2026 IL 131360
Ill.
2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Carroll was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 65 years after a jury trial based largely on witness testimony and forensic evidence linking him to Woodward’s disappearance and death. 1
  • The State’s evidence included Carroll’s palm and fingerprint on Woodward’s truck, eyewitnesses placing a man and a gray Malibu at the scene, and Nathan Carroll’s detailed account of the killing and disposal of Woodward’s remains. 2
  • Police also recovered 27 thermally altered bone fragments from a burn site on Carroll’s property, plus a cartridge and projectile fired from Carroll’s Stoeger Cougar handgun. 3
  • On direct appeal, Carroll’s ineffective-assistance claims were rejected and his conviction was affirmed. 4
  • Carroll later filed a second-stage postconviction petition asserting seven ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, supported by affidavits and other materials outside the trial record. 5
  • The circuit court dismissed the petition as forfeited in part and meritless in part, and the appellate court affirmed on forfeiture and merits grounds before review in the supreme court. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Were Carroll’s ineffective-assistance claims forfeited? 7 Carroll argued the claims depended on evidence outside the trial record. The State argued the claims could have been raised on direct appeal. No forfeiture; the claims relied on matters outside the record. 8
Did counsel ineffectively fail to move to suppress the September 2010 interview? 9 Carroll said counsel should have challenged the interview. The State said the interview was exculpatory and suppression would not help. No Strickland violation; no deficiency or prejudice. 10
Did counsel ineffectively fail to seek radiocarbon testing of bone fragments? 11 Carroll argued testing could show the fragments predated Woodward’s disappearance. The State said the testing was limited and not outcome-determinative. No prejudice; claim failed on the merits. 12
Did the remaining five ineffectiveness claims warrant relief? 13 Carroll challenged witness, DNA, venue, fingerprint, and smoking-related omissions. The State argued none showed a reasonable probability of a different result. All five claims failed under Strickland. 14
Did postconviction counsel provide unreasonable assistance? 15 Carroll claimed counsel mishandled the petition and the response to dismissal. The State argued counsel reasonably presented the claims. No; postconviction counsel provided reasonable assistance. 16

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Williams, 2025 IL 129718 (Ill. 2025) (postconviction dismissal standard and third-stage framework 17)
  • People v. English, 2013 IL 112890 (Ill. 2013) (claims not raised on direct appeal are forfeited absent an unavailable record basis 18)
  • People v. Wrencher, 2015 IL App (4th) 130522 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (no forfeiture when the record did not allow the claim on direct appeal 19)
  • People v. Veach, 2017 IL 120649 (Ill. 2017) (postconviction claims based on nonrecord facts are not forfeited 20)
  • People v. Newbolds, 364 Ill. App. 3d 672 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (forfeiture turns on record availability, not practical knowledge 21)
  • People v. Tate, 2012 IL 112214 (Ill. 2012) (ineffective-assistance claims may rely on proof outside the record 22)
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governing deficient-performance and prejudice standard 23)
  • People v. Logan, 2024 IL 129054 (Ill. 2024) (Strickland formulation reiterated 24)
  • People v. Metcalfe, 202 Ill. 2d 544 (Ill. 2002) (strong presumption of reasonable trial strategy 25)
  • People v. Webb, 2023 IL 128957 (Ill. 2023) (decision whether to file suppression motion is usually strategic 26)
  • Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (no constitutional right to postconviction counsel 27)
  • People v. Agee, 2023 IL 128413 (Ill. 2023) (reasonable assistance standard for postconviction counsel 28)
  • People v. Cotto, 2016 IL 119006 (Ill. 2016) (postconviction counsel must provide reasonable assistance 29)
  • People v. Turner, 187 Ill. 2d 406 (Ill. 1999) (reasonable assistance requirement under the Act 30)
  • People v. Perkins, 229 Ill. 2d 34 (Ill. 2007) (unsuccessful petition alone does not show unreasonable assistance 31)
  • People v. Reed, 2025 IL 130595 (Ill. 2025) (judicial estoppel elements 32)
  • People v. Hernandez, 2016 IL 118672 (Ill. 2016) (judicial estoppel is discretionary equitable doctrine 33)
  • People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (Ill. 2006) (continuation of same proceedings for judicial-estoppel purposes 34)
Read the full case