People v. Mudd, 193 N.E.3d 1229

Jeremy Mudd was arrested at a late-night park gathering and charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a felon after officers observed a bulge at his waistband, followed him into a lighted alley, saw him kneel by a parked van, and recovered a gun from the van’s rear tire.
The State’s case rested solely on testimony of two officers; no forensic results (fingerprints, DNA, gunshot residue) were presented at trial.
Defense emphasized lack of forensic testing in opening and closing, arguing the officers’ testimony lacked corroboration.
In rebuttal the prosecutor acknowledged the State’s burden but told jurors that "both sides have access to the evidence" and could request testing — citing procedural rules governing disclosure and testing (Ill. S. Ct. R. 412(e)).
Mudd was convicted and sentenced to 5½ years; he argued on appeal the rebuttal misstated the evidence and shifted the burden, and alternatively that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	People’s Argument	Mudd’s Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal (that both sides could request testing) misstated evidence and shifted burden of proof	The comment accurately stated the legal rule (Ill. S. Ct. R. 412(e)) that both parties may request testing; did not shift burden	The comment had no evidentiary foundation, misrepresented the record, shifted the burden to Mudd and was plain error	Statement was a correct statement of law, not a factual misrepresentation; read in context it did not shift the burden and was not plain error
Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to that rebuttal amounted to ineffective assistance	Counsel’s conduct was reasonable trial strategy and there was no reversible error to object to	Counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the alleged rebuttal error	No ineffective assistance: there was no actual error, so counsel’s performance was not deficient under Strickland

People v. Williams, 333 Ill. App. 3d 204 (2002) (reversal where prosecutor argued facts not supported by evidence)
People v. Nightengale, 168 Ill. App. 3d 968 (1988) (repeated references to unpresented evidence in argument warrant new trial)
People v. Whitlow, 89 Ill. 2d 322 (1982) (misstatements in closing argument that prejudice defendant can require reversal)
People v. Peeples, 155 Ill. 2d 422 (1993) (discusses limits on argument and evidentiary matters)
People v. Nevitt, 135 Ill. 2d 423 (1990) (plain-error review requires consideration of entire trial context)
People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407 (2005) (redirect testimony about testing was invited by defense cross-examination)
People v. Beasley, 384 Ill. App. 3d 1039 (2008) (prosecutor’s comments improperly shifted burden by condemning defendant’s failure to request testing)
People v. Williams (Jackson decision), 391 Ill. App. 3d 11 (2009) (discusses invited response and permissible argument on testing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)