Albanese v. McGinnis
| Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 90 C 1556.,90 C 1556. |
| Citation | Albanese v. McGinnis, 823 F.Supp. 521 (N.D. Ill. 1993) |
| Parties | Charles ALBANESE, Petitioner, v. Kenneth McGINNIS, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections; and James Greer, Warden, Menard Correctional Center, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. Steven Beckett, Beckett, Crewell & Kelso, P.C., Urbana, IL, for plaintiff.
Terence Madsen, Illinois Atty. General's Office, Chicago, IL, for defendants.
Bruce H. Bornstein, Alan Michael Freedman, Freedman & Bornstein, Chicago, IL, for Andrew Kokoraleis, amicus.
Petitioner Charles Albanese was convicted in separate trials of the murders of his father, mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, and the attempted murder of his brother. He was sentenced to death in both proceedings. Albanese seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254") and asks this court to review the constitutionality of his convictions and sentences. For the reasons stated below, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.
In May 1982 Petitioner Albanese was convicted of the murders of Mary Lambert, his wife's grandmother, and M.J. Albanese, his father, as well as the attempted murder of his brother Michael Albanese, all by arsenic poisoning.1 At the request of Albanese, the May 1982 trial was transferred from McHenry County, where the indictment was outstanding, to McLean County. The McLean County jury sentenced Albanese to death.2 On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, People v. Albanese, 102 Ill.2d 54, 79 Ill.Dec. 608, 464 N.E.2d 206 (1984) (hereinafter "Albanese I"). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Albanese v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 268, 83 L.Ed.2d 205 (1984).
In October 1982 Albanese was convicted in Lake County of the murder of his mother-in-law, Marion Mueller. Petitioner waived a jury for sentencing, and the trial judge imposed the death sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, People v. Albanese, 104 Ill.2d 504, 85 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 N.E.2d 1246 (1984) (hereinafter "Albanese II"), and certiorari was denied, Albanese v. Illinois, 471 U.S. 1044, 105 S.Ct. 2061, 85 L.Ed.2d 335 (1985).
Albanese filed separate post conviction petitions attacking the constitutional validity of his convictions and death sentences in McHenry and Lake Counties. The McHenry County petition was denied after a three-day evidentiary hearing held in May 1986. The Lake County petition was denied without a hearing. Both denials were appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial of post conviction relief after consolidating the appeals due to the similarity of issues presented. People v. Albanese, 125 Ill.2d 100, 125 Ill.Dec. 838, 531 N.E.2d 17 (1988) (hereinafter "Albanese III"). Once again, certiorari was denied, Albanese v. Illinois, 490 U.S. 1075, 109 S.Ct. 2088, 104 L.Ed.2d 652 (1989). Petitioner now seeks federal habeas relief from the McHenry and Lake County convictions and sentences.3 Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "State") concede that Albanese has exhausted his state remedies and have moved that the court deny the Petition.
Under § 2254(d) factual findings by a state court "are presumed to be proper in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, if the findings are made after a hearing on the merits, and they are fairly supported by the record." Wilson v. McCaughtry, 994 F.2d 1228, 1230 (7th Cir.1993). Factual findings made by a state appellate court are accorded the same statutory presumption of correctness as findings made by a state trial court. Lewis v. Huch, 964 F.2d 670, 671 (7th Cir.1992).
The following facts are taken from the Illinois Supreme Court's opinion in Albanese I (McHenry County). Additional facts from this court's review of the trial transcripts have been added in brackets ({}).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dell v. Straub
...any testimony to establish that an expert witness could have been obtained to testify favorably for him. See Albanese v. McGinnis, 823 F.Supp. 521, 537 (N.D.Ill.1993). Petitioner also claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call a fingerprint expert to pursue the theory that ......
-
Coy v. Renico
...Spencer v. Murray, 18 F.3d 237, 239 (4th Cir.1994); Arnold v. Wyrick, 646 F.2d 1225, 1228 (8th Cir.1981); Albanese v. McGinnis, 823 F.Supp. 521, 553 (N.D.Ill. 1993). 2. The Davis/Frye Before addressing the factual and legal issues surrounding petitioner's claim, it is appropriate to describ......
-
Kowalak v. Scutt, Case No. 01-cv-40009.
...Spencer v. Murray, 18 F.3d 237, 239 (4th Cir.1994); Arnold v. Wyrick, 646 F.2d 1225, 1228 (8th Cir.1981); Albanese v. McGinnis, 823 F.Supp. 521, 553 (N.D.Ill.1993). As noted above, the question is not whether the admission of this evidence was improper under the rules governing scientific e......
-
Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors of State Univ. Sys.
...enough to ensnare nearly any message" and lacked "a sufficiently definite standard ... to exercise discretion"); Albanese v. McGinnis, 823 F. Supp. 521, 563 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ("Triple negatives are not conducive to comprehension."). It is unclear what is prohibited and even less clear what i......