People v. Roman
2016 IL App (1st) 141740
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Daniel Roman convicted at bench trial of first-degree murder and robbery; sentenced to concurrent 35 and 7 year terms. Conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Postconviction petition (pro se) alleged Brady violation: State failed to disclose that it assisted eyewitnesses Luis Fernando Garcia and Sylvia Ortiz with immigration/disability matters in exchange for testimony.
- Roman attached (1) a July 10, 2010 ASA letter to INS describing Garcia’s cooperation in multiple prosecutions (letter was in the appellate record but was impounded after appeal) and (2) a voicemail transcript in which Garcia threatened to “deny everything” if the State did not help him with immigration/disability (voicemail was left after Roman’s trial and not in Roman’s record on direct review).
- Trial court dismissed the petition at first stage, finding no Brady violation; Roman appealed only the Brady claim.
- Appellate court analyzed whether the two documents were favorable, suppressed, and material under Brady and concluded neither document was material to guilt or punishment; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of evidence of an alleged State promise to help witnesses with immigration/disability (Brady) violated due process | State violated Brady by failing to disclose voicemail transcript and by delaying disclosure of ASA letter, which show a quid pro quo that would impeach eyewitnesses | Roman argued the letter + voicemail show State assisted witnesses in exchange for testimony and that nondisclosure was material and prejudicial | The court held neither the letter nor the voicemail was material to guilt or punishment; no Brady gist shown; petition dismissed and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes prosecution duty to disclose materially exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality standard: reasonable probability that nondisclosure produced a different result)
- Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012) (Brady materiality requires undermining confidence in the verdict)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998) (postconviction review standards; materiality and cumulative effect considered)
- People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56 (2008) (describes Brady elements in Illinois law)