Court Opinion

ID: 9522337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:23:02.95228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:34.393205
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I am unpersuaded by the reasoning of the majority, especially in reference to its conclusion that petitioner Lee Otis Griffin was denied effective representation because a conflict of interest existed. The majority holds that Griffin is entitled to a new trial since his attorney, Marvin Goldenhersh, did not vigorously assert that codefendant Jimmie Lee Smith was responsible for the murders in question. The majority’s holding is not supported by the record, but is based instead on an improper reevaluation of a credibility issue already resolved below. Griffin’s post-conviction petition alleged that he initially told attorney Goldenhersh that he was present at the scene of the crime, but took no part in the killings. In fact, he alleged that he attempted to stop Smith from committing the murders, but was unable to do so. According to Griffin, Goldenhersh told him that these facts made him guilty on a theory of accountability. Subsequently, Griffin fabricated an alibi, testifying in court that neither he nor Smith was at the scene of the crime. Therefore, petitioner alleged, by testifying to a concocted alibi as a defense, he destroyed a legitimate defense — that he did not kill the victims. A hearing was held on the petition on October 12, 1982. At that time, the trial court stated that the petitioner was not credible because of his prior perjured testimony. The court stated that it did not know what the petitioner had told attorney Goldenhersh at the outset of the attorney-client relationship, but that there was no conflict in representation at trial in light of petitioner’s sworn testimony that he and Smith were elsewhere at the time of the killings. In reviewing the denial of the petition, the majority chooses to accept Griffin’s version of what transpired between him and attorney Goldenhersh, noting that this version of events “*** was uncontradicted by affidavit or testimony.” (124 Ill. App. 3d at 176.) In my mind the majority simply does not come to terms with the obvious fact seen by the trial court: that petitioner was an admitted perjurer. Like the trial court, I cannot accept the petitioner’s assertion that he has now seen the light and is telling the truth. Moreover, even if petitioner gave another attorney the version of events that he now claims to be true, this in no way proves that he actually told attorney Goldenhersh the same story. Another significant inconsistency in the majority’s reasoning exists in its evaluation of trial counsel’s defense strategy. The majority reasons that the identification of Griffin was tenuous, while testimony of Smith’s involvement “*** left little room for defense maneuvers on his behalf.” (124 Ill. App. 3d at 181.) The majority concludes that counsel could not provide Griffin with the best possible defense without incriminating Smith, his original client. Given petitioner’s sworn testimony at trial that he and Smith were not at the scene of the murders, I believe no actual conflict in representations has been demonstrated. The majority’s finding of a conflict presumes a different defense than the one advanced at trial. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that where codefendants are jointly represented by one attorney, an actual conflict of interest manifested at trial must be shown for denial of effective assistance of counsel to be established. (People v. Washington (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 104.) Despite the majority’s contentions to the contrary, I feel this standard has not been met. The defenses presented at trial, although perjured, were not antagonistic or inconsistent. Even the majority points out that Griffin “*** testified at trial to the alibi which he and Smith concocted to place both of them in a tavern at the time of the murders.” (124 Ill. App. 3d at 176.) Given Griffin’s testimony that he was not at the scene of the crime, I agree with the trial court’s determination that no actual conflict of interest manifested at trial was established by the petitioner. The majority’s analysis places an unfair burden on trial counsel and may even reward perjury. I would affirm the circuit court’s denial of the post-conviction petition.