2021 IL App (1st) 200299
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In August 1991 a 15-year-old Johnny Plummer was arrested after a shooting that killed Michael Engram; Plummer was identified in a lineup, confessed, and was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to long prison terms.
- Plummer consistently alleged police coercion: he said Detectives Michael Kill and Kenneth Boudreau beat and threatened him during lengthy custody before his written confession was taken in the presence of ASA William Marback.
- Post-trial proceedings: Plummer’s direct appeal and initial postconviction claims were rejected; he later joined Burge-era litigation and a special master found his Burge-related claim valid, resulting in appointed counsel to pursue a successive petition.
- In his successive amended postconviction petition Plummer alleged (a) newly discovered evidence of a pattern-and-practice of torture by Kill and Boudreau corroborating his coercion claim, and (b) a Brady violation because the State failed to disclose a contemporaneous federal investigation suggesting alternative suspects (the Battiste group).
- The trial court dismissed the amended successive petition at the second stage, finding res judicata/attenuation problems and deeming the new materials immaterial; Plummer appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing, holding Plummer’s newly discovered pattern-of-abuse evidence and withheld federal investigative materials were sufficiently new, material, and potentially outcome-determinative to overcome res judicata and to state Brady and voluntariness claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Plummer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered Burge-era pattern-and-practice evidence is sufficiently new, material, and noncumulative to relax res judicata and require a third-stage hearing on voluntariness of the confession | The evidence is cumulative, not newly discovered, and irrelevant because Kill/Boudreau weren’t involved when the confession was taken; Plummer’s claims were previously litigated | Reports and investigations substantiating similar abuse by Kill/Boudreau postdate trial and would have impeached officer credibility and shown coercion; therefore they are newly discovered and material | Reversed: the appellate court held the investigative reports/FOIA records are newly discovered, noncumulative, material, and likely to change the suppression/trial result; remanded for a third-stage hearing |
| Whether Riley’s affidavit (that Kill discussed a federal investigation and alternative suspects) is newly discovered and material | Riley was a known witness and his statement adds nothing new; Plummer’s counsel could have discovered it earlier | Although Riley was known, the substance (that Kill disclosed a federal grand-jury investigation and alternative suspects) was not previously disclosed and is material impeachment/exculpatory evidence | Reversed: Riley’s affidavit is newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and could have altered the suppression/trial outcome |
| Whether the State committed Brady by withholding materials about a federal investigation implicating Battiste and other alternative suspects | The federal-investigation materials are speculative, remote, and would not have changed the outcome given eyewitness IDs and the confession | The undisclosed IRS/DEA materials showed motive and a timely alternative suspect (Battiste) and that detectives knew of that inquiry; nondisclosure undermines confidence in the verdict | Reversed: court found the withheld federal-investigation materials favorable, suppressed, and material under Brady; the nondisclosure prejudiced Plummer and requires further proceedings |
| Whether the case should be reassigned to a different postconviction judge | Trial court applied proper discretion; no ground for reassignment | Trial court made premature credibility determinations and applied an incorrect standard | Denied: appellate court found no evidence of judicial bias or need for reassignment; errors concern legal standard/credibility determinations resolvable on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Plummer, 306 Ill. App. 3d 574 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (direct-appeal decision summarizing trial and suppression proceedings)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (Ill. 2000) (standard for when newly discovered evidence relaxes res judicata and warrants retrial/suppression reconsideration)
- People v. Wrice, 406 Ill. App. 3d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (police-pattern-of-misconduct evidence can always be material to voluntariness)
- People v. Banks, 192 Ill. App. 3d 986 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (prior similar misconduct can impeach officer credibility)
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (Ill. 2005) (res judicata principles in criminal appeals/postconviction contexts)
- People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56 (Ill. 2008) (Brady standard: undisclosed evidence must be favorable and material)
- Rogers v. People, 413 Ill. 554 (Ill. 1953) (coercion at any point in custody can render confession involuntary)
- Thomlison v. People, 400 Ill. 555 (Ill. 1948) (effects of prior abuse may persist and invalidate later confessions)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (prosecutor’s Brady duty includes material known to police investigators)