People v. Djurdjulov
2017 IL App (1st) 142258
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- January 31, 2009: a fire in a three‑story apartment killed two residents; gasoline was detected and debris tested for accelerants. No useful fingerprints or eyewitness tied defendant to the scene.
- Police questioned Jovan Djurdjulov multiple times (Jan 31, Feb 15, and a recorded March 10–12 interrogation after an unrelated arrest). Over ~36 hours in March, detectives repeatedly confronted and pressured him; he gave several inconsistent statements including versions that placed him at or near the fire.
- Prosecution introduced cell‑phone carrier records and FBI testimony (Raschke) estimating phone locations by tower usage; prosecution argued these placed defendant in the vicinity of the fire around the time it started.
- Defense sought court funds to retain a cell‑phone records expert; defendant testified he was indigent and the State presented no contradictory evidence, but the trial court denied the request because privately retained counsel had been paid by family.
- A jury convicted defendant of two counts of first‑degree murder; defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 45 years each (90 years total). Defendant appealed, arguing suppression of March statements, denial of expert fees, and that the sentence amounted to de facto life for a juvenile.
- Appellate court: upheld voluntariness of March statements but held trial court erred in denying expert‑fee funds to the indigent defendant; vacated convictions and remanded for a new trial (did not resolve sentencing issue).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Djurdjulov's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of March 10–12 statements (voluntariness) | Interrogation tactics were standard, no physical coercion, defendant understood Miranda; statements voluntary | Long detention, yelling, deception and death‑penalty references overbore his will; statements involuntary | Statements voluntary; trial court correctly admitted them |
| Denial of funds for defense cell‑phone expert | Court reasonably denied funds given private representation history and speculation family could pay; defendant failed to preserve the issue | Defendant was personally indigent, needed an expert to challenge critical cell‑tower evidence; denial violated right to fair trial | Trial court abused discretion by denying fees based on relatives’ ability to pay; error was constitutional and prejudicial — convictions vacated and remanded for new trial |
| Sufficiency / weight of cell‑phone evidence | Cell records corroborated other evidence; even without expert the evidence was not pivotal | Cell‑tower analysis was critical and complex; defense needed expert to prepare effective cross‑examination | Cell‑phone evidence was sufficiently critical that denial of expert funds prejudiced defendant; remand ordered |
| Sentencing: de facto life for juvenile (90 years) | (State) Sentence within statutory range and consecutive terms mandatory; individualized sentencing considered | 90 years is a de facto life sentence for a juvenile and Miller/Reyes require individualized consideration | Appellate majority declined to decide because convictions vacated; concurrence/dissent would remand for resentencing if convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent defendant is entitled to access to psychiatric experts when necessary for a fair trial)
- People v. Lawson, 163 Ill. 2d 187 (1994) (denial of funds for expert witnesses may violate constitutional protections)
- United States v. Durant, 545 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1976) (guideline that courts should authorize defense experts when a reasonable attorney would engage such services)
- People v. Melock, 149 Ill. 2d 423 (1992) (factors for voluntariness of confessions)
- People v. Patterson, 2014 IL 115102 (2014) (appellate review: defer to trial court factual findings on voluntariness; review voluntariness de novo)
- People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817 (2015) (constitutional issues raised at trial may be reviewed on direct appeal even if omitted from posttrial motion)