People v. Richmond
81 N.E.3d 193
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On April 9, 2007, three women in Chicago’s Hyde Park area were assaulted; DNA from an anal swab of victim C.L. produced two profiles, one matching C.L. and a second with clear readings at 9 of 13 loci.
- Police searched the Illinois DNA database using the 9 clear loci and found that Darnell Richmond matched those nine loci.
- Eyewitness identifications were mixed: one victim (Luboff) identified Richmond in a lineup; others did not or were tentative.
- At trial the state’s DNA expert used the product rule to compute random-match probabilities at the nine loci (e.g., ~1 in 3.9 trillion for blacks); Richmond was convicted of three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and robbery.
- Richmond filed a pro se postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to obtain database statistics showing nine-locus matches in Illinois (and relying on published reports of many nine-locus matches in other databases) to challenge the product-rule testimony.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as frivolous; the appellate court affirmed, holding counsel’s failure to request updated nine-locus database search results did not arguably show deficient performance or prejudice because database match counts were consistent with the product-rule expectations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting the number of nine-locus matches in the Illinois DNA database | Richmond: counsel should have sought database counts to challenge the product-rule random-match probabilities and undermine DNA evidence | State/Respondent: counsel reasonably declined because database counts, when properly analyzed, support rather than undermine the product rule and introducing them risked confusion | Held: No. Failure to request an updated search did not arguably fall below objective standards or prejudice Richmond |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising trial counsel’s alleged failure on appeal | Richmond: appellate counsel should have raised the failure as ineffective assistance of trial counsel | State: appellate counsel had no arguable merit to raise because the underlying claim lacks arguable merit | Held: No. Appellate counsel not ineffective because the trial counsel claim was not arguably meritorious |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jessica M., 399 Ill. App. 3d 730 (Ill. App. Ct.) (describing loci and alleles used in identity testing)
- People v. Harbold, 124 Ill. App. 3d 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (explaining the product rule concept)
- People v. Miller, 173 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 1996) (affirming general acceptance of the product rule for DNA frequency estimates)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (first-stage standard for ineffective-assistance claims under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act)
- Collins v. People, 438 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1968) (noting that positive correlation between events undermines the product-rule multiplication of probabilities)