People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 13 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 1–11–1116.,1–11–1116.
• Citation: People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (1st) 111116, 2 N.E.3d 552, 377 Ill.Dec. 636 (Ill. App. 2013)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Crandall WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

2013 IL App (1st) 111116

2 N.E.3d 552

377 Ill.Dec. 636

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Crandall WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 1–11–1116.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Dec. 13, 2013.

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, Katherine M. Donahoe, State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Peter D. Fisher, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice GORDONdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1DefendantCrandall Williams was convicted, after a bench trial, of (1) first degree murder, (2) home invasion and (3) armed robbery.After hearing factors in aggravation and mitigation, the trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of 80 years for first degree murder, 20 years for home invasion, and 20 years for armed robbery, for a total of 120 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections(IDOC).

¶ 2 On this direct appeal, defendant raises only one issue for our consideration.He argues that he was denied due process of law when the trial court based its finding of guilt at his bench trial on a mistaken recollection of the testimony of the defense's DNA expert.For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶ 3 I. Background

¶ 4 In the case at bar, someone broke into the home of 82–year–old Walter Pinianski, burglarized his house and stabbed him to death.The only issue at trial was the identity of the perpetrator.There were no eyewitnesses, and defendant was not arrested at the crime scene but rather three years later.

¶ 5The State's identification evidence consisted solely of: (1) DNA evidence; and (2) the testimony of a jailhouse informant.The DNA evidence was obtained from a pair of bloody gloves found inside the victim's home.The blood came only from the victim, but a swab of the inside of the gloves revealed a mixture of DNA material which was contributed by at least three different individuals.Thus, at least three different people had worn the gloves.

¶ 6 The DNA evidence was reviewed by two laboratories that did the original tests and generated the data and by two experts retained by each side to review the already-generated data and offer additional interpretations of it.The two laboratories were operated by the Illinois State Police and Bode Laboratories(Bode); and the two experts were Dr. Rick Staub of Cellmark Laboratory (Cellmark), for the State; and Dr. Karl Reich of Independent Forensics Laboratory, for the defense.Of these four laboratories—the Illinois State Police, Bode, Cellmark and Independent Forensics—only Dr. Staub of Cellmark concluded that defendant was a match.Dr. Staub disagreed with all the other laboratories, including the Illinois State Police.

¶ 7 Of the three laboratories engaged by the State, not one agreed with the other.All three—the Illinois State Police, Bode Laboratories, and Cellmark—interpreted the data differently and reached different conclusions about which alleles from the mixture could be attributed to the major contributor.Although acknowledging that he disagreed with the other experts, the State's expert, Dr. Staub of Cellmark, testified that he alone interpreted the data to identify the alleles belonging to the major contributor in such a way that they matched defendant's profile.Dr. Staub admitted that he had defendant's profile in his possession, as he was trying to determine the profile of the major contributor, and that he did not rely on mathematical calculations in determining which alleles belonged to the major contributor, although he admitted that “[g]enerally, there is a mathematical relationship.”However, on rebuttal, he testified that he made some calculations while the defense expert was testifying.

¶ 8 The defense expert, Dr. Karl Reich of Independent Forensics, explained why the mixture made an identification impossible and why all that could be concluded was that defendant could not be excluded as a possible contributor.

¶ 9 At the close of the bench trial, the trial court found that the testimony of James Worthem, the jailhouse informant, “must be viewed with extreme caution” and that it was merely “corroborati[ve][of the] other evidence.”No other witness placed defendant in the neighborhood where the offense occurred, and there was no statement by defendant to the police.However, relying primarily on the DNA evidence, the trial court found defendant guilty.In describing the DNA evidence, the trial court mistakenly stated: “regardless of all, Dr. Reich did, through laborious cross-examination, have to indicate that certainly it was still the defendant.”It is this mistake in recalling the testimony of defendant's sole witness that is at issue on appeal.

¶ 10 A. The State's Evidence

¶ 11The State's first witness was Patricia Pinianski, the victim's daughter.She testified that Walter lived at 12500 South Paulina Street in Calumet Park for 48 years.In 2005, Patricia's husband was suffering from brain cancer, and Patricia called Walter every couple of days to let him know how her husband was doing.On February 9, 2005, when Patricia was unable to reach her father, she called the Calumet Park police to request a wellness check.

¶ 12 Patricia testified that Walter's house was very neat and uncluttered.He kept a lot of cash in various places in the house, such as in an envelope in a closet above the doorway; in a compartment of an old desk in the living room; and in a drawer in his bedroom.

¶ 13The State's second witness, Angela Sanchez, testified that, on February 4, 2005, she worked as a bank teller at the Great Lakes Bank located at 13057 South Western Avenue in Blue Island.At 1:51 p.m. on that day, Walter Pinianski made a deposit of two checks totaling $1,660.99 into his account, and withdrew $800 in cash.

¶ 14The State's third witness was Judith Boyer, an assistant vice president of security at Great Lakes Bank, who identified a Great Lakes Bank savings deposit slip with Walter Pinianski's name on it.The automated stamp on the back of the slip indicated that the deposit was made on February 4, 2005, at 1:51 p.m., and that the bank teller who processed the transaction was Angela Sanchez, whose teller identification number was 718.The automated stamp was done in the ordinary course of business of Great Lakes Bank.

¶ 15The State's next witness was Judith Chapan, a 911 dispatch operator at the Calumet Park police department, who identified call records from February 6, 2005, that had been authored by her partner.¹The records documented 911 calls by Walter Pinianski, and indicated that Walter's first call was at 1:34 a.m. on February 6, 2005.The record of this call stated: “[a] male subject was knocking on the door asking for $5.00.Last seen walking southbound on Paulina from address.”Walter's next call was at 1:36 a.m. and concerned “a male subject banging on the door.”

¶ 16The State's next witness, John Shefcik, was a patrol officer at the Calumet Park police department in February 2005.On February 9, 2005, at 9:18 p.m., he was assigned to do a wellness check on Walter Pinianski at his residence.While Shefcik had been to Walter's residence to check on his well-being several times before, he had not been there that week.

¶ 17 Shefcik testified that Walter's house is a small brick ranch home on a pie-shaped double lot with a large yard which wraps around the house.There is no garage.To the north is an alley which also borders the Metra train tracks.To the east is Paulina Street.To the west, behind the house, is an alley, and then Page Street.Thus, the only neighbor is located to the south of Walter's house.

¶ 18 Shefcik further testified that, when he arrived at Walter's residence, it was snowing outside and the house was completely dark, which was unusual.Shefcik knocked on the front door, but received no response.He walked around the house and noticed that, on the north side of the house, the basement window had been broken.There were no footprints in the snow leading to the broken window and there was no broken glass in the yard.Shefcik returned to the front door and turned the doorknob, which was unlocked.When he had been to Walter's house on previous occasions, the door had always been locked, and Walter had opened the door for him.

¶ 19 Prior to entering the house, Shefcik called for backup.He did not enter the house until Sergeant Jones arrived, and they both entered together.Just inside the front door was a large living room with couches and a television set.Shefcik observed that the cushions from the couch were on the floor.After one walked through the living room, there was a small hallway with a bedroom to the immediate left and another bedroom to the immediate right.The kitchen was located in the back of the house.When Shefcik looked in the kitchen, he observed the victim, Walter Pinianski, lying on the kitchen floor.As Shefcik and Jones performed a protective sweep for possible offenders, Shefcik observed envelopes and papers strewn about Walter's bedroom.

¶ 20Illinois State TrooperJames Gainer testified that he was the crime scene investigator assigned to this case and that he arrived at 12500 South Paulina at 10:28 p.m. on February 9, 2005.He entered the residence through the front door and went into the living room area.The area looked ransacked, with couch cushions on the floor and papers strewn about.Gainer walked through the living room and the hallway and entered the kitchen, where he observed the victim, Walter Pinianski, lying on the floor in a pool of dried blood.Gainer then went downstairs to the basement and observed that the window on the north side of the basement had been broken.There were glass fragments on the floor below the window and in the laundry tub below the window.

¶ 21 Gainer photographed the scene and processed the scene for...