2022 IL App (2d) 210143-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- In 1993 two brothers (Jesus and Francisco Montoya) were found shot to death in a van in Aurora; four .45 shell casings were recovered. No direct physical link to Reyes was presented at trial.
- Reyes was not charged until 2007; his jury trial occurred in January 2013 and relied heavily on testimony from multiple informants/cooperating witnesses who implicated Reyes and referenced his use of a .45 and theft of cocaine.
- Reyes was convicted on six first‑degree murder counts and sentenced to natural life; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- In a November 2015 postconviction petition Reyes relied on (a) a former Aurora officer Reynaldo Rodriguez’s 2015 affidavit and a 1993 police report saying Rodriguez saw two men near the van but did not identify Reyes, and (b) affidavits from Reyes’s mother and sisters alleging an alibi and that a juror displayed familiarity with the victims’ family.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss at the second stage; on appeal the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the actual‑innocence and juror‑bias claims, reversed dismissal of the alibi‑witness ineffective‑assistance claim, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the alibi claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez's affidavit is newly discovered, material, noncumulative evidence establishing actual innocence | Rodriguez’s reports were known pretrial and he was on the witness list/subpoenaed; affidavit is not new and not conclusive | Rodriguez’s affidavit shows he saw two men at the van and did not identify Reyes; his prior inability to testify was due to PTSD so the affidavit is newly discovered | Affirmed dismissal — affidavit was not newly discovered or conclusive and would not probably change the result on retrial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Rodriguez to testify | Counsel strategically omitted Rodriguez because his personnel record included termination for untruthfulness and the court denied motion in limine; calling him risked impeachment | Rodriguez would have given exculpatory, noncumulative testimony that he did not identify Reyes | Affirmed dismissal — strong presumption of strategic decision and Reyes failed to show prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call alleged alibi witnesses (mother, sisters) | Decisions on witnesses are strategic; affidavits are family statements and vague about actually seeing Reyes at home that night | Affidavits state Reyes was home all day/night, counsel ignored known witnesses; absence of physical evidence and reliance on cooperating witnesses made alibi critical | Reversed dismissal — remanded for evidentiary hearing; affidavits, taken as true at this stage, could support ineffective‑assistance and prejudice |
| Whether juror partiality existed and whether postconviction discovery of juror identities was warranted | Voir dire showed jurors would be fair; alleged gestures (wave, hug) do not prove disqualifying bias; discovery unnecessary | Gestures and hug by a juror with victim’s family show possible relationship and warrant discovery and hearing | Affirmed dismissal — gestures alone insufficient to show bias; trial court did not abuse discretion denying postconviction discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (defendant must show deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill.2d 366 (standards for postconviction proceedings and ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Morgan, 212 Ill.2d 148 (availability of freestanding actual‑innocence claim)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill.2d 319 (when a late affidavit may constitute newly discovered evidence)
- People v. Washington, 171 Ill.2d 475 (importance of conclusive evidence element in actual‑innocence claims)
- People v. Hobley, 182 Ill.2d 404 (presumptively prejudicial juror communications may warrant hearing)
- People v. Runge, 234 Ill.2d 68 (right to fair and impartial jury; reversal required for biased jury)
- People v. Tate, 305 Ill. App.3d 607 (failure to call alibi witnesses can warrant postconviction evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Porter, 111 Ill.2d 386 (recognition/acquaintance alone insufficient to show juror bias)
- People v. Fair, 193 Ill.2d 256 (postconviction discovery governed by good‑cause standard)