2024 IL App (1st) 211083
Ill. App. Ct.2024Background
- In October 2012, Darrell Leverson was arrested at age 19 in connection with a violent crime spree in south suburban Cook County, including armed robbery, attempted murder, and murder.
- Over 72 hours, Leverson was interrogated seven times by Dolton police; during the first six, he denied involvement and repeatedly requested a lawyer and phone call, which police refused.
- Police used coercive tactics, including threats, lies about Leverson’s rights, prolonged incommunicado detention, and intimidation.
- On the seventh interrogation, Leverson confessed, and his confession became central to the prosecution’s case against him.
- At trial, Leverson unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession, and he was convicted and sentenced to 72 years. He appealed, challenging the voluntariness and admissibility of his confession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of Confession | Police violated Miranda and Fifth Amendment by badgering Leverson into confessing | Leverson re-initiated contact and voluntarily waived his rights before final confession | Confession was involuntary and should be suppressed |
| Denial of Right to Counsel/Phone Call | Police ignored unequivocal requests for legal counsel and phone calls | Police claimed Leverson eventually waived rights and requests were not valid | Police flagrantly violated defendant’s rights |
| Impact of Police Conduct on Involuntariness | Coercive conditions and prolonged isolation overbore Leverson’s will | Any error in admitting confession was harmless due to other evidence | Error was not harmless; conviction reversed |
| Admissibility of Tainted Confession | Leverson’s confession was the linchpin, tying together all key evidence | State claims evidence was overwhelming even without confession | State failed to prove harmless error; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes the requirement for Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (interrogation must cease if a suspect invokes right to counsel)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (totality of the circumstances is used to determine voluntariness of confession)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (coerced confessions violate due process)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (sets presumptive 48-hour limit on warrantless detention before judicial determination)
- People v. Salamon, 2022 IL 125722 (statutory and constitutional rights to counsel and phone calls strongly impact confession voluntariness)
- People v. Woolley, 178 Ill. 2d 175 (1997) (standard for knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights)