Galloway v. Lashbrook
| Docket Number | 18 C 2723 |
| Decision Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Parties | Terrence Galloway, (R22244), Petitioner, v. Jacqueline Lashbrook, Warden, Menard Correctional Center,[1] Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Petitioner Terrence Galloway, an inmate at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this pro se habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated battery with a firearm convictions from the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Court denies the petition on the merits and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
The Court draws the following factual history from the state court record (Dkt. 65, 73-1) and state appellate court opinion, Illinois v. Galloway, 2014 IL App (1st) 122942-U (“Direct Appeal”). State court factual findings, including facts set forth in a state court appellate opinion, have a presumption of correctness, and Petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(1); Tharpe v. Sellers 138 S.Ct. 545, 546 (2018); Hartsfield v. Dorethy 949 F.3d 307, 309 n.1 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Petitioner has not made such a showing.
The victim, Stacy Adams, was shot and killed on the evening of October 9, 2009, while standing in the 700 block of North Harding Avenue in Chicago's Garfield Park neighborhood. Direct Appeal, 2014 IL App (1st) 122942-U, ¶ 4. He was with Randall Knox and David Etheridge immediately before the shooting. Id. at ¶ 16. Both Knox and Etheridge, who was also shot but survived the incident testified for the prosecution at trial. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 19.
Both men related that at approximately 8:30 p.m. on the evening of the murder, they were hanging out with the victim when two men approached their group. Id. They recognized one of the approaching individuals as a man named “Q,” but they did not know the second person. Id. Both Knox and Etheridge subsequently identified Petitioner as the second man with Q. Id. Knox identified Petitioner via a subsequent police photo array and during his in-court testimony at trial, id. at ¶ 16, while Etheridge identified Petitioner in both a police lineup and his in-court trial testimony. Id. at ¶ 20; (Dkt. 65-14, pg. 104.).
Knox and Etheridge explained that Petitioner was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and had his hands in his pockets as he and Q approached. Direct Appeal, 2014 IL App (1st) 122942-U, ¶¶ 16, 19. Seeing the oncoming men, Knox began retreating and was standing in the street about twelve feet away when Petitioner and Q confronted the victim and Etheridge. Id. at ¶ 16. He saw Petitioner pull out a gun. Id. At this point, Knox turned and ran. Id. Knox estimated he was 20 steps away from the group when he heard gunshots. Id. He stopped running when he reached the parking lot at Orr High School approximately one block from the shooting. Id. Knox witnessed the police arrest Petitioner outside the high school immediately after the shooting. Id.
Knox conceded at trial that he did not immediately speak to the police about the shooting, and did so only after he was arrested on an unrelated matter a month later. Id. at ¶ 17. He was on probation for a narcotics conviction at the time of the arrest, and those charges were later dropped. Id.
As for Etheridge, he testified that he remained standing next to the victim as Petitioner and Q approached. Petitioner and Q were approximately three feet from Etheridge and the victim when Petitioner said “what's up” to the victim. Id. at 99. The victim did not respond, but Etheridge testified that he said, “nigger, what's up” to Petitioner and Q. Id. at 100. Etheridge witnessed Petitioner pull out a gun and saw a flash as the gun was discharged. Direct Appeal, 2014 IL App (1st) 122942-U, ¶ 19. He fled and eventually realized he had been shot in the shoulder. Id. at 20.
Etheridge ran home and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. Id. He lied to the paramedics about the circumstances of his injury. Id. When the police interviewed Etheridge at the hospital, however, they told him that the victim had been killed, prompting Etheridge to tell the police about the shooting. Id. He explained that he initially lied because he was frightened and did not know if anyone else was injured. Id. After receiving treatment for his injuries, Etheridge went to the police station where he explained what happened and identified Petitioner in a lineup as the shooter. Id.
In terms of impeaching Etheridge, the jury heard that the Cook County State's Attorney paid for his meals and hotel room on the weekend prior to his court testimony. Id. at ¶ 22. He also acknowledged that he had a pending DUI felony case at the time of his testimony, and that he had two prior felony convictions. Id. The defense also brought out that Etheridge had testified before the grand jury that he had gone to a liquor store alone prior to the shooting, but at trial he said others had gone with him. Id. His grand jury testimony also implied that he may have started running before any shots were fired, but he stated unequivocally at trial that he was shot and then he ran. Id.
A third eyewitness, Xavier Miller, also testified for the prosecution. Id. at ¶ 18. Miller's mother had been the victim's foster mother and the two men had known each other for seven or eight years before the shooting. Id. Miller was at a friend's home on the block where the shooting occurred that evening. Id. He was standing at a third-floor window overlooking the street when he heard a commotion and voices getting louder on the street. Id. Miller then heard three gunshots. Id. He witnessed three men then run off, two going south and the other going north on the street. Id. Miller did not see the faces of the men running or a gun, but he did see the victim fall to the street. Id. He went down the home's stairs but did not move quickly due to a gunshot wound to his foot from a prior unrelated incident. Id. Upon exiting the building, Miller saw Petitioner wearing a black hooded sweatshirt running through a vacant lot towards Orr High School with a black object in his hand. Id. Miller also saw Petitioner in the back of a police car later that evening. Id. He both identified Petitioner in a police station lineup and during his in-court testimony. Id.; (Dkt. 65-14, pg. 77.) Miller conceded during his testimony that he had five prior felony convictions. Direct Appeal, 2014 IL App (1st) 122942-U, ¶ 18.
At the time of the shooting, Chicago police officers Bottom, O'Brien, and Stanula were conducting an unrelated traffic stop one block away from the location of the shooting. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 23. Officers O'Brien and Stanula testified regarding their arrest of Petitioner. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9, 23. The officers explained they heard three loud gunshots and Officers O'Brien and Stanula got into their squad car and headed in the direction of the shots. When they saw two men in hooded sweatshirts run by, Stanula jumped out of the car and followed them on foot. Dkt. 65-15 at 8-10; Direct Appeal at ¶¶ 7, 9, 23. O'Brien continued in the direction of the shots and saw Petitioner, wearing black jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt, running out of an alley. Direct Appeal at ¶¶ 7, 23. Petitioner got into the driver's seat of a parked minivan, and Officer O'Brien responded by pulling his marked police car “nose to nose” with the van. Id. Officer O'Brien was able to look directly into the minivan and observed that Petitioner had a goatee. Id. O'Brien got out of the squad car with his weapon drawn, identifying himself as a police officer and instructing Petitioner to show his hands. Id. Petitioner then jumped out of the van and fled on foot. Id. Officer O'Brien gave chase and sent a radio flash message describing Petitioner's appearance. Id. He believed Petitioner was armed as he clasped the right side of his waist as he ran. Id.
Upon hearing the flash message, Officer Stanula terminated his pursuit and went to assist Officer O'Brien. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 23. Officer Stanula came upon Officer O'Brien, who had lost track of Petitioner and informed Officer Stanula of the direction of Petitioner's flight. Id. Officer Stanula came upon Petitioner walking on the street. Id. He stated “stop, police,” to which Petitioner began fleeing through an empty lot. Id. Officer Stanula gave chase again. Id. While Officer Stanula was approximately 10 to 15 feet behind Petitioner during the chase, Petitioner took a firearm from his waistband and threw the gun up over a fence as he continued to run. Id. Officer Stanula eventually caught up to Petitioner outside of Orr High School and arrested him. Id. Petitioner had thrown the gun over a locked fence at a ComEd power facility. Id. at ¶ 23. Other police officers were eventually able to access the facility and recovered the gun. Id.
Subsequent forensic testing matched bullet fragments taken from the victim's body during an autopsy to the firearm recovered at the ComEd facility. Id. at ¶ 26. Gunshot residue was found on the right cuff of Petitioner's sweatshirt, but no residue was found on Petitioner's hands. Id. An expert explained that residue can be removed from a person's hands via activity. Id. A small amount of DNA was located on the recovered firearm. Id. at ¶ 25. The DNA contained samples from at least two, and potentially up to four, individuals. Id. at 26. The forensic scientist who compared Petitioner's DNA to the DNA on the gun testified that Petitioner's DNA could not be excluded from the DNA mixture on the gun. But, she also could not exclude one in every four African Americans, one in every eight Caucasians and one in every...
To continue reading
Request your trial