need for the same. Further, we held that any error in the exclusion of such testimony was waived for counsel’s failure to include the claim in his post-trial motion. See People v. Lear, 143 Ill. 2d 138, 145 (1991). Significantly, it was trial counsel who, in the first place, failed to elicit the inconsistent statements from Bishop which would have provided a basis for the reporter’s testimony. Secondly, it was defense counsel who then filed the post-trial motion which omitted this particular issue. In light of defendant’s participation in these offenses, as the majority so assuredly concludes, even had the shooter defense been presented, there perhaps would have been no different result on the issue of guilt. However, given that there is a question as to whether the defendant was the shooter, that the jury apparently considered the issue significant in its deliberations, and further, mindful that it takes only one juror to vote against death, I cannot conclude with any assurance that presentation of the shooter defense might not have altered the result at sentencing. Notably, in affidavits presented by two jurors, each one states that an initial paper ballot yielded an 11-1 vote on the issue of death. As a result of counsel’s performance, defendant was left with no presentation of a defense at trial. Although, in the case of a jury, we can never conclude with absolute certainty that another result might have resulted, there is sufficient probability here that, but for counsel’s failure to present defendant’s shooter defense, defendant might not have received death. I would therefore find that Strickland has been satisfied with respect to defendant’s shooter defense claim. Conclusion The majority in this court is apparently satisfied that the failure to present the shooter defense and the failure to voir dire on the issue of interracial crime racial bias "in Effingham County” had no prejudicial effect. In the absence of affidavits from each juror to that effect, I am at a loss as to how the majority can, with such assurance, reach this conclusion. A new sentencing hearing is the only available means by which this court can assure that this defendant was fairly sentenced to death. In the absence of a such a judgment, I dissent.