People v. Gacho
53 N.E.3d 1054
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Robert Gacho was tried by Judge Thomas Maloney (jury trial) for murders and related charges; convicted and originally sentenced to death, later resentenced to life imprisonment after the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the death sentence.
- Maloney was later shown to have accepted bribes in other cases; one co-defendant, Dino Titone, is reported in other decisions to have paid Maloney $10,000 to be acquitted (though Maloney convicted Titone nonetheless).
- Gacho filed post-conviction claims alleging (1) his trial was tainted by Maloney’s corruption (compensatory bias) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict arising from defense counsel Robert McDonnell’s prior representation of a member of the victim’s family (Rosario Infelise).
- After pleadings and remand from an earlier appellate decision (which required an evidentiary hearing), the circuit court held a third-stage evidentiary hearing; the court found key affidavits were hearsay or incredible and credited trial counsel’s testimony.
- The circuit court denied relief; the appellate majority affirmed, holding Gacho failed to prove (by the required third-stage standard) a nexus and actual bias from Maloney’s corruption and that Gacho waived any conflict by McDonnell; a dissent argued the corruption presumptively tainted the simultaneous trials and would require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial corruption / due process (compensatory bias) | Maloney’s known bribery (including Titone’s bribe) created a nexus and a personal/pecuniary interest that probably biased Maloney against Gacho | Gacho’s evidence (hearsay affidavits, witness testimony) proves Maloney’s bias and taint of the simultaneous trials warrant a new trial | Affirmed: No manifest error. Gacho failed to prove actual bias or competent evidence of a pecuniary interest in his case; allegations were hearsay or incredible under third-stage review |
| Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest (McDonnell) | McDonnell’s prior representation of a member of the victim’s family created a per se or actual conflict that was not knowingly waived | Disclosure and on-the-record waiver before trial (defendant acknowledged knowledge and consent); no showing counsel’s performance was adversely affected | Affirmed: No manifest error. Record shows waiver in open court; no credible evidence McDonnell represented victim or conducted contemporaneous representation that created an unwaived per se conflict; no specific adverse effect shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gacho, 122 Ill. 2d 221 (Ill. 1988) (direct-appeal discussion of convictions and sentencing issues)
- People v. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d 256 (Ill. 2000) (explaining nexus and actual-bias requirement for compensatory-bias claims)
- Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1927) (due process violation where judge has direct pecuniary interest)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (objective due process standards; actual bias need not be proved in certain extreme circumstances)
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (U.S. 1997) (judicial corruption and compensatory-bias discussion; need for discovery to prove actual bias in some compensatory-bias claims)
- People v. Titone, 151 Ill. 2d 19 (Ill. 1992) (discussing judicial corruption and related due process standards)
- People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill. 2d 41 (Ill. 1998) (noting fairness requires absence of actual bias and probability of bias)
- United States v. Maloney, 71 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (detailing Judge Maloney’s pattern of corruption)