Court Opinion

ID: 9492122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:32:48.33794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:07.580537
License: Public Domain

BAUER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I start with two givens: the district court opinion is to be affirmed unless it is unreasonable and both the district court and this court must review the factual findings of the state appellate court presuming them to be true. Add another fact: the defendant confessed to the event that led to his conviction — and that fact remains fixed. The confession’s admissibility was based on a factual finding, untouchable for practical purposes, by any but the trial court.
The proposed testimony of the missing witness (or more accurately, the unsub-poened witness), taken at best, would not have been a “radically” (appellant’s term) different story than that presented by the *591prosecution. What he would have said, according to the attorney who requested the continuance, was that he heard one of the people in the car say “bust him or shoot” him. Even if true, this does little to help the defense; more than one person might use the language ascribed to the defendant. As the appellate court carefully pointed out, Gardner “admitted saying ‘bust him’ meaning ‘shoot him’. Tony shot him.” And witnesses testified that Gardner used the phrase four times. That satisfies my comfort level that justice was done.
As Justice Wolfson said in his excellent opinion: “Whether Gardner said it once (as he admitted) or four times (as eyewitnesses testified), ‘bust him’ is a directive to shoot. We cannot see that Donald’s testimony about the initial ‘bust him’ would have made any difference.” (People v. Gardner, 282 Ill.App.3d 209, 217 Ill.Dec. 940, 668 N.E.2d 125, at 130).
I also hold the firm belief that the street gang matter was appropriately handled by both the state courts and federal district court. The subject matter is delicate; long inquiries can be more detrimental to a fair trial than serve to expose an unwarranted prejudice. Street gangs have gained a deserved reputation for murder, terror and general criminal activity. To ask a juror about any prejudice he or she might harbor about a gang member or gang activity is to invite a trip through mine fields. Such a trip requires balance that I believe was given in this case. The Illinois appellate court handled this issue in a most appropriate fashion.
Because I think the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the Illinois courts, I would affirm the denial of the writ.1

. Footnote 4 of the opinion says that the dissent proceeds "on the assumption that the statement must have been an order to kill". Indeed it does. The transcript shows that Gardner confessed that he said "bust him” immediately prior to the murder. When asked what he meant by saying "bust him", Gardner replied "shoot him”. And when asked what happened next, Gardner said "that fellow gang member Tony Davis walked up to him and pointed the gun to [Joe Waites’s] face.” Then came the shots. I suggest that satisfies the question of who gave the order to shoot.
And if no one here is aware of who was in charge, the shooter was. He did what Gardner told him to do. He killed on command.