People v. Hernandez
2017 IL App (1st) 150575
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Sergio Hernandez was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and personally discharging the firearm; sentenced to 30 + 25 years (55 years total).
- This court previously held Hernandez’s arrest at his home was illegal and remanded for an attenuation hearing to determine whether his stationhouse statements were purged of that Fourth Amendment taint.
- At trial the jury saw ~57 minutes of a 6-hour videotaped Spanish interview (with English subtitles) in which officers used a bogus gunshot-residue (GSR) test and various investigatory statements; defendant ultimately said the shooting was an accident.
- On remand the trial court held an attenuation hearing, found the fake GSR test a strong intervening circumstance prompting the confession, and reinstated the conviction.
- On second appeal the appellate court reversed: it held the confession was not attenuated from the illegal arrest because the bogus GSR test was itself a product of the illegal detention (a form of interrogation/misconduct), Miranda warnings were minimal, the temporal gap was short, and the police conduct suggested a fishing expedition.
- The court also held retrial would not violate double jeopardy because, viewing all trial evidence (including the suppressed statement for purposes of the analysis), there was sufficient evidence to permit a new trial; it directed appointment of new counsel on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hernandez’s stationhouse confession was attenuated from his illegal arrest | State: confession admissible because officers gave Miranda warnings, interrogation was cordial, and the (purported) GSR test was an intervening circumstance that prompted a voluntary confession | Hernandez: confession flowed from illegal arrest; the bogus GSR test was a ruse and a product of the illegal detention and thus cannot purge the taint | Not attenuated — confession suppressed (bogus GSR was interrogation/consequence of illegal arrest; Miranda warning given only once and was weak; temporal gap short; police misconduct flagged) |
| Whether the bogus GSR test can serve as an intervening circumstance to dissipate Fourth Amendment taint | State: test (and its result) justified attenuation as an intervening event | Hernandez: test was a ruse, akin to a polygraph or coerced interrogation, so it cannot purge the taint | Held: bogus GSR cannot purge the taint — analogous to polygraph/codefendant evidence suppressed because it was consequence of illegal detention or interrogation |
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy after suppression of the confession | State: retrial permitted; court may consider all evidence from the first trial (even suppressed statements) to determine sufficiency | Hernandez: argued for remand (did not raise insufficiency/double jeopardy) but relief sought would implicate retrial risks | Held: retrial does not violate double jeopardy — after viewing all evidence from the first trial a rational juror could convict, so remand for new trial affirmed |
| Whether defense counsel on remand had a conflict or was ineffective at attenuation hearing | State: trial counsel continued representation on remand; no reversible conflict shown; issue not necessary to decision | Hernandez: appellate remand invited development of ineffective-assistance record; counsel had conflict (client asked for new counsel) and refused to call client to testify at hearing | Held: court did not decide ineffectiveness/conflict claims on the merits because suppression/remand on attenuation grounds was dispositive; directed appointment of new counsel on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81 (Ill. 2010) (sets standard and factors for attenuation analysis)
- People v. Franklin, 115 Ill. 2d 328 (Ill. 1987) (polygraph/consequence-of-detention cannot purge Fourth Amendment taint)
- People v. Lopez, 229 Ill. 2d 322 (Ill. 2008) (for double jeopardy analysis, appellate court may consider all evidence from first trial when evaluating sufficiency)
- People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (Ill. 2004) (intervening probable cause and timing can break causal link between illegal arrest and confession)
- People v. Jackson, 374 Ill. App. 3d 93 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (distinguishes voluntariness and attenuation; misconduct/exploited illegality defeats attenuation)
- People v. Clay, 349 Ill. App. 3d 517 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (evidence obtained by misconduct cannot serve as intervening circumstance to purge taint)
- People v. Olivera, 164 Ill. 2d 382 (Ill. 1995) (retrial permitted despite erroneous admission of evidence; double jeopardy bar applies only when evidence was legally insufficient)