2011 IL App (1st) 100317
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- McKinney was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 30 years, after a jury trial in Cook County.
- Codefendant Wilkins pled guilty to the same murder and served time; the victim was killed in 1991 at 502 East Browning Ave., Chicago.
- McKinney was arrested in 2007 while serving a federal sentence and charged in 2007 with two counts of first-degree murder.
- In 2009, the State sought a 30-day extension of the speedy-trial term to locate a material witness, Jackson, located in Wisconsin.
- The trial court granted the extension after finding due diligence; trial began in 2009 with Jackson anticipated as a witness and other witnesses testifying.
- McKinney challenged issues on appeal including speedy-trial extension, ineffective assistance, admission of postarrest silence, closing-argument misstatements, and the consecutive 30-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial extension whether due diligence supported extension beyond term | People contends due diligence justified the extension; trial court did not abuse discretion. | McKinney argues extension violated 120-day term due to inadequate search for Jackson. | Trial court's extension affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel from opening remark misstatement | Defense remark did not prejudice verdict; trial court instructed properly and evidence supported guilt. | Remark misled jury and undermined defense credibility, constituting ineffectiveness. | No reasonable probability of different outcome; claim fails. |
| Admissibility of postarrest silence and related evidentiary issues | State properly admitted postarrest silence and used it to impeach credibility. | Postarrest silence improperly admitted and prejudicial. | Issues forfeited but analyzed; plain-error review found no prejudice; conceded error not shown. |
| Closing-argument misstatement and bolstering prior inconsistent statements | State correctly explained law on prior inconsistent statements and their credibility. | State misstated law and bolstered witnesses' prior statements. | Even assuming error, no prejudice shown; guilt supported by record. |
| Krankel proceeding and appointment of new counsel | Trial court properly handled Krankel inquiry; no failure to appoint new counsel needed. | Trial court should have appointed new counsel to pursue ineffective-assistance claims. | Court properly denied new counsel; no merit to claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Exson, 384 Ill.App.3d 794 (3d Dist. 2008) (test for due diligence to locate witness before speedy-trial term)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (Illinois Supreme Court 2005) (forfeiture and plain-error analysis in speedy-trial context)
- People v. Gay, 376 Ill.App.3d 796 (1st Dist. 2007) (speedy-trial plain-error applicability)
- People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 (Illinois Supreme Court 2011) (closely-balanced-evidence prong in plain-error/evidentiary prejudice)
- People v. Krankel, 102 Ill.2d 181 (1984) (procedure for trial-court handling of pro se claims of ineffective assistance)