People v. Hernandez , 80 N.E.3d 8 ( 2017 )

2017 IL App (1st) 150575No. 1-15-0575
Opinion filed March 31, 2017
FIFTH DIVISION
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of Cook County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 09 CR 364
)
SERGIO HERNANDEZ, ) The Honorable
) Thomas P. Fecarotta, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Reyes specially concurred, with opinion.
Justice Lampkin concurred in part and dissented in part, with opinion.
OPINION
¶1 After a jury trial, defendant Sergio Hernandez was found guilty of the
first-degree murder of Rocio Munoz and of personally discharging the firearm
that caused her death. 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2008) (first-degree murder
with intent to kill); 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) (West 2006) (25-year
No. 1-15-0575
sentencing enhancement for personally discharging a firearm causing death).
Defendant was sentenced to 30 years for the murder and 25 years as a result of
a firearm enhancement, for a total sentence of 55 years with the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC).
¶2 On a prior appeal, this court found that defendant's arrest was illegal, and
we vacated defendant's conviction and remanded the case for an attenuation
hearing. People v. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶¶ 42, 50
(unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23). Specifically, we
remanded the matter to the trial court "with directions to conduct a hearing to
determine whether defendant's statements at the police station were sufficiently
attenuated from his illegal arrest to render it admissible." Hernandez, 2013 IL
App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 50. We also permitted the parties the opportunity on
remand to develop a factual record bearing on defendant's claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 56.
¶3 After the trial court held the attenuation hearing, we instructed the trial
court as follows: "Should the trial court find defendant's confession was
sufficiently attenuated from his illegal arrest, we direct the court to reinstate
defendant's conviction. In the alternative, if the trial court determines that no
such attenuation exists to purge the confession from the taint of defendant's
illegal arrest, we direct the trial court to suppress the confession and conduct
2
No. 1-15-0575
further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Hernandez, 2013 IL App
(1st) 103447-U, ¶ 50.
¶4 On remand, the trial court held an attenuation hearing and found that
defendant's statement to the police at the police station was sufficiently
attenuated from his earlier arrest to be admissible at trial; and, following our
directions, the trial court reinstated defendant's conviction.
¶5 Defendant now appeals the trial court's decision, arguing: (1) that the trial
court erred in finding attenuation; (2) that his counsel at the attenuation hearing
had a conflict of interest, since the appellate court permitted defendant on
remand to address his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
move to suppress his statement as involuntary, and the same trial counsel
continued to represent defendant on remand (Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st)
103447-U, ¶ 56 (permitting the parties " 'an opportunity to develop a factual
record' ") (quoting People v. Bew, 228 Ill. 2d 122, 135 (2008)); and (3) that this
counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress defendant's statement as
involuntary (Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 56 ("depending on
what is entered into the record on remand, ineffectiveness *** could be
addressed on direct appeal").
3
No. 1-15-0575
¶6 For the following reasons, we reverse defendant's conviction, suppress
the statement he made at the police station and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
¶7 BACKGROUND
¶8 In the evening of November 25, 2008, the victim, Rocio Munoz, was
found shot in the head while in her vehicle, which was parked on West Irving
Park Road in Hanover Park, Illinois. On December 22, 2008, defendant, her
former boyfriend, was indicted for her murder.
¶9 I. Pretrial Motion to Quash Arrest
¶ 10 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash his arrest and suppress
evidence on the ground that he was illegally arrested at his home without
probable cause or a warrant. After holding a suppression hearing, the trial court
concluded that defendant was not arrested at his home. On appeal, this court
reversed the decision of the trial court and found that an arrest had occurred.
Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 2. We described the testimony at
the suppression hearing in detail in our prior decision, and we will not repeat it
here. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶¶ 4-9. In sum, more than 20
police officers, some armed, arrived at defendant's home, handcuffed him and
patted him down, and then removed his handcuffs and seated him next to an
armed officer in the back of a police vehicle and transported him to another
4
No. 1-15-0575
police vehicle, which then transported him to an interrogation room in a police
station, where he was questioned from nine at night until almost three in the
morning. This court concluded that no reasonable person in defendant's shoes
would have thought that he or she was free to leave. Hernandez, 2013 IL App
(1st) 103447-U, ¶¶ 42, 46.
¶ 11 II. Evidence at Trial
¶ 12 Except for a few statements, the testimony at trial was not described in
our prior opinion, so we provide a description here.1
¶ 13 At trial, Jose Munoz2 testified that his sister Rocio, the victim, had dated
defendant for three or four years, until 6 months before she died. Rocio, who
had immigrated to the United States in 2005 from Mexico, had known
defendant in Mexico. At the time of her death, Rocio was living with her
brother Jose and their two brothers, and they had all lived together for three
years. For four years, Rocio had worked cutting hair, and during the last six or
eight months before her death, she had worked at a salon on Irving Park Road,
in Hanover Park.
1
A review of the evidence at trial is also necessary for our determination
that there is sufficient evidence to justify a remand for a new trial without running
afoul of the double jeopardy clause. Supra ¶ 132.
2
Since both the witness and his sister share the last name of Munoz, we
refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion.
5
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 14 Rafael Delatore Guzman testified that, in November 2008, he was dating
Rocio. On November 25, 2008, he met her at 8 p.m. as she was leaving the hair
salon where she worked. The salon was in a shopping center on Irving Park
Road. The two of them walked to her vehicle, which was parked in the parking
lot in front of the salon. While Rocio was removing some bags from the front
passenger seat to the back of the vehicle so that Guzman could sit down,
Guzman observed a man walking in front of the vehicle. The man was 6 feet
tall, 184 pounds,3 and dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, with the hood over
his head, such that Guzman could not observe his face. After Rocio told
Guzman that he could enter the vehicle, Guzman was entering when he heard a
shot. After the shot, Guzman testified: "I just saw Rocio move." Guzman then
entered a nearby supermarket. However, as Guzman reached the store, he
turned around and observed the same man walking on the sidewalk. After
entering the store, Guzman asked one of the workers to call the police and an
ambulance. When Guzman observed the first police vehicle arrive, he went
outside and walked to Rocio's vehicle with a police officer. When Guzman
reached her vehicle, he opened the passenger door and observed Rocio lying on
the passenger seat, and he grabbed her and lifted her up, and he observed that
3
None of the witnesses testified at trial as to defendant's weight and height.
6
No. 1-15-0575
her face was full of blood. Blood was on her face and the vehicle seat, and on
all of her clothes.
¶ 15 Detective Hugo Villa, of the Hanover Park Police Department, testified
that, on November 25, 2008, he was a police officer and he responded to a call
at 8:11 p.m. directing him to a shopping center on Irving Park Road. After
arriving there, Villa observed a woman slumped forward in the driver's seat of a
silver Ford parked in the parking lot, and she was covered in blood. The
driver's side door was closed, and the window was shattered, with a partial hole
in the window. After Villa opened the door, he grabbed the woman by her left
shoulder and pulled her back, so that she sat up in her seat. 4 Villa observed a
gunshot wound behind the woman's left ear and did not observe any signs of
life. As Villa called the dispatch officer, he noticed a spent shell casing outside
the vehicle, within a foot or two of the driver's side door. However, Villa was
not able to determine the caliber of the shell casing. While at the scene, he
spoke with Rocio's then current boyfriend, whose name Villa could not recall.
¶ 16 Nicholas Rossberg, a paramedic with the Hanover Park Fire Department,
testified that, on November 25, 2008, he received a dispatch at 8:12 p.m. and
Guzman testified that, when he observed the first police vehicle arrive, he
4
walked to Rocio's vehicle with a police officer and that Guzman, not the officer,
opened the passenger door and grabbed Rocio and lifted her up.
7
No. 1-15-0575
that, when he arrived on the scene, Rocio was not responsive and not breathing,
and had no pulse. She was transported to St. Alexius Medical Center.
¶ 17 The parties then entered a stipulation that if Dr. Karla Dunston was called
to testify, she would testify that on November 25, 2008, she was an emergency
room physician at St. Alexius Medical Center in Hoffman Estates, that Rocio
arrived at 8:36 p.m. with a gunshot wound to the back of her head behind her
left ear and was pronounced dead at 8:44 p.m. The parties also stipulated that, if
Dr. Kendall Crowns was called to testify, he would testify that he was a deputy
medical examiner for Cook County and that the cause of Rocio's death was a
gunshot wound to the head.
¶ 18 Edgardo Lopez, a Hanover Park police officer, testified that, on
November 25, 2008, he was a member of the Major Case Assistance Team
(MCAT), and they went to Aurora to locate defendant who was a suspect.
After police had "put out word that [defendant] was being looked for,"
defendant called the police. While in Aurora, Lopez, who was fluent in
Spanish, spoke on the phone with defendant who provided directions; and the
officers then went to an apartment building where defendant was waiting
outside. Defendant did not run or resist. Other officers approached defendant
and transported him to the Hanover Park police station.
8
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 19 David Scot Carlson testified that, on November 25, 2008, starting at 4
p.m., he was working as a bouncer at a bar in Hanover Park, located at Irving
Park Road and Jensen Street, approximately 100 yards from the shopping center
with the hair salon. Carlson had two prior convictions for theft. Shortly after 4
p.m., he stepped outside for a cigarette and observed a black or blue Ford F150
pick-up truck with "flared out" back wheels parked on Jensen Street. Part of
Carlson's job is to patrol the bar's parking lot. Carlson observed the same truck
at 8 p.m. 5 and also observed, "in the retention pond an officer with two
gentlemen on the ground, possibly at gunpoint." Carlson was not asked to
explain what a retention pond was or to describe it, but he did state that the
pond was "on the other side of the truck." Carlson returned to the bar, and thus
did not observe what happened to the two men. The next day, when Carlson
returned to work, he noticed a picture of the truck behind the bar. Carlson then
called the Hanover Park Police Department and Hanover police came to
Carlson's home on December 2, 2008. Carlson then went with the police to the
Hanover Park police station, where he observed the same truck parked in the
police parking lot. The police did not point the truck out to him; he just noticed
it.
5
Detective Villa testified that he received a dispatch about the murder at 8:11
p.m.
9
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 20 Lisa Koenen, an evidence technician with the Village of Hoffman
Estates, testified that, on November 25, 2008, she went to St. Alexius Medical
Center to photograph the victim's body. In addition to observing a gunshot
entrance wound on the side of the victim's head, Koenen also observed four
pieces of glass fragments in the victim's hair. Koenen was also present during
the subsequent autopsy at the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office and she
took custody of the "fragmented projectiles" 6 removed by the medical examiner
from the victim's head which had lodged behind the victim's right eye. On
November 26, 2008, at 8:30 p.m., Koenen also photographed the exterior of the
apartment building where defendant resided and where he had been located
earlier that day. There was a truck parked by the side of the building that
Koenen photographed. When she looked through the truck's windows, Koenen
observed a black plastic gun holster underneath the front passenger seat.
¶ 21 The parties then stipulated that, if Ernie Dannenberger were called to
testify, he would testify that he is the Director of the Vehicle Services
Department for the Illinois Secretary of State and that a 1999 Ford F150 with a
certain license plate number was registered to Jose M. Hernandez in Aurora,
Illinois.
6
Koenen referred to the items she received as "fragmented projectiles." She
did not identify a caliber or type.
10
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 22 The parties further stipulated that if Jose Hernandez 7 were called to
testify he would testify that he helped defendant, who is his nephew, purchase a
dark blue Ford F150 truck and that, as a result, Jose is listed as the owner.
Although Jose was listed as the owner, he never used or drove the truck which
belonged to defendant. In the early morning hours of November 27, 2008,
when Hanover Park police officers came to his home, Jose signed a consent
form allowing them to search the truck.
¶ 23 Thomas Todd, a forensic technician with the Schaumburg police
department, testified that, on November 28, 2008, he processed the blue Ford
F150 truck and recovered (1) a black plastic gun holster and a pair of white
women's panties from the center console hump on the front-seat floor, and (2)
multiple small broken-glass fragments from the driver's side front-seat floor
mat. 8 Based on the shape of the holster and the lack of an area for a cylinder,
the holster appeared to be a holster for an automatic weapon.
¶ 24 Sergeant Kevin Conway testified that he worked for the Hanover Police
Department and that, on November 29, 2008, he traveled to defendant's
7
Since both defendant and his uncle share the same last name of Hernandez,
we will refer to the uncle by his first name in order to avoid confusion.
8
Lisa Koenen, an evidence technician, testified that she observed glass
fragments in the victim's hair.
11
No. 1-15-0575
building and, near the rear garage door, he observed some burnt black clothing9
with a partial zipper. The pile also included a scale. In December 2008,
Conway transported David Carlson from Carlson's home to the police station,
and then to the bar where Carlson worked. Conway then parked his unmarked
police vehicle in the location where the truck had been parked on the night of
the murder, and photographed the area. The location was less than a block from
the shopping center.
¶ 25 The parties stipulated that, if Monica Ramirez were called to testify, she
would testify that she is fluent in both English and Spanish, that she accurately
translated the videotaped interview of defendant on November 27, 2008, from
Spanish into English, and that her transcript was used to create English subtitles
for a video of approximately the last hour of the interview.
¶ 26 In a sidebar, the parties agreed that, although there was an English
translation and transcript of the entire six-hour interview, the jury was not going
to receive that transcript. Instead, the jurors were going to watch a video of
approximately the last hour of the interview with English subtitles. With respect
to the written transcript, the trial court stated: "You can put it into evidence. It's
just not going to the jury." The trial court later stated, and the parties agreed,
9
Guzman, the victim's boyfriend, testified that the shooter wore a black
hooded sweatshirt.
12
No. 1-15-0575
that People's Exhibit #61, which was the entire transcript, was "not in
evidence."
¶ 27 Alvaro Fernandez, a police officer with the Village of Hoffman Estates,
testified that, on November 26, 2008, at 9 p.m., he met defendant in an
interview room at the Hanover Park police station. Fernandez is from Cuba and
fluent in Spanish. Defendant indicated that he spoke only a little English and
was more comfortable with Spanish, so Fernandez spoke to him in Spanish,
first advising defendant of his Miranda rights. The interview lasted from 9 p.m.
until 2:45 a.m. At first, Detective Ralph Griewosz was also in the interview
room but, since Griewosz did not speak Spanish, Griewosz left between 10:30
and 11 p.m. and was replaced by Detective Juan Miranda who spoke Spanish.
¶ 28 The jury then viewed a video of only the last 57 minutes of the interview
with defendant. While the interview was in Spanish, the video contained
simultaneous English subtitles. The video, which the jury viewed, also
contained information which was not otherwise introduced into evidence at
trial. Thus the jury viewed: (1) the police suggesting that Rocio's boyfriend had
already identified defendant from a photo array; 10 (2) the police telling
10
On the video, the police officers stated: "We – the Rocio's boyfriend, she
was with him, when this happened. We showed him this. *** And whose picture
do you think he picked out." They also stated: "Why do you think Rocio's
boyfriend – he doesn't know you and you don't know him -- *** No and why
13
No. 1-15-0575
defendant that individuals named "Alejandro" and "Alfredo"11 had separately
informed them that defendant had left his home before 7 p.m. on the night of
the murder wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and that the two men knew it was
before 7 p.m. because their soap operas had not yet started; (3) the police telling
defendant that they had discovered a receipt in defendant's room which proved
that defendant was at a market at 6:14 p.m. on the night of the murder and then
showing defendant the receipt; and (4) the police performing a gunshot residue
test on defendant's hands and telling defendant that the result was positive for
the presence of gunshot residue.
¶ 29 However, none of these alleged facts were substantiated at trial. First,
although the jury viewed the police seeming to indicate that Rocio's boyfriend
had positively identified defendant, Guzman testified at trial that he did not
view the shooter's face. Second, although the jury viewed the police telling
defendant that "Alejandro" and "Alfredo" had informed them that defendant had
left his home before 7 p.m. wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, no one by either
name testified at trial. Third, although the jury viewed the police informing
would he – he doesn’t know you. We didn't tell him who you were. We showed
him this and who do you think he picked out?"
11
In an earlier part of the video which the jury did not view, defendant stated
that, on the night of the murder, he was with his two friends and room mates,
Alejandro and Alfredo, for a portion of the evening. Defendant did not state their
last names.
14
No. 1-15-0575
defendant that they had discovered a receipt in his room showing that defendant
was at a market at 6:14 p.m., no such receipt was introduced at trial. Fourth,
although the jury viewed the police ostensibly performing a gunshot residue test
on defendant's hands and informing defendant of the positive result, the jury
was never informed that this was a bogus or fake test, as later described in the
subsequent post-appeal attenuation hearing.
¶ 30 In the video that the jury watched, the officers asked defendant if they
had his "permission" to "check" his hands for gunshot residue, and defendant
asked "what are my rights?" One of the officers replied: "I'm asking you. If
you don't want we won't do it[.]" After defendant explained that he had shot a
"BB gun" a week ago, the officer indicated that would not affect the test.
¶ 31 In the video, the officer stressed that gunshot powder would stay on a
person's hands for months and that washing and scrubbing would not remove it.
When the officers then asked if defendant wanted the gunshot residue test, he
replied: "Do it."
¶ 32 The officers then offered defendant the opportunity to take a lie detector
test, and defendant replied "[d]o it" and stated repeatedly that he would pass it.
However, no lie detector test was given.
¶ 33 The video depicts the officers asking defendant repeatedly what would
happen if he did not pass the lie detector test, and defendant replying each time:
15
No. 1-15-0575
"I'll pass it." Finally, in exasperation, the officer stated, "[t]hat's not the
question," and defendant replied: "If I don't pass it that means I'm guilty."
After more questions by the officers, in which they kept asking defendant why
defendant was lying to them, a third person entered the interrogation room
carrying a kit and defendant said: "Let's shut up and do the test."
¶ 34 Immediately before the officers performed the bogus gunshot residue
test, one of the officers asked the apparent technician if he was ready and he
replied that he was. The technician explained in English how the test worked,
while one of the officers translated his words into Spanish. The technician
stated that, if defendant had fired a gun in the last 24 or 48 hours, "[t]his test
will tell me whether or not you did it. This test will say if you did it or not."
The technician explained that he was going to apply a chemical to defendant's
hands and that the chemical would turn pink if defendant had shot a gun.
¶ 35 However, before performing the test on defendant, the technician stated
that he was first going to perform the test on one of the officers. The technician
asked defendant "sound fair?" and defendant said yes. Defendant then watched
as the technician, who was wearing rubber gloves, rubbed a piece of cloth or
paper on the officer's right hand, and then dipped it into a solution, waited a
moment and then announced "no pink."
16
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 36 The technician then rubbed a piece of paper or cloth against each of
defendant's hands, then dipped it into a solution, waited a moment and then
showed it to defendant, asking "[w]hat color is that?" Defendant answered
"[p]ink."
¶ 37 The technician asked defendant "what do you think pink means," and
defendant replied "I don't know." One of the officers then asked the technician
if the test would turn pink from a BB gun, and the technician answered no, that
it would turn pink only from gunpowder. The technician then packed up his kit
and exited the room.
¶ 38 The officer asked defendant: "Were you trying to scare her? Was it an
accident?" After defendant replied that he had "nothing to say," the officer
asked if defendant wanted the officer to think he was "a monster" and that
defendant had "killed her like a dog." That is when defendant said, echoing
what the officer had said before, "[i]t was an accident."
¶ 39 When asked how it happened, defendant stated that he did not know
about guns, that he wanted to speak with Rocio, that he was nervous, that he
turned so that she would not look at him and that he then "kind of pulled the
trigger." When asked where the gun was, defendant stated that he threw it in a
river in Aurora and that it was "all mashed up." When asked where he obtained
17
No. 1-15-0575
the gun, defendant replied "from some black guy." Defendant did not know
either the type of gun or the type of bullet.
¶ 40 Both the subtitles and the typed transcript state repeatedly that defendant
"brunt" his clothes. Although "brunt" is a word, this court presumes that
"brunt" is a typographical error, and that the translator meant "burnt." In the
video, defendant stated that he burnt his clothes on the cement outside his house
and then threw the ashes in the river.
¶ 41 Defendant stated: "It was an accident that's all I know. I myself killed
her but honestly I wasn't going to shoot her. I didn't want to shoot her. It was
an accident. The gun was very vulnerable." The officers asked what he did
when he saw Rocio walking toward her vehicle, and he replied: "I like tried
talking to her. But for her to open the door I was like let's see if she opens it to
speak with her or if she'll let me get in the car." Defendant stated that Rocio did
not open the vehicle.12
¶ 42 When asked about the holster found in his vehicle, defendant stated that
he did not know about the hostler, that he did not know where the hostler came
from and that it was not his. About the gun, defendant stated: "I was trembling
because I've never had a weapon."
12
Although defendant stated that Rocio did not open the vehicle door, she
was found seated inside the vehicle.
18
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 43 After the jury watched the video, Detective Fernandez resumed his
testimony. Fernandez testified that defendant informed him that defendant had
broken the gun into pieces and thrown them into a river. On November 27,
2008, Fernandez and 20 other officers drove with defendant to Aurora to search
for the gun. Defendant first indicated that he had thrown pieces of the gun off a
pedestrian bridge and also from a park along the Fox River. When Fernandez
accused defendant of lying, defendant said that he had thrown the whole gun
out his vehicle's window into a grassy lot in Aurora. After a search of the lot,
no gun was found.
¶ 44 When the assistant State's Attorney (ASA) asked "this story about it
being an accident, who was the first one that used the word accident and
suggested accident during this interview," Detective Fernandez replied: "That
was me, sir." When asked. "[i]t was not the defendant that first said that this
was an accident, is that correct?" Fernandez replied: "No. It was part of my
theme." Fernandez further testified:
"ASA: And it was you that first said 'maybe this was an accident,' is
that right?
FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
ASA: And basically, he said 'yeah, that's it. It was an accident,' right?
FERNANDEZ: After I brought that theme out several times, yes."
19
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 45 Both parties rested. During closing arguments, the ASA argued,
repeatedly and without objection that Rocio had been shot with a 9-millimeter
semiautomatic handgun. However, the gun was not recovered, and none of the
witnesses testified that the shell casing found on the scene or the fragments
removed from the victim's head were fired from a 9-millimeter semiautomatic
handgun.13 The defense attorney argued that Rocio's death was an accident and
asked the jury to find defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. During the
jury instructions, the trial court told the jury: "The tape and not the subtitles is
the evidence. If you perceive a conflict between the tape and the subtitles, the
tape controls." After listening to the court's instructions, the jury found
defendant guilty of both first degree murder and personally firing the firearm
which caused Rocio's death.
¶ 46 III. Posttrial Motions, Sentencing and First Appeal
¶ 47 On August 23, 2010, the trial court denied defendant's posttrial motion
for a new trial which argued, among other things, that the court erred in denying
defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence. At sentencing, the
trial court listened to factors in mitigation and aggravation, including the fact
13
Lisa Koenen, the evidence technician, testified that she recovered
"fragmented projectiles" which the medical examiner removed from the victim's
body, but Koenen did not identify a type or caliber number. Similarly, Detective
Hugo Villa testified that he recovered a spent shell casing outside the victim's
vehicle but that he was not able to determine the caliber of the shell casing.
20
No. 1-15-0575
that the 25-year old defendant had no prior contact with the law in the United
States or in his native Mexico. The minimum possible sentence was 20 years
for first-degree murder and an additional 25 years to life for personally
discharging the firearm which caused the death, for a total minimum sentence
of 45 years with IDOC. After considering factors in mitigation and
aggravation, the trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years for the murder and
25 years for the firearm enhancement, for a total of 55 years with IDOC.
¶ 48 On November 10, 2010, the trial court denied defendant's motion to
reconsider the sentence, and defendant's first appeal followed. As we already
indicated, this court found that defendant's arrest was illegal, and we vacated
defendant's conviction and remanded the case for an attenuation hearing.
Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶¶ 42, 50 (unpublished order pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 23). We directed the trial court "to conduct a hearing to
determine whether defendant's statements at the police station were sufficiently
attenuated from his illegal arrest to render it admissible." Hernandez, 2013 IL
App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 50. We also permitted the parties the opportunity on
remand to develop a factual record bearing on defendant's claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 56.
21
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 49 III. Request for New Counsel On Remand
¶ 50 After the case had been remanded, but before the attenuation hearing
occurred, the parties appeared before the trial court on April 3, 2014, and
defendant asked for new counsel. On this appeal, defendant claims that he
should have received new counsel for the attenuation hearing because his trial
counsel had a conflict of interest.
¶ 51 On April 3, 2014, the following colloquy occurred, through a translator,
between defendant and the trial court on the subject of new counsel:
"DEFENDANT: I want to ask this honorable Court, or the Judge, the
appointment for a moritas (phonetic) force.
THE COURT: For what?
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER (APD): Judge, I believe what
he's trying to say is murder task force.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT: Murder task force. And the reason for which I ask
this is because my attorney on the last court date, in front of several
people, told me that she didn't want to do my case, and if it were up to
her, she would not have taken my case. I have been speaking with her,
and she doesn't want to bring [to] the Judge's attention some important
22
No. 1-15-0575
points or issues that I believe is for my defense. And I have the name of
the witnesses that heard her say that.
THE COURT: Okay. [Defendant], please put that document away.
All right. Here. You're entitled to the representation of the Public
Defender's Office, okay? This is up today for a hearing on what we call
attenuation, all right? I don't know if [the APD] explained it to you, but
I'm sure she did.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to hold that hearing pursuant to the
mandate, or pursuant to the direction of the appellate court on remand,
okay? And there will be – the Court will hear evidence, and you will be
present. You will be represented by [the APD].
You can't pick and choose which [APD] to get."
¶ 52 The trial court then asked the APD to respond to defendant's allegations:
"THE COURT: [APD], would you please – I'm concerned about what
he said. Could you please respond to his allegation that you – did you
tell him that you don't want to—
APD: No, Judge. What happened is [defendant] expressed
displeasure with me. I told him that if he didn't want me representing
him, I wouldn't want to have to represent him. However, I am assigned
23
No. 1-15-0575
to his case. I would not want to represent someone that did not want me
to represent him.
THE COURT: This matter is here for an attenuation hearing, and
that's what it's here for, and that's what's going to happen.
So we'll see you on May 20th, 2014, because you have a right to be
present for that hearing, okay? See you then.
APD: Judge, in addition, I told him that he had the option of hiring
private counsel if he chose.
DEFENDANT: Your Honor—
THE COURT: I said that's the order. Thank you."
¶ 53 On May 20, 2014, the APD informed the trial court that she was not
ready to proceed with the attenuation hearing because she "received a 27-page
document written by [her] client indicating things he wanted [her] to address"
and she had not yet had to time to read it." In response, the trial court
rescheduled the hearing for June 30, 2014.
¶ 54 IV. The Attenuation Hearing
¶ 55 During the State's opening statement at the hearing, the ASA argued,
among other things that, even though the gunshot residue test was false, it still
served as an intervening circumstance between the illegal arrest and defendant's
subsequent confession.
24
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 56 At the hearing, Detective William Kirby testified that he was employed
by the Village of Arlington Heights and assigned to MCAT and that, during the
afternoon of November 26, 2008, he traveled to the home of defendant's uncle,
Jose Hernandez, in Aurora and asked Jose to have defendant call Kirby. Kirby
told Jose, who spoke perfect English, that Kirby wanted to talk to defendant
about defendant's ex-girlfriend. At 7:15 p.m. that day, defendant called.
¶ 57 Kirby testified that defendant spoke some English but not well. During
the call, Kirby told defendant that Kirby wanted to speak with him about his ex-
girlfriend and defendant said that he would talk to Kirby. Defendant asked
Kirby to "come pick him up" and Kirby agreed. Kirby did not speak Spanish
and he had to ask Ed Lopez, a Spanish-speaking officer, to call defendant back
because Kirby did not understand defendant sufficiently to understand the street
address which defendant provided.
¶ 58 Kirby testified that he contacted his commander, and that his commander
contacted the Aurora Police Department. At 8:30 p.m. Kirby, Lopez and other
officers arrived at defendant's location in Aurora. The officers at the location
included David Warnes, Kirby's commander; Ed Lopez from the Hanover
Police Department; and "a bunch of uniform[ed] officers [from] Aurora" whom
Kirby did not know. There were approximately 20 officers present. When
Kirby first arrived, defendant, as well as five or six other Hispanic males, were
25
No. 1-15-0575
already in handcuffs. Kirby did not observe any guns drawn. However, other
officers had already been there approximately 20 minutes and Kirby did not
know whether guns had been drawn prior to Kirby's arrival. When Kirby first
observed defendant, defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back 14
and walking toward Kirby's vehicle in the company of two or three officers,
with one officer walking next to defendant and one or two officers walking
behind.
¶ 59 Kirby testified that, after defendant was walked to Kirby's unmarked
vehicle, Kirby asked a uniformed Aurora officer who accompanied defendant
to remove defendant's handcuffs which he did. Kirby asked defendant: "Are
you coming with me to the police station?" Defendant replied yes, and entered
the backseat. Kirby's partner, Gary Mitchell sat next to defendant. Both Kirby
and Mitchell wore guns, but Kirby did not believe that his gun was visible.
Kirby explained that there was little conversation as he drove because
defendant's "English is not good and my Spanish is not good." However, Kirby
testified that he "explained to [defendant] that [Kirby] was driving him to the
Hanover Park Police Station." Kirby testified that, after the handcuffs were
14
The State did not establish at the attenuation hearing the exact time that
defendant was first arrested. When this court explained why we were remanding
for an attenuation hearing, we stated that we were missing key facts. For example,
we observed: "Based on the record, we do not know exactly when defendant was
arrested." Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 46.
26
No. 1-15-0575
removed, the "tenor" was "cordial and pleasant." However, neither Kirby nor
Kirby's partner Mitchell told defendant that he was free to leave.
¶ 60 Kirby testified that, during the drive, he received a phone call informing
him that two Spanish-speaking officers were going to meet them half-way, so
Kirby pulled into a gas station in West Chicago; and another unmarked police
vehicle arrived shortly with officers Fernandez and Miranda, who spoke
Spanish, and a third officer whom Kirby did not know. These three officers
were all in plain clothes. Kirby exited his vehicle and opened the door and
asked defendant to exit. The other officers shook hands with defendant, and
defendant entered the back seat of their vehicle. Fernandez drove that vehicle,
and Miranda sat in the back seat with defendant.
¶ 61 Before the next witness, the trial court observed that defendant's lawyer
did not speak Spanish, and the court informed defendant that if, at any time
during the proceedings, he wanted to speak to his lawyer, he should raise his
hand and the court would stop the proceedings so that he and his lawyer could
use the interpreter.
¶ 62 Detective Alvaro Fernandez testified that he was a detective with the
Hoffman Estates Police Department and that, in November 2008, he was an
investigator with MCAT assigned to investigate Rocio's death. Between 7:15
and 8:15 p.m. on November 26, 2008, he traveled with Detectives Juan Miranda
27
No. 1-15-0575
and Ralph Gniewicz to a gas station to meet Detective Kirby who was
transporting defendant. Fernandez, Miranda and Gniewicz were all in plain
clothes, and carrying guns. Fernandez testified that the bottom of his holster
may have been visible from under his jacket when he sat down. In Spanish,
Fernandez informed defendant that they were transferring vehicles and told
defendant "we're going to go in this car." Fernandez opened the rear left door
of his unmarked Dodge Charger, and defendant entered the back seat. Miranda
sat next to defendant in the back seat; Gniewicz drove; and Fernandez sat in the
front passenger seat. Defendant asked Miranda what this was about and
Miranda replied that they would talk about it when they arrived at the police
station. They drove ten to fifteen minutes to the Hanover Park Police
Department, where defendant was brought into an interview room which was
eight feet by eight feet with a table and a couple of chairs.
¶ 63 Fernandez testified that defendant was alone in the interview room for
about 20 minutes before Fernandez and Gniewicz reentered. The door to the
room was shut but Fernandez does not know if it was locked. Before the
officers reentered, video equipment was in operation. Fernandez's first language
is Spanish, and he spoke to defendant in Spanish. Fernandez thanked defendant
for coming, and defendant responded "okay." Fernandez then read defendant
his Miranda rights from a preprinted form. After reading each right, Fernandez
28
No. 1-15-0575
asked defendant if he understood and defendant would "nod his head and say
uh-huh." While Fernandez understood defendant's response to mean yes,
Fernandez did not ask whether it meant yes. When Fernandez asked defendant
if he would speak with Fernandez, defendant did not verbally respond but he
nodded his head silently up and down. Fernandez then asked: "Do you wish to
speak with me? Do you know why you're here?" In response, defendant
nodded his head no, 15 and Fernandez did not ask him to clarify whether he
meant: no, he did not want to speak with defendant; or no, he did not know why
he was here. Fernandez understood the response to indicate an agreement to
speak with Fernandez.
¶ 64 Fernandez testified that the interview lasted five hours and 45 minutes.
There were two periods of time when defendant was left alone for 10 to 20
minutes. Defendant asked to use the bathroom once, and a Hanover Park police
officer took him. After defendant exited the bathroom, 16 he went directly back
to the interview room. Defendant received a bottle of water and, after the
interview, he ate a hamburger. During the interview, he was asked if he was
hungry and he said no.
15
The written transcript states: "Q: Do you want to speak with me? Do you
know why you're here? A: No. Q.: No? Okay well if you like we can talk about
that."
16
Detective Miranda later testified at the hearing that an officer escorted
defendant to a jail cell to use the bathroom and stood outside the cell while
defendant used the bathroom.
29
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 65 Fernandez testified that, at some point during the interview, he asked
defendant for his consent to search his vehicle. Defendant asked: "Okay. Hold
on. Hold on. Can't I ask anybody to verify if that's legal?" and Fernandez
responded: "What? You think I’m going to put something in your truck? How
am I going to do that? I don't understand what you want." Later in the
interview when Fernandez asked defendant to submit to a gunshot residue test,
defendant responded by asking what his rights were. Fernandez testified that,
after he called defendant a liar several times, defendant agreed to take the test. .
¶ 66 Fernandez testified that Detective Charles Buczynski entered the room to
perform the test approximately five hours into the interview. Buczynski
swabbed defendant's hands and "the supposed results were done
instantaneous[ly]." About 10 to 15 minutes later, defendant began making
incriminating statements. 17
¶ 67 The State moved into evidence the entire transcript of the interview with
defendant, and it was admitted without objection. The parties also entered into
a stipulation that two DVDs depicted the entire interview with defendant, and
they were moved into evidence by the State and admitted without objection.
¶ 68 Detective Juan Miranda testified that he was a detective with the Hanover
Park Police Department, and that he first met defendant on November 26, 2008.
17
Those statements were already described above at ¶¶ 38-42 and will not
be repeated here.
30
No. 1-15-0575
Miranda was with his partner, Detective Griewosz, and Detective Fernandez in
an unmarked police vehicle. Defendant exited the vehicle that he was in, and
the three officers introduced themselves, informing him that they were all
police officers. All three officers were armed. They escorted defendant to their
vehicle, opened the door and asked him to enter. Miranda sat next to defendant,
and defendant asked him why he was being taken to the police station. Miranda
did not testify as to his response. They then transported defendant to the
Hanover Park Police Department and took him to an interview room that was
not locked. Miranda was not initially involved with the interview, but entered
the room later. Miranda, who is fluent in Spanish, recalled that defendant was
offered food and drink and allowed to go to the bathroom. Defendant did not
want any food and asked for water, and he did go to the bathroom. An officer
escorted defendant to a jail cell to use the bathroom and stood outside the cell
while defendant used the bathroom. Later defendant was given food.
¶ 69 Miranda testified that he was present when the "purported" gunshot
residue test was administered and defendant was informed that the result was
positive. This occurred several hours into the interview. Miranda testified that
it was at this point that defendant began making incriminating statements.
¶ 70 Miranda testified that the gunshot residue test was not a real test but a
ruse to "get" defendant to speak with them:
31
No. 1-15-0575
"APD: Now this GSR test that we're talking about, that was not a real
test; that was not a real test; is that correct?
MIRANDA: Correct.
APD: That was basically a ruse to get [defendant] to speak to you?
MIRANDA: Correct."
From the time that defendant arrived at the Hanover Park police station until the
time that he made incriminating statements was a total of six hours. At the
beginning, defendant stated that he did not know that Rocio had been killed.
During those six hours, defendant remained, "on and off," in the interview room
with police officers around him. Miranda could not recall if defendant was
placed in clothing other than the clothing that he arrived in.
¶ 71 The parties stipulated that the DVD with English subtitles which depicts
the last approximately one hour of the interview was a true and accurate copy of
defendant's statement during that portion of the interview. The State then
moved it into evidence and rested. The defense rested without calling
witnesses, and the trial court asked defendant if that is what he wanted and he
indicated no:
"APD: Judge, at this time, we would rest as well.
THE COURT: You're not calling any witnesses?
APD: No, your Honor.
32
No. 1-15-0575
THE COURT: [Defendant], is that what you want? You don't want to
testify on your behalf, correct?
DEFENDANT [through interpreter]: I want to testify.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
DEFENDANT: I want to testify."
The APD responded: "it is my decision strategically not to call him. I told him
this is not a trial. He has a constitutional right to testify at trial; however, this is
not a trial." The trial court then asked the attorneys if they were prepared to
argue, and they asked the trial court to review the DVDs prior to argument. The
matter was then continued for argument.
¶ 72 The State argued that "[t]he testimony was that this high crime area
called for the number of officers that were there" and that "no weapon was
drawn past the initial" encounter. However, the only witness at the attenuation
hearing who testified that he was at defendant's building on the night of the
arrest was Detective Kirby, and he testified that the area was "a mixed
residential business area" and that he was not aware of gang activity there.
Kirby also testified that he did not know whether guns were drawn during the
first 20 minutes because he was not there during that time.
¶ 73 In addition to arguing that the police conduct was not "egregious," the
State argued that facts supporting a finding of attenuation included the fact that
33
No. 1-15-0575
police read defendant Miranda warnings and "confronted" him with the
purported gunshot residue test.
¶ 74 In response, the defense argued: that the six hours between defendant's
arrest and statement was not enough to purge the taint; that the Miranda
warnings did not purge the taint because there was a lack of clear assent by
defendant; that the police conduct was egregious where over 20 officers arrived
and defendant was transferred from vehicle to vehicle; and that the use of a
"phony GSR test" and repeated accusations of lying by the police also
constituted egregious conduct by the police. In addition, the defense argued
that defendant had not been confronted with "legally obtained information," as
the appellate court had asked, because the fake GSR test did not qualify.
Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 1003447-U, ¶ 49 (this court had asked whether
defendant had been confronted "with new legally obtained information"
because that is "one possible intervening circumstance, which may produce a
voluntary desire to confess and thus render the statement admissible"). The
defense counsel also mentioned a discussion of the death penalty by the police
and defendant shortly after defendant incriminated himself. 18 The State
18
After defendant had already made incriminating statements, the written
transcript indicates the following exchange occurred between defendant and the
officers: "A. [Defendant]: Are you guys at least going to— Q. I don't understand.
A. What's it called, when one is killed? Q. The death penalty. A. The death
penalty. Q. That's not our thing. A. Oh no? Q. No that's not a decision we make."
34
No. 1-15-0575
objected immediately on the ground that this discussion was post-arrest and
thus beyond the scope of the attenuation hearing, but the trial court overruled
the objection.
¶ 75 V. Trial Court's Attenuation Ruling
¶ 76 The trial court began its ruling by observing that "the purpose today is
not to relitigate the motion to quash," since "the [a]ppellate [c]ourt already ruled
that the fact that the police went and seized the defendant at his home on the
26th of November 2008, that that was a seizure. And the [a]ppellate court
already indicated that was an illegal arrest. *** [T]he [a]ppellate [c]ourt found
that the arrest was done without probable cause and without a search warrant."
¶ 77 The trial court found that it was the fake GSR test which prompted
defendant to confess:
"[H]e did not admit to the murder. And it wasn't until the police did a
GSR, or a fake GSR, or however you want to look at it, and told him that
the evidence that they had was that he fired the gun. It wasn't until then
that the defendant then admitted that, in fact, that he pointed the gun at
the victim in this case just to scare her, and it accidentally discharged."
¶ 78 The trial court further found that the GSR test was a "strong intervening
circumstance" and that "nothing else" prompted the confession:
35
No. 1-15-0575
"So during the statement and denying the fact that he shot the weapon
at the victim, he was given a presumpti[ve] GSR test or a GSR test which
the police indicated if [sic] he tested positive for gunshot residue. The
Court believed that this is a very strong intervening circumstance that
prompted the defendant to state what he stated [--t]he fact that he shot the
gun after trying to scare her with the weapon and that it accidentally
discharged.
In watching the video there is nothing else that would have prompted
him to make the statement."
¶ 79 The trial court stated that, even when a confession is "obtained following
an illegal arrest," the confession "may be admissible if it was sufficiently an act
of the defendant's free will." After concluding that the confession at issue was
an act of defendant's "own free will," the trial court stated: "I do note that the
GSR statement made by the police prompted the defendant to come clean about
shooting the weapon at the victim in this case. But I cannot say that this was
exploitation in looking at the facts as I do, an exploitation of the illegal arrest."
The facts which the trial court noted were: (1) the short duration of the
interrogation, from 9 p.m. on November 26, 2008, until 2:45 a.m. on November
27, 2006; (2) the provision of Miranda warnings; (3) the cordiality of the
conversation; and (4) the lack of handcuffs at that time. The trial court found
36
No. 1-15-0575
that "defendant not only understood the rights, but that he, in fact, agreed to
speak to the police officers waiving those rights."
¶ 80 After ruling that the confession was attenuated, the trial court reinstated
defendant's conviction and 55-year sentence. On December 18, 2014, which
was the same day as the trial court's ruling, defendant filed a timely notice of
appeal. This appeal followed.
¶ 81 ANALYSIS
¶ 82 Defendant appeals the trial court's decision, arguing: (1) that the trial
court erred in finding attenuation; (2) that his counsel at the attenuation hearing
had a conflict of interest, since the appellate court permitted defendant on
remand to address his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
move to suppress his statement as involuntary, and this same trial counsel
continued to represent defendant on remand (Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st)
103447-U, ¶ 56 (permitting the parties " 'an opportunity to develop a factual
record' " (quoting Bew, 228 Ill. 2d at 135)); and (3) that this counsel was
ineffective for failing to move to suppress defendant's statement as involuntary
(Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 56 ("depending on what is entered
into the record on remand, ineffectiveness *** could be addressed on direct
appeal").
37
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 83 According to the trial transcript, the jury was never informed that the
gunshot residue test, which the jurors watched on video, was a bogus test.
Thus, the fake result of the fake test was part of the evidence that the jury
considered when finding defendant guilty. We fail to see how falsely
manufactured evidence can ever be due process. However, we do not need to
reverse on that basis. Instead, we reverse, as we explain below, on the basis
that was fully developed at the hearing held on remand, namely, attenuation.
¶ 84 For the following reasons, we reverse defendant's conviction, suppress
the statement he made at the police station and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
¶ 85 I. Attenuation
¶ 86 Defendant argues that the trial court should have suppressed his
confession at the police station because it was the product of his illegal arrest.
As noted above, this court already found in a prior decision that defendant's
arrest was illegal under the fourth amendment, since it was made without a
warrant or probable cause. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 44; U.S.
Const. amend IV.
¶ 87 However, the conclusion that a defendant's arrest was illegal under the
fourth amendment does not automatically mean that his subsequent statement is
suppressed. People v. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d 93, 101, 104 (207); People v.
38
No. 1-15-0575
Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d 82, 85 (2004); see also People v. Johnson, 237 Ill.
2d 81, 93 (2010). The question then becomes whether the statement was
obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable from the illegal arrest such that
we can say that the statement is purged of, or attenuated from, the taint of the
original fourth-amendment illegality. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 93; Jackson, 374
Ill. App. 3d at 101.
¶ 88 Attenuation analysis under the fourth amendment is distinct from the
threshold question of voluntariness under the due process clause. Jackson, 374
Ill. App. 3d at 101. "[T]he voluntariness of a defendant's statements does not
automatically purge the taint of an illegal arrest***." People v. Franklin, 115
Ill. 2d 328, 333 (1987). The absence of physical abuse or coercion, and the
voluntariness of the statement, are merely threshold requirements for its
admissibility. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 105 see also Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at
333. As a result, the fact that a trial court found no physical abuse or coercion
does not resolve the issue of attenuation. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 105; see
also Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 333.
¶ 89 A. Standard of Review
¶ 90 The parties disagree on the appropriate standard of review. Fortunately,
we have a relatively recent supreme court case to guide us. In Johnson, 237 Ill.
2d at 93-94, as in our case, defendant moved to suppress statements that he had
39
No. 1-15-0575
made at a police station following an allegedly illegal arrest, and our supreme
court considered the same issue that is before us, namely, attenuation. The
court explained the appropriate standard of review as follows:
"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we
apply the two-part standard of review adopted by the [United States]
Supreme Court in Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 ***
(1996). People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 271 (2008), quoting People v.
Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542-43 (2006). Under this standard, we give
deference to the factual findings of the trial court, and we will reject
those findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 271, quoting Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at
542-43. However, a reviewing court ' "remains free to undertake its own
assessment of the facts in relation to the issues," ' and we review de novo
the trial court's ultimate legal ruling as to whether suppression is
warranted. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d at 271, quoting Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d at
542-43." Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 88-89.
Thus, we apply a bifurcated standard of review: (1) rejecting a trial court's
factual findings only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2)
but reviewing de novo the trial court's conclusion as to whether those facts
satisfy the legal standard to warrant suppression. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 88-89;
40
No. 1-15-0575
People v. Salgado, 396 Ill. App. 3d 856, 860 (2009); Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d
at 102; People v. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d 517, 523 (2004); see also People v.
Chambers, 2016 IL 117911, ¶ 76; People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502, 512
(2004).
¶ 91 A factual finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if
the finding appears to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence,
or if the opposite conclusion is readily apparent. Vaughn v. City of Carbondale,
2016 IL 119181, ¶ 23; see also In re M.I, 2016 IL 120232, ¶ 21; Beggs v. Board
of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL
120236, ¶ 50.
¶ 92 De novo review means that we perform the same analysis a trial court
would perform. Condon & Cook, L.L.C. v. Mavrakis, 2016 IL App (1st)
151923, ¶ 55.
¶ 93 B. Attenuation Factors
¶ 94 The State has the burden of proving attenuation. People v. Island, 385 Ill.
App. 3d 316, 339 (2008); Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 102; Wilberton, 348 Ill.
App. 3d at 85; Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 523. To satisfy this burden, it must
prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged evidence was
obtained by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.
Island, 385 Ill. App. 3d at 339; Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 102; Wilberton, 348
41
No. 1-15-0575
Ill. App. 3d at 85. Clear and convincing evidence means evidence greater than
a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995); Board of Trustees of University
of Illinois v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2015 IL App (4th)
140557, ¶ 36; In re R.G., 165 Ill. App. 3d 112, 134 (1988).
¶ 95 To determine whether a statement is attenuated from an illegal arrest,
courts generally consider the following factors: (1) the proximity in time
between the arrest and the statement; (2) the presence of intervening
circumstances; (3) the provision of Miranda warnings; and (4) the flagrancy of
the police misconduct. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 93; Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at
102; Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 85; Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 523. Of these
four factors, the presence of intervening circumstances and the flagrancy of the
police conduct are the most important. Salgado, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 860;
Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 102; Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 85; Clay, 349
Ill. App. 3d at 523.
¶ 96 Our supreme court has instructed that these four factors are to be
"include[d]" in an attenuation analysis, suggesting that a court may consider
other factors in an appropriate case. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 93. " ' "It is
hornbook law that the use of the word including indicates that the specified list
*** is illustrative, not exclusive." ' " (Emphasis and ellipsis in original.) People
42
No. 1-15-0575
v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 330 (2007) (quoting Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of
Modern Legal Usage 431 (2d ed. 1995) quoting Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping
Authority v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 645 F.2d 1102, 1112 n. 26 (D.C.
Cir. 1981)).
¶ 97 For the purposes of our analysis, we accept the trial court's factual
findings:19 (1) that the duration of the interrogation was short, lasting from 9
p.m. on November 26, 2008, until 2:45 a.m. on November 27, 2006; (2) that the
gunshot residue test was the circumstance which prompted defendant's
incriminating statements; (3) that, during the detention which followed the
initial arrest, the officers' tone of voice was cordial and defendant was not
handcuffed; and (4) that the officers provided Miranda warnings and defendant
agreed to speak with them.
¶ 98 1. Temporal Proximity
¶ 99 As to the first attenuation factor, our supreme court has observed that
"the temporal proximity between the arrest and the statement is often an
ambiguous factor, the significance of which will depend on the circumstances
of the case, including the conditions under which the time passes." Johnson,
237 Ill. 2d at 93-94 (citing People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137, 160 (2004);
19
In other words, even if we assume arguendo that the trial court's factual
findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we cannot find,
applying a de novo standard of review, that these facts satisfied the State's burden
of proving attenuation by clear and convincing evidence.
43
No. 1-15-0575
People v. White, 117 Ill. 2d 194, 223-24 (1987)); Salgado, 396 Ill. App. 3d at
866 ("an ambiguous factor"); Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 104; Clay, 349 Ill.
App. 3d at 523 ("an ambiguous factor"). The ambiguity stems from the fact
that, while a lengthy lapse of time may permit the accused "to reflect on his
situation," a lengthy lapse of time may also enhance the coercive nature of a
custodial setting. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 104 ("the inordinate length" of
defendant's 50-hour detention "weighs against attenuation"); Wilberton, 348 Ill.
App. 3d at 86; see also Salgado, 396 Ill. App. 3d at 867 ("the lapse of time" is
"a factor that cut[s] both ways").
¶ 100 Since, in the case at bar, the six-hour lapse of time was—as the trial court
found—short, the duration did not permit independent, attenuated reflection
(People v. Austin, 293 Ill. App. 3d 784, 788 (1997) ('[t]he mere passage" of five
hours was "not sufficient to purge the taint of an illegal arrest)). Thus, we turn
our focus to the remaining factors. Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 86 ("our focus
must be on the *** remaining factors" when this factor is ambiguous).
¶ 101 2. Intervening Circumstances
¶ 102 The second factor, intervening circumstances, actually involves two
separate considerations: (a) whether the police had separate, "intervening
probable cause" to justify the arrest (Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 94; Wilberton, 348
Ill. App. 2d at 87 ("Illinois courts repeatedly have found intervening probable
44
No. 1-15-0575
cause supports attenuation.")); and (b) whether there were intervening events
which prompted or induced defendant's confession. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at
105.
¶ 103 a. Intervening Probable Cause
¶ 104 Concerning the first, our supreme court has held that intervening
probable cause weighs heavily in favor of attenuation:
" ' Had the officers decided at this time that defendant's initial
detention was illegal, they could have released him and then, based upon
the probable cause that developed independently of his initial arrest,
immediately arrested him again. Under this scenario, there would be no
question that defendant's statements and confession would be admissible.
It follows, then, that the probable cause that would support a second
arrest only minutes after defendant's first arrest also serves to break the
causal connection between defendant's first illegal arrest and the
statements ***.' " Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 94 (quoting Morris, 209 Ill. 2d
at 159). See also Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 87.
In the case at bar, the State does not argue that the police had any intervening
probable cause between the time of defendant's arrest and his statement.
45
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 105 b. Intervening Event
¶ 106 In addition to providing probable cause, an intervening circumstance can
also be an event that prompts or induces a voluntary desire to confess, thereby
breaking the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession.
Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 105; Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 86. However,
"[i]t cannot be [1] something that was obtained illegally[, such as] statements
from unlawfully arrested codefendants," or [2] "information obtained by
exploiting the illegality of the defendant's detention," such as "a polygraph
examination conducted during the defendant's illegal detention." Jackson, 374
Ill. App. 3d at 105; see also Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 524 (a codefendant's
statement, which was suppressed as the product of police misconduct, cannot be
used as an intervening circumstance); Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 334 (defendant's
polygraph examination was "a form of interrogation" and thus his "willingness
to submit it" did not purge the taint of his illegal arrest; and the examination
itself was "a consequence of the illegal detention").
¶ 107 The trial court found that the bogus gunshot residue test was the event
that prompted defendant's incriminating statements, and the court's factual
finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant
steadfastly maintained his innocence through the night and despite hours of
46
No. 1-15-0575
questioning but—as the State forthrightly admits in its brief—he confessed in
under five minutes after the bogus test.
¶ 108 However, applying de novo review, we cannot agree with the trial court's
legal conclusion that this event was an intervening circumstance that helped
purge the taint of the prior illegal arrest. Like a polygraph examination, the
bogus gunshot residue test was used, in this instance, as a form of interrogation,
and it was also a consequence of the illegal arrest and the resulting detention.
Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 334; Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 105. Similar to a
codefendant's confession that was suppressed due to police misconduct (Clay,
349 Ill. App. 3d at 524), the bogus test was, itself, a form of misconduct. Thus,
the bogus test cannot serve to purge the taint of the prior illegal arrest.
¶ 109 Our supreme court and this court have found that even a validly given
polygraph test cannot be an intervening circumstance that purges the taint of an
illegal arrest. Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 334; Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 105. In
Franklin, after being informed that he had failed a polygraph test, defendant
confessed, and our supreme court found that these valid test results did not
purge the taint of his prior illegal arrest, and thus suppression of his subsequent
confession was required. Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 334. If a valid test cannot
purge the taint, then a completely bogus test certainly cannot.
47
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 110 In an attempt to distinguish Franklin and Jackson, the State argues in its
brief to this court that, "[o]f course, polygraph tests are unreliable and
inadmissible." So is a bogus gunshot residue test.
¶ 111 The State cites cases from the 1980's and early 1990's in which the police
lied to defendants and the subsequent confessions were still admitted as
voluntary under the due process clause. E.g. People v. Melock, 149 Ill. 2d 423,
450 (1992) (while deception weighs against a finding of voluntariness and is a
relevant factor, it may be outweighed by a consideration of the totality of the
circumstances).20 However, voluntariness under the due process test is not the
issue in front of us. The question here is: when a custodial bogus test is the
primary event prompting a defendant's confession, does that bogus test purge
the taint of a prior illegal arrest under the fourth amendment? As we already
observed above, if a validly administered test does not purge the taint, a bogus
test cannot possibly purge it.
¶ 112 The State also argues that there were other intervening circumstances,
prior to the gunshot residue test, which prompted defendant's confession.21
20
The State cites People v. Holland, 121 Ill. 2d 136, 154 (1987). However
the supreme court concluded that it found "unconvincing defendant's contentions
that [the officer]'s statement was false or misleading." Holland, 121 Ill. 2d at 155.
21
The State acknowledges in its brief that the trial court ignored all these
other alleged "intervening circumstances," and argues that we should review this
part of the trial court's decision de novo.
48
No. 1-15-0575
First, none of this information caused defendant to confess. Although the
police confronted him with other information, defendant steadfastly maintained
his innocence, agreeing to both a lie detector test and a gunshot residue test to
prove he was innocent. Second, this court has no idea whether the bulk of this
other information was true, or bogus like the gunshot residue test.
¶ 113 As we observed above, the video depicted: (1) the police suggesting that
Rocio's boyfriend had already identified defendant from a photo array; 22 (2) the
police indicating to defendant that individuals named "Alejandro" and
"Alfredo"23 had separately told them that defendant had left his home before 7
p.m. on the night of the murder wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and that the
two men knew it was before 7 p.m. because their soap operas had not yet
started; (3) the police informing defendant that they had discovered a receipt in
defendant's room which showed that defendant was at a market at 6:14 p.m. on
the night of the murder and then showing defendant the receipt; (4) and the
22
On the video, the police officers stated: "We – the Rocio's boyfriend, she
was with him, when this happened. We showed him this. *** And whose picture
do you think he picked out." They also stated: "Why do you think Rocio's
boyfriend – he doesn't know you and you don't know him -- *** No and why
would he – he doesn’t know you. We didn't tell him who you were. We showed
him this and who do you think he picked out?"
23
In an earlier part of the video which the jury did not view, defendant stated
that, on the night of the murder, he was with his two friends and roommates,
Alejandro and Alfredo, for a portion of the evening. Defendant did not state their
last names.
49
No. 1-15-0575
police performing a gunshot residue test on defendant's hands and informing
defendant that the result was positive for the presence of gunshot residue.
¶ 114 However, none of these alleged facts were substantiated at trial. First,
although the jury viewed the police indicating that Guzman, Rocio's boyfriend,
had positively identified defendant, Guzman testified at trial that he did not
observe the shooter's face. Second, although the jury viewed the police telling
defendant that "Alejandro" and "Alfredo" had informed them that defendant had
left his home before 7 p.m. wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, no one by either
name testified at trial. Third, although the jury viewed the police informing
defendant that they had discovered a receipt in his room showing that defendant
was at a market at 6:14 p.m., no such receipt was introduced at trial. And last,
but certainly not least, we now know that the gunshot residue test was a bogus
test.
¶ 115 The fact that police confronted defendant with, which was substantiated
at trial, was the fact that a gun holster had been found in defendant's vehicle.
However, after being confronted with this fact, defendant did not confess for
some time and, even after he did confess, he continued to maintain that this
holster was not his. Confrontation with the fact of the holster discovery appears
to have little to do with defendant's confession. As a result, we are not
50
No. 1-15-0575
persuaded by the State's argument there were other valid, intervening
circumstances.
¶ 116 The State also argues in its brief, in one line, that the gunshot residue test
was not a form of interrogation. " 'Interrogation' refers to express questioning,
as well as to "any words or actions on the part of the police, other than those
normally accompanying arrest and custody that the police should know are
reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.' "
Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 106 (quoting People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382,
391-92 (1995)). The State admits elsewhere in its brief that "the test was
certainly aimed at eliciting a confession." Since the test was completely bogus,
there was no other reason for the police to administer it, except for their belief
that it was " 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the
suspect.' " Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 106 ( quoting Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d at
391-92). Detective Miranda testified that the test was merely "a ruse to get
[defendant] to speak" to them. Supra ¶ 70. Thus, the test was a form of
custodial interrogation, which occurred during a detention that had been
obtained solely through an illegal arrest. Far from purging the taint, the test
exploited the illegality of the original arrest.
¶ 117 In conclusion, we find that the factor of intervening circumstances does
not weigh in favor of attenuation.
51
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 118 3. Miranda Rights
¶ 119 The third factor we must consider is the provision of Miranda warnings.
Although police cannot dissipate the taint of an illegal arrest by simply giving
Miranda warnings, the presence of warnings prior to an interrogation carries
some weight. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 102; Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at
85 ("the presence of the warnings prior to interrogation carries some weight"
where "[s]ix times defendant waived his rights and agreed to give a statement").
See also Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 95 ("While the presence of Miranda warnings
alone is not sufficient to purge the taint of illegality from a illegal arrest, it is a
factor to be considered.").
¶ 120 In the case at bar, the trial court found that the police provided Miranda
warnings. In addition, the trial court found that "defendant not only understood
the rights, but that he, in fact, agreed to speak to the police officers waiving
those rights."24 However, the warnings occurred once at the very beginning of
the six-hour interrogation and were not repeated, even after defendant asked
what his rights were—immediately prior to the test. When the officers asked
defendant if they had his "permission" to "check" his hands for gunshot residue,
defendant replied: "what are my rights?" Instead of informing him of his
24
Based on a review of the transcript alone, this court had concluded in our
prior decision that defendant's " 'hmm-hmm' " responses failed to "reveal whether
defendant affirmatively waived his rights." Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447­
U, ¶ 47.
52
No. 1-15-0575
rights, one of the officers stated: "I'm asking you. If you don't want it we won't
do it." Thus, applying a de novo standard of review to the trial court's factual
finding, we conclude that the Miranda warnings carry some weight but not
much under the circumstances of this case.
¶ 121 4. Flagrancy of the Police Misconduct
¶ 122 In determining whether a statement was the product of an illegal arrest,
we consider lastly the flagrancy of the police misconduct
¶ 123 With respect to this fourth factor, our supreme court has explained that
police misconduct is flagrant when it is carried out in such a manner as to cause
surprise, fear, confusion, or when it has a quality of purposeful or intentional
misconduct. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 94; People v. Foskey, 136 Ill. 2d 66, 86
(1990); Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d at 107; Wilberton, 348 Ill. App. 3d at 89.
¶ 124 The trial court found that the officer's tone during the detention following
the initial arrest was cordial, and that defendant was not handcuffed during the
ensuing detention. However, the trial court did not consider the flagrancy of the
police misconduct during the initial arrest, when over 20 officers arrived at
defendant's residence and handcuffed him. Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st)
103447-U, ¶ 7 ("Approximately 24 officers," some with "their weapons drawn"
arrived at defendant's residence.)
53
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 125 In the case at bar, the State introduced no evidence at the attenuation
hearing concerning the initial arrest, and the trial judge repeated several times
that he was not the judge who heard the original suppression motion and
hearing.
¶ 126 The only witness at the attenuation hearing who testified that he was at
defendant's building on the night of the arrest was Detective Kirby. Defendant
was already in handcuffs and being walked to Kirby's vehicle in the company of
two to three other officers, when Kirby first saw him. Kirby was not asked
whether this was a high-crime area, but he did testify that it was "a mixed
residential business area" and that he was not aware of gang activity there.
Kirby was not asked what prompted so many officers to arrive on the scene, and
he did not know whether any of these officers had drawn their guns during the
20 minutes when the initial arrest occurred.
¶ 127 Detective Kirby and Fernandez's testimony did establish that defendant
had been speaking with only one or two officers over the phone prior to his
arrest and then, suddenly, over 20 officers appeared at his home. The
appearance of so many unexpected officers certainly has the potential "to cause
surprise, fear and confusion." See Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d at 94.
¶ 128 Although the trial court found that the officers' tone was cordial during
the ensuing detention, "[t]he apparent purpose of the defendant's arrest and
54
No. 1-15-0575
detention was to enable the police to conduct an expedition for evidence in the
hope that something might turn up, a practice that the Supreme Court has
condemned." Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 335. See also Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at
525 ("police act with an improper purpose when they arrest persons as part of
an expedition in the hope of developing probable cause"). The officers
repeatedly told defendant he was lying and confronted him with a bogus test in
order to induce him to confess. Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d at 335 ("The detention was
a continuing violation."). The officers lacked probable cause at the time of
defendant's arrest and were on an expedition to find it. Detective Miranda
conceded that the test was merely "a ruse to get [defendant] to speak" to them.
Supra ¶ 70. Thus, this factor does not help the State meet its burden of showing
clear and convincing evidence of attenuation. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 525
(finding a lack of attenuation where the "police arrested defendant on a fishing
expedition for evidence").
¶ 129 In sum, after having reviewed all the factors, we conclude that the
statement was not attenuated from the taint of the illegal arrest, (1) where the
duration between the illegal arrest, as found by the trial court, was short and
thus did not provide time for independent reflection; (2) where the event that
prompted the confession, as found by the trial court, was the bogus gunshot
residue test, and it did not qualify as an intervening circumstance purging the
55
No. 1-15-0575
taint of the illegal arrest, since it was itself a form of interrogation occurring as
a consequence of the illegal arrest and a form of misconduct; (3) where Miranda
warnings were provided once at the start of the six-hour interrogation but were
not repeated again, even when defendant specifically asked what his rights
were; and (4) where the State introduced no evidence at the attenuation hearing
concerning the circumstances of the initial arrest, and thus the trial judge, who
had not presided at the original suppression hearing, had no information on
which to determine whether or not the initial illegality constituted egregious
police conduct, and where the police were on a fishing expedition during the
subsequent detention.
¶ 130 As we discussed above, in addition to the four factors that our supreme
court specifically listed, we may consider additional, relevant factors. Supra
¶ 96. Further supporting our holding is the fact that we cannot condone the
manufacture of false evidence by the police—namely, the false positive result
to a fake test—which was then presented to the jury during the playing of the
video.
¶ 131 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the statement was not
attenuated from the illegal arrest and must be suppressed under the fourth
amendment.
56
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 132 Next, we must consider whether we may remand for a new trial. We
cannot remand for retrial if the State failed to present other evidence sufficient
to support a conviction. See Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 526. Otherwise we run
afoul of double jeopardy. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 528. In determining whether
to remand the case, this court must consider all of the evidence presented at the
trial, even if the court erred by admitting some of it. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d at
526 (citing People v. Avery, 180 Ill. App. 3d 146, 157 (1989).
¶ 133 Here the evidence admitted at trial included: (1) the boyfriend's testimony
that the murderer was wearing a black sweatshirt; (2) a police officer's
testimony that he discovered some burnt black clothing near the rear garage
door of defendant's building; (3) the bouncer's testimony that he observed
defendant's vehicle parked near the murder scene, shortly before the murder;25
(4) an officer's testimony that he discovered multiple small broken-glass
fragments on the driver's side front-seat floor mat of defendant's vehicle and a
gun holster on the center console hump; (5) testimony by a police officer that
the victim's driver-side window was shattered, and testimony by an evidence
technician that there were glass fragments in her hair; and (6) evidence of a
25
David Carlson testified that he observed a truck near the murder scene on
November 25, 2008, at 8 p.m. and Detective Hugo Villa testified that he responded
to a call concerning the victim's death at 8:11 p.m. Carlson testified that he later
picked out the same truck on his own in the police parking lot.
57
No. 1-15-0575
possible motive based on the recent break-up of a long-term romantic
relationship between defendant and the victim, 26 and the victim's murder while
in the company of her new boyfriend.
¶ 134 The glass fragments found in defendant's vehicle are significant because
the gunshot shattered the window of the victim's vehicle, spraying glass
fragments into the victim's hair. Based on this evidence, one could argue that
the glass fragments also sprayed on to defendant at the time of the shooting and
then dropped of his clothes when he entered his own vehicle. The burnt black
clothing found outside of defendant's building is significant, because the
victim's boyfriend testified that the shooter wore a black hoodie, and the
attempted destruction of the clothing arguably indicates an awareness of guilt.
The bouncer's testimony that defendant's vehicle was parked near the murder
scene at the time of the murder is significant because the bouncer was unrelated
and appeared to have no motive to lie. The summary execution of the victim in
front of her new boyfriend certainly suggests a motive; and the gun holster
found in defendant's vehicle and the presence of the vehicle near the crime
scene indicates both opportunity and means.
¶ 135 Based on this evidence, we reverse and remand for a new trial and
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
26
At trial, Jose Munoz testified that his sister Rocio, the victim, had dated
defendant for three or four years, until six months before she died.
58
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 136 II. Conflict
¶ 137 In addition to the attenuation issue, defendant claims on this appeal: (1)
that his counsel at the attenuation hearing had a conflict of interest, since the
appellate court permitted defendant on remand to address his claim that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his statement as
involuntary, and this same trial counsel continued to represent defendant on
remand (Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U, ¶ 56 (permitting the parties
" 'an opportunity to develop a factual record' " (quoting Bew, 228 Ill. 2d at
135)); and (2) that this counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress
defendant's statement as involuntary (Hernandez, 2013 IL App (1st) 103447-U,
¶ 56 ("depending on what is entered into the record on remand, ineffectiveness
*** could be addressed on direct appeal").
¶ 138 On April 3, 2014, prior to the attenuation hearing, defendant requested
new counsel in open court, stating that his counsel "doesn't want to bring [to]
the Judge's attention some important points or issues that I believe is for my
defense." The trial court did not inquire what the points or issues were, so we
do not know whether they related to defendant's claim, on his prior appeal and
on this appeal, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress
his statement as involuntary.
59
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 139 In addition, at the end of the attenuation hearing, defendant informed the
trial court that he wanted to testify at the attenuation hearing, and his counsel
would not allow him to do so. We have no idea what defendant wanted to
testify to and whether it related to his ineffectiveness claim.
¶ 140 Since we are reversing and remanding based on the attenuation issue, we
do not need to reach defendant's claims that reversal is also warranted on the
grounds that his counsel had a conflict at the attenuation hearing and that his
counsel was ineffective. However, on remand, we direct the trial court to
appoint new counsel.
¶ 141 The special concurrence in this case accuses the victim's boyfriend of
being a murderer (Supra ¶¶ 29-30) after a jury found defendant guilty of the
crime he confessed to. We threw the confession out and find defendant should
receive a new trial. The special concurrence disagrees based on the justice's
view of the evidence, but finds that the victim's boyfriend is the murderer.
¶ 142 A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is afforded certain rights under our
federal and state constitutions. When the State accuses someone of murder, it is
normally done in an indictment by a grand jury. The accused is appointed a
lawyer to defend him when he cannot afford one, and the accused is given his
day in court to argue his innocence to a jury of his peers.
60
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 143 In this special concurrence, the boyfriend was afforded no protections.
He was indicted, tried, and convicted in the special concurrence. He has no
right to appeal and will be given no opportunity for clearing his good name.
¶ 144 The question before this court was whether there was sufficient evidence
such that a rational juror could have convicted the defendant, without the
tainted evidence. It was not our job to attempt to prosecute someone else, based
on a cold record. Nonetheless, the special concurrence states that "all
reasonable inferences" "establish" that the boyfriend is "a viable suspect," and
she finds his testimony not credible, although she never heard him testify.
Supra ¶¶ 29-30. The special concurrence states repeatedly that the boyfriend
offered no aid to the victim (supra ¶¶ 29-30), although he immediately left to
ask someone to call the police and an ambulance, and then returned to hold the
dying woman in his arms. Supra ¶ 14. The special concurrence concludes that
his "behavior was not that of a reasonable person." Supra ¶ 30. This is a highly
unusual special concurrence.
¶ 145 CONCLUSION
¶ 146 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶ 147 On a prior appeal, we found that defendant's arrest was illegal, and
vacated defendant's conviction and remanded for an attenuation hearing. On
remand, the trial court conducted the attenuation hearing and concluded that
61
No. 1-15-0575
defendant's statement was attenuated from the illegal arrest, and the case came
back to us on appeal after the hearing.
¶ 148 This opinion concludes: (1) that defendant's statement was not attenuated
from an illegal arrest; and (2) that the State presented sufficient other evidence
such that a retrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause. Justice Lampkin
agrees with the first conclusion but disagrees with the second; and Justice
Reyes agrees with both conclusions. Thus, our conclusion is unanimous with
respect to the first conclusion, and a majority of justices agree with the second
conclusion. As a result, this court reverses and remands for a new trial.
¶ 149 Reversed and remanded.
¶ 150 JUSTICE REYES, specially concurring.
¶ 151 I completely concur in the majority’s decision; however, I see no need to
respond to the dissent.
¶ 152 JUSTICE LAMPKIN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶ 153 I agree with the majority that defendant’s statement was not obtained by
means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint of his
illegal arrest. See People v. Lovejoy, 235 Ill. 2d 97, 130 (2009) (where a
defendant was illegally detained, the court must determine whether a
subsequent statement bears a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying
illegality by considering whether the evidence was obtained “by means
62
No. 1-15-0575
sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint” of illegality).
Therefore, his statement and any further evidence flowing from his illegal arrest
must be suppressed.
¶ 154 I would add to the attenuation analysis the following. I do not agree that
the giving of Miranda warnings should be given any weight in this case.
Defendant never answered out loud that he understood the Miranda warnings
and then, when asked if he would speak to the police officers, there was a lack
of clear assent by defendant to talk with them. Furthermore, when one officer
left the interview room and another officer arrived, defendant was not given
Miranda rights again, which could have provided an opportunity to demonstrate
that he understood his rights and that he was willing to talk to the new officer
who then participated in the discussion. People v. Scott, 366 Ill. App. 3d 638,
646 (2006) (while apprising a defendant of his Miranda rights on multiple
occasions alone is not sufficient to purge defendant’s statement of the taint of
his unlawful arrest, this factor obviously weighs in favor of a finding of
attenuation).
¶ 155 I also disagree with the trial court’s factual findings and the majority’s
adoption of the finding that the officer’s tone was “cordial.” In the last hour of
defendant’s interrogation, the officers repeatedly raised their voices when
speaking to defendant, repeatedly talked over him when he was trying to answer
63
No. 1-15-0575
questions, and called him a liar no less than 20 to 30 times. They also accused
him of lying in front of God. Defendant was seated in a small room with a small
table in front of him and his back to the wall. An officer was sitting next to
defendant, facing him and, at times, their faces were less than two feet apart.
Another officer sat on the other side of the table, no more than three to four feet
from defendant. Defendant was basically pinned in a corner. This certainly was
not a “cordial” environment.
¶ 156 I next must dissent with the majority’s opinion that the State presented
sufficient evidence to support a conviction for first degree murder and, in my
opinion, remand would subject defendant to double jeopardy. See People v.
Cabrera, 402 Ill. App. 3d 440, 446-47 (2010) (“[t]he prohibition against double
jeopardy is designed to prevent the State from engaging in more than one
attempt to convict an individual, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment,
expense, continuing anxiety and insecurity, and increasing the possibility that
he may be found guilty even if innocent. [Citation.] It also furthers the
constitutional policy in favor of finality for the benefit of the defendant.
[Citation.]”) I would, therefore, reverse his conviction outright.
¶ 157 The evidence for purposes of double jeopardy is set out below. I have
combined the direct and cross-examination of witnesses to give the reader a
clearer picture of the facts.
64
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 158 Jose Munoz, the brother of Rocio, testified that she lived with her three
brothers in Elgin at the time of her death on November 25, 2008. They had
lived there for three years. Rocio knew defendant in Mexico. Jose did not. She
had been in the United States since 2005. For three or four years, she had been
in a relationship with defendant. Jose had seen them together once at a dance.
According to Jose, Rocio and defendant had stopped dating six months before
her death.
¶ 159 On the date in question, Rocio worked at Elvira’s Hair Salon in Hanover
Park on Irving Park Road. She had worked there every day in the afternoon for
6 to 8 months. On November 25th, she was in a relationship with Rafael
Delatorre Guzman. Contrary to the majority’s statement of facts, there is no
indication whatsoever in the record of how long she and Guzman were dating.
In fact, in the now suppressed video interview of defendant, police repeatedly
told defendant that Rocio was seeing another man who they had spoken with for
two hours. The police informed defendant that man (presumably Guzman) told
them that he had been dating Rocio for two to three years, that he loved her, and
that they were talking about living together and getting married.
¶ 160 On November 25, 2008, Guzman drove to Rocio’s place of employment
in his car and parked in front of Los Arcos supermarket, which was in the same
shopping center as the salon. He went into the salon. At 8 p.m., Guzman and
65
No. 1-15-0575
Rocio left the salon together to go to dinner. Rocio’s car was parked in front of
the salon.27 Rocio got into her car on the driver’s side. Guzman waited on the
passenger side while Rocio moved some bags from the passenger seat to the
rear of her car.
¶ 161 As he stood there waiting, Guzman saw someone walking in front of
Rocio’s car on the sidewalk. Guzman was looking in the car when he saw the
individual. The individual was about 6 feet tall and weighed about 184
pounds. 28 According to Guzman, the man wore a black hooded sweatshirt. He
thought the hood was on the man’s head. 29 He could not see his face. Guzman
said he was “talking to a girl,” who he identified as Rocio, and “ignored” the
man. He was not paying attention to what the individual on the sidewalk was
doing. Rocio said “you can get in the car” and, as he was getting in the car, he
heard a shot. He did not see the shot. At that time, Guzman “just saw Rocio
move,” and he “got out of the car” and went inside Los Arcos supermarket. As
he “was reaching the store,” Guzman turned his face to see where the person
with the hooded sweatshirt was located. Guzman “saw him walking on the
27
Photos depict Rocio’s car, parked with the front end of her vehicle facing
the curb, at a right angle to the curb. In other words, the front of her car faces the
curb, then there was a grassy area and then there was a sidewalk immediately
adjacent to the grassy area.
28
No evidence was introduced as to defendant’s height or weight.
29
Guzman did not testify that the sweatshirt had a zipper.
66
No. 1-15-0575
sidewalk,” going away from the car. When asked a second time what the person
was doing, Guzman said he was “walking.” Guzman said that he did not see
anyone else in the strip mall, he did not recognize the person that was walking,
and it “all happened very quickly.” Once inside the store, the police and an
ambulance were called. When the police arrived, Guzman accompanied the
police back to the car where he made certain observations of Rocio that need
not be repeated here. He also testified that when he reached the car he grabbed
Rocio and lifted her up to see how she was. He spoke to her and “was moving
her.” Rocio did not respond.
¶ 162 By stipulation, it was agreed that Rocio died of a gunshot wound to the
head behind her left ear. Dr. Kendall Crowns performed the autopsy. The
course of the gunshot wound was from the back of the head to the front and
from the left side of the head to the right. Dr. Crowns “recovered a deformed
medium caliber lead bullet from behind the right eye and a deformed brass
jacket fragment from the interior right frontal lobe of the brain.”
¶ 163 As described by the first officer to arrive on the scene, Hugo Villa of the
Hanover Park Police Department, the area where the shooting occurred is a
shopping center that is well lit, with lighting coming from the parking lot and
from Irving Park Road. He pulled into the parking lot. The parking lot, as well
as the sidewalk, is adjacent to Irving Park Road. Officer Villa made the
67
No. 1-15-0575
following additional observations. He received a call at 8:11 p.m. that took him
to 1814 Irving Park Road, a shopping center. There were 10 to 15 stores in the
shopping center. Ten to fifteen people were outside a grocery store huddled at
the doorway when he arrived. He described his observation of Rocio (which
need not bear repeating) and of the surrounding area. Rocio’s driver’s side car
window was shattered and had a partial hole in it. 30 Glass was everywhere,
including on Rocio’s body and in her hair. It appeared to be automobile glass.
There was a bag containing clothing on the passenger’s seat. 31 One spent shell
casing was observed within one or two feet of the driver’s side door. Officer
Villa was not able to determine the caliber of the casing. Both car doors were
closed when he arrived.
¶ 164 According to Officer Edgardo Lopez of the Hanover Park Police
Department, on November 25, 2008, he received a call that took him to the
Hanover Park Police Department where he had a briefing with several
detectives assigned to MCAT. On November 26, 2008, Officer Lopez and other
officers were assigned to locate defendant in Aurora. They set up surveillance
positions of the home of defendant’s uncle. Defendant called them in response
to the police putting out the word that they were looking for him. Defendant
30
A photo captures the shattered driver’s window and the bullet hole.
31
A photo depicts the bag on the seat.
68
No. 1-15-0575
directed the police to his location while on the phone. When they arrived at
defendant’s address in Aurora, defendant was standing outside an apartment
building still talking on a phone to Officer Lopez in Spanish. Lopez described
the building as the “type of building that had a business on top and apartments
on the bottom to the rear.” Other officers on the scene approached defendant
and started transporting him to the Hanover Park Police Department before
Lopez got to him. Defendant did not run, fight, or try to resist the police.
¶ 165 David Carlson, a bouncer at Bungalow Joes bar, testified as follows. He
arrived at work at 4 p.m. on November 25, 2008. Bungalow Joes is positioned
fifteen feet off of Irving Park Road, near the intersection with Jensen
Boulevard. At the corner of Irving and Jensen is a gas station and then a
Spanish grocery store. The shopping center where Rocio was killed is about a
football field away from where Carlson works. A little after 4 p.m., as Carlson
was outside the bar, twenty-five feet from the front door smoking a cigarette, he
saw an F150 pickup truck “where the back wheels are, the wheel wells are
flared out” parked on Jensen another twenty-five feet from him. When asked
what color it was he said “[b]lack, or it could have been blue.” The truck was
sitting on Jensen between the gas station and the Spanish grocery store.
¶ 166 At 4 p.m., it was light outside. Carlson said “I didn’t see the license
plates or anything.” There were also pedestrians and traffic on the street.
69
No. 1-15-0575
Nothing was unusual about the truck. There was no damage to it and no
insignia. He did not “see a license plate or anything,” nor did he see anyone in
or around the truck. He was smoking for about five minutes. He then went back
inside to work.
¶ 167 Carlson saw the truck again at about 8 p.m. when he exited the bar. It was
dark that evening. He said he saw “over in the retention pond an officer with
two gentleman on the ground, possibly at gunpoint.” The retention pond was on
the other side of the truck. When he went back inside the bar, the truck was still
sitting there. He did not see what happened with the individuals by the retention
pond before going back into the bar. There were also traffic and pedestrians on
the street. No one was in or around the truck. He was not a witness to any
shooting that evening, nor was he aware that a shooting took place that evening.
The next day, November 26, 2008, when he returned to work, he observed a
picture of the Ford F150 behind the bar. He did not know where that picture
was taken. After seeing the photo, Carlson called the Hanover Park Police
Department to tell them that he had seen that truck.
¶ 168 On December 2, 2008, police came to Carlson’s residence. He
accompanied the police to the Hanover Park police station and there he saw the
Ford F150 parked on their lot. Carlson said “that’s the truck that was parked on
Jensen.” He also identified a series of photographs that depicted the area where
70
No. 1-15-0575
the F150 had been parked on November 25th in relationship to the grocery store
and the gas station.
¶ 169 Lisa Koenen, an evidence technician, went to St. Alexius Medical Center
where Rocio had been transported. She photographed the deceased and
collected evidence. The technician moved Rocio’s hair and four pieces of glass
fragment fell from her hair onto the hospital bed. The glass fragments were
photographed. She identified a photo depicting the glass fragments on the bed.
There was no testimony that the actual glass fragments were collected nor was
there testimony that they were introduced into evidence for the jury to observe.
The same technician additionally recovered “a fragmented projectile” from Dr.
Crowns.
¶ 170 Koenen also went to 559 High Street in Aurora, defendant’s residence,
on November 26, 2008, at 8:30 p.m. and took photographs of the building,
which was repeatedly identified as 556 High Street. A truck was parked on the
side of the apartment building. Koenen photographed the outside of the truck.
Looking through the window of the truck, the technician saw a black plastic
holster for what she believed was from an automatic gun located “underneath
71
No. 1-15-0575
the front passenger seat”32 of the vehicle. No photograph was taken of the gun
holster.
¶ 171 By stipulation, the parties agreed that: (1) a 1999 Ford F150 vehicle,
plate 77536N was registered to Jose M. Hernandez in Aurora, Illinois; (2) Jose
Hernandez is defendant’s uncle; (3) Jose Hernandez was listed as the registered
owner of the dark blue Ford F150 truck in order to assist defendant with the
purchase of the vehicle; and (4) Jose never used the truck, never drove the
truck, and the truck belonged to defendant.
¶ 172 Jose would also testify that Hanover Park police officers contacted him
on November 27, 2008, requesting his consent to allow them to search the
truck. He was presented with a written consent to search form, and he agreed to
allow the police to search the truck. The consent to search form was signed on
November 27, 2008, at 12:25 a.m. 33 This evidence would be inadmissible on
retrial and will be discussed later.
¶ 173 Thomas Todd, a forensic technician from the Schaumburg Police
Department, was assigned to process a blue Ford F150 on November 28, 2008,
32
This testimony differs from where the photographs depict the holster and
where the recovering technician stated the holster was recovered.
33
The timing of this is significant because the police already knew at the
time they sought Jose’s consent that the truck belonged to defendant. Defendant
told the police what kind of truck he had, where it was located, and then he refused
to give consent to search his truck. This occurred on November 26, 2008, by 10:00
p.m. per the transcript of his videotaped interview.
72
No. 1-15-0575
at the Hanover Park Public Works garage at 2121 East Lake Street. When he
saw it, the vehicle was locked. The vehicle was opened (no testimony was
presented as to how they opened defendant’s vehicle) and inside was a black
plastic gun holster, “on the front seat floor about the center console area above
the hump between the seats.”34 Todd testified that the gun holster appeared to
be for an automatic weapon based on its shape and the lack of an area for a
cylinder for a revolver. There was no testimony as to why this information was
relevant. He also saw some “small glass fragments, like broken glass
fragments” on the driver’s side front seat floor mat. The fragments were
photographed and collected. Although photographs of the “fragments” were
shown to the jury, the actual collected fragments were not. Todd recovered the
plastic holster and a pair of women’s underwear from the hump.
¶ 174 On November 29, 2008, a sergeant with the Hanover Park Police
Department went to 559 High Street in Aurora, near a rear garage door of the
residence. He observed “what appeared to be burnt clothing,” which included a
partial zipper and some “plastic or cloth” material. It was photographed and
collected by his partner. The materials were recovered on a concrete slab right
in front of the garage door.
34
This is where a photograph actually depicts the location of the holster
along with a pair of women’s panties and other items. This was People’s Exhibit
47.
73
No. 1-15-0575
¶ 175 In December 2008, this same officer drove to David Carlson’s home,
picked up Mr. Carlson, and transported him to the police station and to
Bungalow Joes bar where photos were taken of the police vehicle parked less
than a block from 1811 Irving Park Road. According to the officer, Bungalow
Joes is less than a block from 1811 Irving Park Road.
¶ 176 A portion of defendant’s videotaped statement was then played to the
jury, which we have now ruled was admitted erroneously.
¶ 177 The jury then heard the testimony of Alvaro Fernandez, a police officer
from Hoffman Estates, who spoke with defendant on November 26, 2008, at 9
p.m. in the interview room and then accompanied defendant to several locations
on November 27th. All of his testimony would now be inadmissible as fruit of
the poisonous tree. See People v. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d 517, 524-25 (2004).
¶ 178 Based on the evidence, I do not believe the standard has been satisfied to
remand this cause for a new trial. In other words, I find the evidence introduced
at trial was legally insufficient to convict defendant and, therefore, defendant
will be subject to double jeopardy upon retrial. People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d
382, 393 (1995).
¶ 179 Primarily, my conclusion is based on the fact that there is no direct
evidence of defendant’s guilt. The circumstantial evidence demonstrated that
defendant and Rocio dated for three to four years, but ceased dating about six
74
No. 1-15-0575
months prior to her death. There was no testimony regarding the terms of their
separation and nothing establishing there were ill feelings between them. In
addition, there was no evidence demonstrating when Rocio and Guzman
became a couple. In short, there was nothing to establish defendant’s motive at
the time of Rocio’s death. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that
defendant knew Rocio was dating anyone after their separation.
¶ 180 In contrast, after reviewing Guzman’s testimony, the evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom establish him as a viable suspect.
Guzman testified that he was standing at the passenger door outside of Rocio’s
vehicle, which was parked facing a curb, in front of which was a grassy area
and then a sidewalk. While Rocio allegedly removed packages from the
passenger seat, Guzman observed an individual wearing a black hoody walking
on the sidewalk in front of Rocio’s car. After Rocio instructed Guzman that he
could enter her car, Guzman reported hearing a gunshot. Guzman stated that
Rocio’s body moved and he exited the car. Guzman’s testimony does not mimic
that of a reasonable person under the circumstances. Immediately after hearing
the gunshot, there was no testimony that Guzman looked around in an attempt
to (1) identify the shooter or (2) protect himself from additional danger.
Guzman did not provide any aid to Rocio, the woman he was dating, nor did he
even check to see if she was hurt. Moreover, Guzman did not report hearing,
75
No. 1-15-0575
feeling, or seeing the glass shatter from the window where the bullet entered the
vehicle. Photographs and testimony clearly establish that glass was shattered
inside the vehicle and onto Rocio from the driver’s side window. Instead,
Guzman exited the vehicle, which photographs demonstrated a large shopping
bag positioned on the front passenger seat despite his testimony that Rocio had
him wait outside the car while she moved the packages to the rear seat, and
walked to Los Arcos supermarket. Guzman instructed individuals in the market
to call the police and an ambulance even though he provided no testimony that
he knew Rocio had been shot. Notably, Guzman’s car was parked in front of the
Los Arcos supermarket and a trier of fact could reasonably infer that he placed
the murder weapon in the car prior to entering the market.
¶ 181 Additionally, Guzman testified that, as he reached Los Arcos, he turned
and observed the man that had been walking earlier. The man was still walking
on the sidewalk. This is notable for a number of reasons. First, it is not
reasonable to believe that an individual who had just fired a handgun into a car
parked in a well-lit shopping center would casually walk on a sidewalk. Also, in
order for the individual walking to have been the shooter, the individual would
have had to move from the sidewalk, walk through a swath of grass, and into
the parking lot in order to position himself toward the rear of Rocio’s car. This
is because the evidence demonstrated that Rocio was shot through her driver’s
76
No. 1-15-0575
side window and the bullet entered the back of her head, behind her left ear.
Guzman, however, never testified to observing the individual leave the
sidewalk. If that person was the shooter, he would have had to then go back
over the curb and the grassy area to get back on the sidewalk, yet Guzman saw
none of this. This certainly supports the theory that the man on the sidewalk
was not the shooter. In addition, Guzman did not testify that the hoody worn by
the individual contained a zipper, which is significant because the police
recovered a zipper in the pile of burnt material in the garage area behind
defendant’s address. Finally, despite providing no protection or aid to Rocio
immediately following the shooting, Guzman accompanied the officers upon
their arrival to Rocio’s vehicle. At that time, Guzman grabbed Rocio and lifted
her up. Guzman’s behavior was not that of a reasonable person under the
circumstances.
¶ 182 Furthermore, the remainder of the trial evidence did not support
defendant’s guilt. The evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and
inexplicable circumstances. For example, according to Carlson, defendant’s
Ford F150 truck was parked outside Bungalow Joes bar, about 25 feet away, for
over four hours prior to the shooting. The truck was situated between a gas
station and a grocery store with traffic and pedestrians moving about. Carlson,
however, could not be sure of the truck’s color and did not see the license plates
77
No. 1-15-0575
despite it being light outside when he initially observed the truck; he never
observed anyone enter or exit the truck; he testified there was nothing unusual
about the truck; and he failed to identify the year of the truck. Notwithstanding,
Carlson testified that he again observed the truck parked in the same location
between the gas station and the grocery store at 8 p.m., just before the shooting.
It is important to note that Bungalow Joes is located approximated 120 yards
away from the shopping center where Rocio worked and was killed. Therefore,
a rational trier of fact would need to reasonably infer that defendant parked his
truck in the daylight, near an intersection containing a functioning gas station
and grocery store, within 25 feet or more of a functioning bar, and waited either
in the truck for four hours or exited and hid somewhere until Rocio was
scheduled to leave work at 8 p.m. According to this version of the events,
defendant would have had to walk the 120 yards from the truck to the shopping
center parking lot in order to shoot Rocio. And, although Carlson never
identified anyone in or around the parked F150, he did testify to observing two
men on the ground in a retention pond possibly being held at gunpoint by a
police officer. Simply stated, Carlson’s testimony was implausible and
insufficient.
¶ 183 Additionally, there were a number of unexplained inconsistencies in the
physical evidence. First, the stipulated testimony of Dr. Crowns established that
78
No. 1-15-0575
a bullet and a brass jacket were recovered from Rocio’s head; however, the
photograph admitted into evidence displayed four bullet-related items. Next,
Koenen, the evidence technician, observed four pieces of glass fragment fall
from Rocio’s hair; however, the photograph admitted into evidence showed
only two glass fragments. Moreover, the stipulated testimony provided that the
glass fragments were collected; however, they were not admitted into evidence.
In addition, the second evidence technician, Todd, photographed the interior
floor of defendant’s truck displaying hundreds of rock-like objects and a few
shard-like objects that could be plastic or glass. It is clear from the photograph
that the shape and thickness of the shard-like objects on the floor of defendant’s
truck are different from the photographed glass fragments that were in Rocio’s
hair. However, the shard-like objects recovered from defendant’s truck were not
shown to the jury. The jury, therefore, was unable to compare the actual items
recovered from Rocio’s hair to those recovered from the floor of defendant’s
truck.
¶ 184 There also was conflicting testimony regarding the location of the holster
within defendant’s truck. Koenen, the first evidence technician to view the
truck, reported that the holster was underneath the front passenger seat. Despite
having knowledge that a shooting had occurred and having access to a camera,
Koenen did not photograph the holster. Two days later, Todd inexplicably
79
No. 1-15-0575
managed to open the locked truck and observed a plastic holster, along with a
pair of white women’s underwear, which were never mentioned by Koenen.
According to Todd and the photographs he took, the plastic holster and
underwear were located on the “hump” between the driver and passenger, near
the center console area. The holster was not underneath the front passenger seat
as reported by Koenen. Critically, the November 27, 2008, recovery of the
holster and shard-like objects in defendant’s truck would be inadmissible
evidence on retrial because Jose Fernandez’s consent to search was invalid
where the police knew at the time they obtained the consent that Jose lacked
authority to provide such consent and defendant had denied consent. See People
v. Bochniak, 93 Ill. App. 3d 575, 576-77 (1981) (“the authority which justifies
third-party consent rests on the mutual use of the property by persons generally
having joint access or control for most purposes”).
¶ 185 Finally, the evidence regarding the zipper recovered from the garage area
behind defendant’s apartment is contradictory and unexplained. Koenen
observed defendant’s truck at his address on November 26, 2008, but never
reported observing remnants of a burnt object or partial zipper. Furthermore,
police searched his car on November 27 and there is no mention of seeing any
burnt material then. It was not until November 29, 2008, that the police
observed “what appeared to be burnt clothing,” which included a partial zipper
80
No. 1-15-0575
and some plastic or cloth material. The photograph admitted into evidence fails
to depict whether the very small amount of burnt material is cloth or plastic.
That said, defendant was in custody beginning on November 26, 2008, thus,
there is no way to connect him to the burnt object recovered three days later.
¶ 186 In sum, I believe the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s
conviction.
81