People v. Fountain
62 N.E.3d 1107
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Timothy Fountain was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder and one count of armed robbery for an August 4, 2005 double-homicide at Maggy’s Food Store; sentenced to natural life plus 30 years concurrent. Appeal followed.
- Key evidence: (1) store surveillance video showing a gunman, (2) eyewitness identification by Brandon Grzesiak (saw a man at a nearby bus stop and on the tape), (3) partial male DNA profile from victim Guerrero’s fingernail clippings that state analysts concluded could not exclude Fountain, and (4) historical cell‑site analysis placing Fountain’s phone in the general area around the time of the crimes.
- Disputed DNA: original Cellmark and ISP analyses (2006–2007) and amended ISP analyses (2012) differed in interpretation at multiple loci, producing varying possible allele calls and statistical frequencies; defense expert Dr. Muller criticized the State’s interpretations.
- Procedural dispute immediately before trial: the State disclosed revised ISP DNA reports days before trial (October 2012); defense requested a continuance to analyze the new reports (asked for one day in court, argued for a longer continuance on appeal).
- Trial rulings at issue on appeal: court denied a Frye hearing for cell‑site analysis, allowed FBI agent Raschke to testify about historical cell‑site analysis, struck but did not grant a mistrial for a witness’s comment about running "criminal histories," and overruled objections to portions of the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Fountain) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial continuance after late disclosure of revised DNA reports | Trial court properly exercised discretion; one‑day continuance was granted and defense had time before experts testified | New DNA reports days before trial were complex and required a meaningful continuance (more than one day) to avoid prejudice | No abuse of discretion; one‑day continuance adequate and defense was not shown to be prejudiced |
| Ineffective assistance for not seeking exclusion of DNA or a database search | Counsel reasonably used cross‑examination and a defense expert to attack DNA; strategy immune from Strickland attack | Counsel should have moved to exclude inconclusive partial DNA and sought database search to assess prevalence of 8‑loci matches | No ineffective assistance; counsel’s approach was reasonable trial strategy and defendant failed to show prejudice |
| Frye hearing and admissibility/foundation of historical cell‑site analysis | Cell‑site mapping is not novel under Frye and is widely accepted; Raschke provided sufficient methodology and foundation | Historical cell‑site analysis is novel and required a Frye hearing; Raschke lacked foundation to localize the phone (no tower‑reach or confirmatory testing) | No Frye hearing required; cell‑site analysis not novel and Raschke’s testimony had sufficient foundation for admissibility (weight for jury) |
| Witness comment about searching "criminal histories" and prosecutor rebuttal comments | Any improper remark was promptly stricken; rebuttal responded to defense’s attack on credibility and did not shift burden | Detective’s comment implied prior bad acts; rebuttal improperly suggested defendant must disprove a massive conspiracy to acquit | Struck testimony was harmless given prompt curative action and substantial evidence; prosecutor’s rebuttal was invited by defense and not improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general‑acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113 (Ill. 2009) (factors for evaluating continuance requests and abuse of discretion review)
- In re Commitment of Simons, 213 Ill. 2d 523 (Ill. 2004) (Frye standard and review of novelty of scientific methodologies)
- People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194 (Ill. 2004) (application of Strickland and analysis of prejudice standard)
- People v. Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d 305 (Ill. 1995) (reversal required where a continuance denial prejudices defendant)