People v. Hauad
73 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 1997 three men were shot near Kedzie and George in Chicago; two died and Miguel Salgado survived. Police later charged Jaime Hauad with two murders and aggravated battery based on eyewitness identifications and other evidence; Hauad was convicted in 1999 and sentenced to two concurrent life terms plus 15 years.
- Hauad pursued multiple postconviction and habeas petitions (2001–2007), alleging ineffective assistance, coerced statements, witness impeachment, and actual innocence; many claims were denied. Salgado later submitted a recantation affidavit asserting his trial testimony was false.
- In 2014 the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission reviewed materials in Hauad’s case and concluded there was substantial evidence that police cut Hauad’s shoe toes to coerce a confession and recommended further review by the State’s Attorney.
- Hauad moved for leave to supplement a successive postconviction (Miller) petition with claims based on the Torture Commission report, new information about eyewitness Luz Contreras’s identity/SSNs, and new evidence pointing to Nicholas Maropoulos as the shooter. The trial court denied leave to supplement; Hauad appealed.
- The appellate court held the Torture Commission’s report was a reassessment of evidence already available to Hauad and therefore not “new”; the Contreras identity material was not sufficiently probative or conclusive of perjury; and most innocence evidence was available before Hauad’s prior petitions and thus not newly discovered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hauad) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Torture Commission report is "new evidence" supporting a claim that police coerced statements (shoe cutting) | Report is new and shows police cut Hauad’s shoe toes to force a confession; justifies supplementing successive petition | Report merely reinterprets evidence already in the record and previously available to Hauad | Denied — report is a reassessment of previously available evidence and not newly discovered (no leave to supplement) |
| Whether evidence about eyewitness Luz Contreras’s multiple SSNs/identity undermines her trial ID and warrants a Brady/Confrontation claim | Multiple SSNs and possible false ID show State suppressed exculpatory info and Contreras was susceptible to coercion/perjury | The records do not establish Contreras used a doctored ID or perjured herself; evidence is speculative and not sufficiently conclusive | Denied — evidence does not conclusively impeach Contreras nor probably change outcome on retrial; claim fails cause/prejudice test |
| Whether newly-offered evidence (FBI interview summary, affidavits, letters, tow record) showing Maropoulos as shooter constitutes newly discovered, material, conclusive evidence of actual innocence | Affidavits, letters from Maropoulos, an AUSA letter about an FBI source, and vehicle records point to Maropoulos and were not previously available | Most documents/evidence were available before 2005 or not admissible/hearsay; petitioner failed to show due diligence or that evidence would probably change verdict | Denied — evidence not newly discovered or conclusive; petitioner failed to show it would likely change result on retrial |
| Jurisdiction/procedural: whether appeal is proper given oral ruling on Miller resentencing | Hauad argues leave denial and related rulings are appealable; trial court effectively granted Miller relief orally and denied supplement in writing | State treats rulings as final for purposes of appeal | Appeal permitted; court found timely notice conferred jurisdiction and reviewed denial de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (supreme court) (expert review of preexisting evidence is not "newly discovered" evidence)
- People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437 (supreme court) (new evidence must be of such conclusive character that it probably would change the result on retrial)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (supreme court) (evaluate successive postconviction claims individually under cause-and-prejudice or actual innocence standards)
- People v. Allen, 71 Ill. 2d 378 (supreme court) (oral rulings can constitute final disposition for appealability)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. Supreme Court) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment)