People v. Patterson

Decision Date10 August 2000
Docket NumberNo. 82711.,82711.
Citation192 Ill.2d 93,735 N.E.2d 616,249 Ill.Dec. 12
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Aaron PATTERSON, Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

G. Flint Taylor, Jr., Timothy R. Lohraff and Joey L. Mogul, of the People's Law Office, of Chicago, and Abigail S. Clough, law student, for appellant.

James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard A. Devine, State's Attorney, of Chicago (William L. Browers, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, and Renee Goldfarb and Carol L. Gaines, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Justice RATHJE delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Aaron Patterson, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his post-conviction petition. Because defendant was sentenced to death for the underlying murder conviction, he appeals directly to this court. See 134 Ill.2d R. 651(a).

BACKGROUND
Procedural Background

A jury in the circuit court of Cook County convicted defendant of the murders of Vincent and Rafaela Sanchez. Subsequently, the jury found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude a sentence of death, and the trial court sentenced defendant to death. Defendant appealed, and we affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence. People v. Patterson, 154 Ill.2d 414, 182 Ill.Dec. 592, 610 N.E.2d 16 (1992). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari. Patterson v. Illinois, 510 U.S. 879, 114 S.Ct. 219, 126 L.Ed.2d 175 (1993).

Thereafter, defendant filed a timely post-conviction petition. The State moved to dismiss the petition, and the trial court granted the State's motion. Defendant now appeals, arguing first that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to (a) discover and present additional evidence to support defendant's claim that his confession was coerced; (b) discover and present evidence to support defendant's motion to reopen his motion to suppress; (c) present evidence at trial that defendant's confession was coerced; (d) present, during the post-trial proceedings, new evidence relating to defendant's allegations of torture; (e) supplement the record on direct appeal or seek a remand; (f) interview witnesses who could have provided exculpatory testimony; (g) cross-examine witnesses properly; (h) seek to remove for cause the judge who presided over the pretrial proceedings; (i) argue that the trial court did not ask the proper questions during voir dire; (j) object to the use of residential burglary as an eligibility and aggravating factor; and (k) object to the trial court's praise of the jury. In addition, defendant argues that (1) new evidence demonstrates that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements; (2) the State knowingly used perjured testimony; (3) he was denied his right to a fair trial when a police officer volunteered that defendant had taken a polygraph; and (4) the State violated its duties under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to tender the results of fingerprint examinations.

Pretrial Proceedings

In May 1986, defendant and Eric Caine were indicted for the Sanchez murders. Their case originally was assigned to Judge James Bailey. Defendant sought a substitution of judge. Rather than randomly assigning a new judge, Judge Bailey assigned the case to Judge Arthur Cieslik. Defendant moved to vacate the assignment to Judge Cieslik, and that motion was denied. Subsequently, defendant sought leave to file a writ of mandamus ordering that the case be assigned randomly. This court denied defendant's motion.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to suppress statements that he had made while in police custody. After a hearing, the trial court denied that motion. Defendant's attorney then filed a renewed motion to suppress statements or to reopen the evidence. The crux of defendant's argument in his motions was that, to obtain defendant's confession, the police officers struck him, attempted to suffocate him, and threatened him with a gun. The trial court, Judge John Morrissey1 presiding, denied that motion. Thereafter, defendant and Caine were simultaneously tried before separate juries.

Defendant's Trial

The evidence at defendant's trial established that, on April 19, 1986, Chicago police officers discovered the victims' badly decomposed bodies in the Sanchez home. The police were called when Wayne Washington, a teenager who routinely performed odd jobs for Vincent, discovered that the Sanchezes' door was open and that there was blood on the floor. Washington told the police that he had seen Caine and DeEdward White across from the Sanchez house.

The police took White into custody to question him about the Sanchez murders. Subsequently, Marva Hall, White's 16-year-old cousin, told the police that defendant had offered to sell her a chain saw and a shotgun. Defendant claimed that he had obtained the items from two elderly Mexicans that he had stabbed to death. Under cross-examination, Hall admitted that she had told a defense investigator that defendant had not told her that he had committed the murders. She explained, however, that she told the investigator this only because she was scared of defendant.

Several days after Hall spoke with the police, defendant was arrested on an unrelated charge. Detective James Pienta testified that, when he learned that defendant had been arrested, he questioned him about the Sanchez murders. Defendant told Pienta that Caine had approached defendant and said that he needed guns. Defendant and Caine knew that the Sanchezes had guns. They reached the house by traveling down the Illinois Central railroad tracks. Once at the house, defendant waited in the garage while Caine entered the house. Shortly thereafter, Caine came running out with a shotgun in a duffle bag, and the two fled.

When Pienta asked defendant to elaborate, defendant added that he had entered the Sanchez house and "came up like—up like a straight up Ninja" and "shanked" the "old man" because he was taking too much time to get the "good stuff." Rafaela began screaming so defendant "shanked" her too. Thereafter, defendant repeated the same story to Pienta and Assistant State's Attorney Kip Owen. At this time, defendant also stated that he had thrown the knife away on the railroad tracks. Although the police searched the railroad tracks for the knife, they never discovered it.

Former Assistant State's Attorney Peter Troy testified that defendant told him that Caine, Michael Arbuckle, "Cochise," "Rambo," and defendant went on a "mission" to the Sanchez home to retrieve guns and drugs. The remainder of defendant's statement to Troy was consistent with his original statement to Pienta. Troy reduced this statement to writing, but defendant refused to sign it.

An assistant medical examiner testified that both victims died of stab wounds and that both had defense wounds. An expert in fingerprint identification testified that both a palmprint and a fingerprint recovered from the scene belonged to Vincent. A second fingerprint, recovered from a tape recorder, did not belong to Vincent, Rafaela, Wayne Washington, Willie Washington, Arbuckle, Caine, or defendant.

Detective William Marley testified for defendant that, after hearing defendant's statement, Owen wanted the police to perform additional investigation before he would authorize the filing charges against defendant. Carlton Ford testified that he, Steve Weathersby, and defendant were driving around in late April 1986, trying to sell a saw Weathersby owned. Ford testified that they saw Hall that day and asked her if she knew anyone who would want the saw. Ford also testified that there were no guns in the car. Defendant's former girlfriend testified that she was with defendant on the night of April 17, the night that the State contends that the Sanchezes were murdered.

Post-Conviction Proceedings

This court affirmed defendant's sentence and conviction on direct appeal. Defendant then filed a post-conviction petition, relying largely on evidence that numerous other people had made allegations similar to defendant's about police brutality at Area 2. In particular, defendant relied on a report from the police department's office of professional standards (OPS). This report found that the abuse of prisoners at Area 2 was systemic. After allowing defendant to amend his petition, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss. In dismissing the petition, the trial court stated that "any nexus between Area 2 Chicago Police Department Headquarters' alleged systemic torture of people and Aaron Patterson is highly tenuous at best." Defendant subsequently appealed.

ANALYSIS
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Defendant first raises several arguments as to how he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must allege facts demonstrating that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068-69, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693, 698 (1984). A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test; thus the failure to satisfy either prong precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Shaw, 186 Ill.2d 301, 332, 239 Ill.Dec. 311, 713 N.E.2d 1161 (1998). Because the trial court dismissed defendant's petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, we review that dismissal de novo. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366, 388, 233 Ill.Dec. 789, 701 N.E.2d 1063 (1998)

.

Failure to Discover and Present Evidence to Support Defendant's Claim of Torture

Defendant, who was represented by several different attorneys before his trial, asserts that each of these attorneys,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
386 cases
  • Smith v. Burge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • November 28, 2016
    ......Illinois, Eastern Division. Signed November 28, 2016 222 F.Supp.3d 674 G. Flint Taylor, Jr., Joey L. Mogul, Benjamin H. Elson, People's Law Offices, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Andrew M. Hale, Amy A. Hijjawi, Avi T. Kamionski, Jennifer Bitoy, Shneur Z. Nathan, Hale Law LLC, Chicago, ... regarding what transpired outside the interrogation room, or preclude the Court from finding the existence of a Brady violation."); Patterson v. Burge, 328 F.Supp.2d 878, 889 (N.D. Ill. 2004) ("in addition to charging defendants with hiding the fact that his confession was coerced and ......
  • United States ex rel. Hooper v. Ryan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • April 12, 2012
    ...... See People v. Hooper, 118 Ill.2d 244, 107 Ill.Dec. 250, 506 N.E.2d 1305 (1987). Hooper asked the Illinois Supreme Court to remand to a different judge, arguing ...Patterson, 192 Ill.2d 93, 249 Ill.Dec. 12, 735 N.E.2d 616, 642 (2000). To trigger the exception, the new evidence must be “of such conclusive character that ......
  • Tempest v. State
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • July 13, 2015
    ...basis for an applicant's subsequent application for relief" despite the otherwise applicable bar of res judicata); People v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616, 642 (Ill. 2000) (holding that "in the interests of fundamental fairness, the doctrine of res judicata can be relaxed if the defendant prese......
  • Tempest v. State
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • July 13, 2015
    ...basis for an applicant's subsequent application for relief" despite the otherwise applicable bar of res judicata); People v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616, 642 (Ill. 2000) (holding that "in the interests of fundamental fairness, the doctrine of res judicata can be relaxed if the defendant prese......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Innocence Checklist
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...1997); United States v. Slatten, 865 F.3d 767, 790 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Wyatt v. State, 78 So. 3d 512, 524 (Fla. 2011); State v. Patterson, 735 N.E.2d 616, 124 (Ill. 2000); State v. McKinney, 33 P.3d 234 (Kan. 2001), overruled by State v. Davis, 158 P.3d 317 (Kan. 2007) (overruling McKinney on......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...NE2d 1 (2009), §§1:270, 1:290, 8:30, 9:110 People v. Patterson , 154 Ill 2d 414, 610 NE2d 16 (1992), §§5:40, 5:50 People v. Patterson , 192 Ill 2d 93, 735 NE2d 616 (2000), §5:40 People v. Patterson , 217 Ill 2d 407, 841 NE2d 889 (2005), §§1:80, 6:70 People v. Patterson , 347 Ill App 3d 1044......
  • Confusing, Prejudicial & Bolstering
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Objections
    • May 1, 2013
    ...For exceptions to the hearsay rule, see Ch. 6, Hearsay. §5:50 Bolstering: Enhancing Witness’ Credibility CASES People v. Patterson , 192 Ill 2d 93, 735 NE2d 616 (2000). Defendant’s claim that his attorney was ineffective for failure to introduce evidence prepared by attorneys in an unrelate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT