People v. Gacho
967 N.E.2d 994
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Robert Gacho was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnapping for killings of two men; death sentence later vacated and resentenced to life.
- Postconviction petition challenges included alleged trial-judge corruption, counsel conflict of interest, and ineffective assistance for not renewing suppression motion after witnesses testified to coercion.
- Trial judge Maloney presided; it was shown he had accepted bribes in other cases (corruption) and had potential clashes of interest in this trial and a codefendant’s trial.
- Defendant’s counsel allegedly represented a member of the victim’s family; defendant claimed continued representation and discussions with that family created a conflict of interest.
- A prior suppression motion alleged coercive police conduct; witnesses testified to coercion, but the motion to suppress was denied and the case proceeded to trial.
- The circuit court dismissed the postconviction petition at the second stage; the State and court treated certain claims as barred or inadequately pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corruption by the trial judge violated due process in a postconviction context | Gacho asserts Maloney’s corruption tainted his trial (nexus and bias) | Corruption deprived defendant of fair trial; nexus and actual bias shown | Yes; corruption provided substantial showing and warranted an evidentiary hearing on corruption. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to renew suppression motion after coercion testimony constitutes ineffective assistance | Waived or could have been raised on direct appeal; not deserving postconviction relief | Counsel should have challenged; new coercion testimony supported request | No; claim barred by waiver/forfeiture due to availability on direct appeal. |
| Whether trial counsel’s conflict of interest with a victim’s family created a per se or actual conflict | Counsel represented Infelise family while representing defendant | Conflicts warranted protective steps or reversal for lack of loyalty | Yes; substantial showing of an impermissible conflict; remand for evidentiary hearing on conflict. |
| Whether the circuit court properly dismissed or should have granted relief for the corruption and conflict claims at third stage | Evidence supports entitlement to evidentiary hearing | Evidentiary hearing appropriate given substantial claims | Affirmed in part (dismissal of suppression claim) and reversed in part (corruption and conflict claims remanded for hearing). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill.2d 41 (Ill. 1998) (due-process requirement of fair trial and absence of bias)
- People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill.2d 410 (Ill. 1996) (three-stage postconviction procedure; standard for dismissal and hearing)
- People v. Tenner, 175 Ill.2d 372 (Ill. 1997) (postconviction procedure; substantial rights inquiry)
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill.2d 1 (Ill. 1988) (conflicts of interest—per se and potential conflicts)
- People v. Titone, 151 Ill.2d 19 (Ill. 1992) (nexus/bias standard for judicial corruption claims)
- People v. Fair, 193 Ill.2d 256 (Ill. 2000) (nexus and actual bias standard for corruption claims)
- People v. Towns, 182 Ill.2d 491 (Ill. 1998) (standard for evaluating postconviction petitions; evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366 (Ill. 1998) (evidentiary showing required for postconviction hearing)
- People v. Sanders, 238 Ill.2d 391 (Ill. 2010) (waiver/forfeiture principles in postconviction review)