People v. Del Prete
92 N.E.3d 435
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Jennifer Del Prete (day‑care provider) was tried and convicted after a bench trial for first‑degree murder based on medical experts’ testimony that infant I.Z. suffered abusive head trauma/"shaken baby" injuries on December 27, 2002. Del Prete received 20 years’ imprisonment.
- The State’s case relied heavily on Dr. Emalee Flaherty’s pediatric/child‑abuse expert testimony that the injuries were immediate and caused by violent shaking, placing the perpetrator as the adult present when collapse occurred. No confession or eyewitness linked Del Prete to intentional, violent shaking.
- Defense experts (Drs. Tucker and cross‑examination) presented alternative timing/mechanism theories (chronic subdural rebleed, delayed collapse) that could undermine immediacy and attribution to the sitter.
- Years after trial a letter (the "Kroll letter") written by lead detective Kenneth Kroll dated November 10, 2003 (not produced at trial) surfaced via FOIA. It reported that Dr. Jeff Harkey (the pathologist who performed the autopsy) had questioned the SBS diagnosis and had testified for defendants in other SBS cases.
- Del Prete filed a successive postconviction petition alleging a Brady violation for nondisclosure of the Kroll letter; evidentiary hearings produced Harkey testimony (at habeas and the postconviction hearing) that he disagreed with the reliability of SBS/AHT attributions and that injuries attributed to shaking could also be from blunt trauma or chronic subdural rebleed. Trial counsel (Bretz) testified he would have pursued Harkey and used this information if disclosed.
- The circuit court granted relief and ordered a new trial; the State appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the undisclosed material was favorable, suppressed, and material under Brady because it could have led to admissible impeachment evidence that undermined confidence in the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Del Prete) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of Kroll letter violated Brady | Letter was immaterial; any effect would not change outcome because other medical witnesses supported abuse finding | Letter was favorable and its lead would have produced Harkey’s admissible impeachment evidence contradicting State expert and undermining verdict | Affirmed for defendant: nondisclosure met Brady (favorable, suppressed, material) |
| Whether inadmissible hearsay (Kroll letter) can be Brady‑material because it would lead to admissible evidence | Withheld inadmissible leads cannot show materiality unless they point to admissible evidence; here other testimony already showed abuse | Even if letter contained hearsay, it would have led defense to interview Harkey and obtain admissible testimony undermining State’s theory | Held for defendant: inadmissible statement can be material if it reasonably leads to discoverable admissible evidence (here it did) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56 (explains Brady three‑part test)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (materiality standard: evidence that could put whole case in different light)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Brady materiality: undermining confidence in verdict)
- People v. Olinger, 112 Ill. 2d 324 (inadmissible evidence and its inability to affect outcome absent connection to admissible evidence)
- United States v. Morales, 746 F.3d 310 (Seventh Circuit: inadmissible evidence may be material if it would lead to admissible exculpatory evidence)