People v. Schutz
79 N.E.3d 849
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In July 2013 Ryan Schutz was charged with multiple sexual-offense and related counts; M. Jane Foster entered appearance for him and handled pretrial matters.
- While still counsel for Schutz, Foster began representing inmate Kristopher Johnson in November 2013; Foster withdrew from Schutz’s case in December 2013.
- Johnson, who had shared a jail cell with Schutz, later obtained incriminating statements from Schutz; in February 2014 Johnson entered a plea agreement to testify against Schutz (Foster acknowledged the plea).
- At Schutz’s March 2014 bench trial, appointed counsel David Rumley and Michael Herzog represented Schutz; both had previously represented Johnson in unrelated matters.
- Johnson testified against Schutz; defense counsel impeached and attacked Johnson’s credibility but did not elicit certain prior convictions disclosed in discovery; the trial court found Schutz guilty and sentenced him to 12 years.
- Schutz appealed, arguing his three attorneys labored under per se and/or actual conflicts of interest requiring reversal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Schutz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster’s representation created a per se conflict by simultaneously representing Schutz and a future prosecution witness | No per se conflict—Johnson was not a prosecution witness while Foster represented Schutz | Foster contemporaneously represented both Schutz and Johnson, creating a per se conflict | No per se conflict: Foster withdrew before Johnson became a prosecution witness, so no contemporaneous representation of a prosecution witness |
| Whether Herzog’s prior brief representation of Johnson created a per se conflict | No: Herzog’s representation ended well before Johnson became a witness | Herzog’s prior representation of Johnson created a disabling contemporaneous conflict | No per se conflict: Herzog’s representation of Johnson was not contemporaneous with Johnson’s status as prosecution witness |
| Whether any attorney suffered an actual conflict that adversely affected performance (e.g., failure to impeach with certain convictions) | No actual conflict impaired performance; cross-examination and closing attacked Johnson’s credibility | Counsel’s prior representation of Johnson caused divided loyalties, explaining omission of specific prior-conviction impeachment | No actual conflict proven: defendant failed to show specific adverse effects on strategy or performance |
| Whether record-keeping/disclosure obligations require different practice | State conceded poor optics; urged best practices | Schutz sought reversal/remand based on conflicts | Court affirmed conviction but recommended disclosure and better practices to avoid appearance problems |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Murry, 305 Ill. App. 3d 311 (discusses entitlement to conflict-free counsel)
- People v. Morales, 209 Ill. 2d 340 (no per se conflict where person never testified as a prosecution witness)
- People v. Fields, 2012 IL 112438 (defines three categories of per se conflicts)
- People v. Thomas, 131 Ill. 2d 104 (contemporaneous representation of a State witness can create conflict)
- People v. Probst, 344 Ill. App. 3d 378 (prior representation of a witness not relevant to trial may not create per se conflict)
- People v. Becerril, 307 Ill. App. 3d 518 (explains when prior commitments create disabling conflicts)