People v. Banks
2016 IL App (1st) 131009
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- 1990: Double homicide and arson at a Chicago basement apartment; 12-year-old T.C. survived a sexual assault and identified details of her attacker; two victims died by homicidal violence before fire.
- DNA extracted from T.C.’s 1990 rape kit was tested in 1993 and reexamined from preserved extracts in 2005; a CODIS “cold hit” identified David Banks and a confirmatory buccal swab matched at 9 STR loci.
- Banks was arrested in 2005, tried in 2013, convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and arson, and sentenced to consecutive natural life terms plus prison for arson.
- Pretrial disputes included requests for a Frye hearing on the 2005 DNA methodology, a motion to exclude DNA after an analyst inadvertently spilled part of a sample, a motion for DNA database searches, and challenges to chain‑of‑custody foundation for the extracts.
- At trial the State presented DNA testimony, T.C.’s assault testimony, Banks’s inculpatory oral statements to police/ASA (including claims of “blackouts” and others inside him), prior‑crime evidence (1984 sexual assault admitted for propensity; 1990 murder conviction admitted for impeachment), and the jury received IPI limiting instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility — chain of custody for DNA extracts | State: testimony established a sufficiently complete chain from original analyst to later analyst; missing links go to weight not admissibility | Banks: inconsistency between Benzinger’s filter‑paper preservations and Anderson’s receipt of tubes created a complete breakdown requiring exclusion | Court: No abuse of discretion; foundation sufficient, no evidence of tampering; any deficiencies go to weight; issue forfeited but not plain error. |
| Frye hearing for later testing methodology | State: STR/DNA methods generally accepted; Frye only for novel techniques | Banks: Anderson used new blanks/controls after originals lost; FBI standards changed and a Frye hearing was required | Court: No Frye hearing required; technique was not novel; defense forfeited the issue and, even on plain error review, no showing of error. |
| Spilled DNA / failure to preserve potentially exculpatory material | State: spill was inadvertent; defendant must show bad faith under Youngblood to obtain relief | Banks: spillage prevented Co‑Filer (additional 4 loci) results; absence of those loci could have exculpated him | Court: Denial of exclusion proper; under Youngblood defendant needed to show bad faith and failed to do so; spill was accidental and not materially exculpatory. |
| Cross‑examination limits re: 9‑loci database studies | State: expert was not familiar with specific trawling studies so their contents were inadmissible through her | Banks: needed to impeach rarity statistics by probing published database trawls (Arizona/Illinois/Maryland) | Court: No abuse of discretion; court allowed foundational questions about awareness (defense declined to ask); Wright distinguishable; limits went to scope and weight. |
| Use of prior crimes and jury instructions / impeachment | State: introduced 1984 sexual assault for propensity and 1990 conviction for impeachment; gave IPI limiting instructions | Banks: jury instructions failed to identify offenses and risked misuse of prior record; counsel ineffective for not tendering tailored instructions | Court: IPI instructions accurately stated law and were repeatedly limited; jurors presumed to follow instructions; no ineffective assistance shown. |
| Invocation of rights revealed at trial (Doyle claim) | Banks: testimony that questioning ceased when he asked for counsel impermissibly penalized exercise of right to counsel/silence | State: testimony explained why statements weren’t memorialized and was not used to prove guilt | Court: No Doyle violation; defendant made post‑Miranda oral statements and then asked for counsel; limited references were explanatory and not used to argue guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (test for general acceptance of novel scientific techniques)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due‑process claim for lost/preserved evidence requires showing of bad faith)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (chain‑of‑custody challenges generally forfeited unless complete breakdown)
- People v. Miller, 173 Ill. 2d 167 (1996) (approval of product‑rule methodology for DNA frequency calculations)
- People v. Alsup, 241 Ill. 2d 266 (2011) (chain‑of‑custody standard and when missing links go to admissibility vs weight)