People v. Johnson
2021 IL 126291
| Ill. | 2021Background
- March 10, 2015: gas-station robbery captured on surveillance; victim Ferguson struck with a handgun; perpetrator fled carrying a black satchel.
- Eyewitnesses saw a man run to an idling white Cadillac; police later located the Cadillac, identified Johnson, and arrested him after he fled from an unmarked car. The Cadillac was registered to Johnson.
- Police executed a search at 1810 New York Avenue and recovered a boxed 9‑mm Hi‑Point pistol (owned by Angela Patterson), a broken BB gun, a white hoodie, and a ski‑mask; the 9‑mm was swabbed for potential DNA but the swabs were not tested.
- At trial the State relied on surveillance footage and eyewitness identifications; defense highlighted mismatches between the video gun/mask/hoodie and the recovered items and emphasized the lack of forensic linkage.
- During deliberations jurors asked why no DNA testing had been done; defense requested testing mid‑deliberation but the trial court denied the request as untimely; jury convicted Johnson of armed robbery.
- Appellate court majority found trial counsel ineffective for failing to seek DNA testing and ordered a new trial; Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and reversed, holding prejudice from unperformed DNA testing was speculative.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Johnson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to seek DNA testing of the swabs constituted ineffective assistance (Strickland prejudice) | State conceded counsel’s mistaken belief about availability could be deficient but argued Johnson failed to prove prejudice because no test results exist and any speculation about favorable results is insufficient | Counsel performed deficiently by not requesting testing; a negative DNA result (no Ferguson DNA) would likely have changed the verdict (especially on the armed‑robbery charge) | Court held Johnson cannot show Strickland prejudice: absent actual test results, claiming the results ‘‘would probably’’ change the outcome is speculative and insufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict; conviction affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a mid‑deliberation request to suspend proceedings for DNA testing | Denial was proper: testing would be untimely, discovery disclosed swabbing, and results could take months; defense surprise was not enough to reopen proofs | Request was prompted by juror question and surprise at testimony that swabs existed but weren’t tested; testing could have produced exculpatory evidence | Court found no reversible error; trial court reasonably denied the untimely request and defense ultimately withdrew further relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (reasonably likely standard for prejudice under Strickland)
- People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504 (Illinois adoption of Strickland)
- People v. Scott, 2011 IL App (1st) 100122 (prejudice speculative where DNA testing was not performed)
- People v. Palmer, 162 Ill. 2d 465 (prejudice cannot be based on mere conjecture)