People v. Washington
137 N.E.3d 827
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Chaz Washington Ali was subpoenaed to testify in Jim McPherson’s murder trial; he initially invoked the Fifth Amendment. The State granted use immunity and the court ordered him to testify, but he still refused. He was later charged with direct criminal contempt.
- At the contempt trial Ali asserted the necessity defense, claiming he feared gang retaliation (including threats on Facebook) to himself and his mother if he testified.
- Defense counsel told prosecutors about the threats but did not inform the trial court or local law enforcement during the McPherson trial. A prosecutor received a text from defense counsel referencing fear of retaliation.
- The State’s rebuttal argument contrasted Ali’s prior Fifth Amendment invocation with his present necessity defense, suggesting he used the court system to avoid testifying. Ali did not object at trial or in a posttrial motion.
- The jury found Ali guilty of criminal contempt and the trial court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. Ali appealed, arguing the prosecutor improperly commented on his Fifth Amendment silence and treated fear of self-incrimination and fear of retaliation as mutually exclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s prior Fifth Amendment invocation violated Griffin | State: comment was not aimed at content of withheld testimony and was fair to impeach necessity claim | Ali: comment belittled Fifth Amendment privilege and improperly referenced his silence in earlier trial | Court: No Griffin violation where comment did not invite inference about the content of withheld testimony; permissible to note prior invocation when it bears on credibility of current defense |
| Whether prosecutor improperly argued defendant could not fear self-incrimination and retaliation simultaneously | State: reasonable inference that if true fear existed he would have alerted court/prosecutors earlier | Ali: argument treated the two fears as mutually exclusive and was an unreasonable inference | Court: Argument was a permissible, if not strong, inference; not reversible or plain error given context and isolated nature of remark |
| Whether alleged errors are reviewable despite forfeiture | State: issues forfeited but reviewable under plain-error doctrine only if reversible error or egregious prejudice | Ali: urges plain-error review | Court: forfeiture stands; even under plain-error analysis no reversible error nor prejudice; affirmed |
| Whether closing argument, as a whole, denied fair trial | State: wide latitude in closing; remark isolated and not outcome-determinative | Ali: remark prejudicial and undermined fairness | Court: viewing whole argument, remark was not so prejudicial that real justice was denied; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence that invites inference of guilt violates Fifth Amendment)
- People v. Redd, 135 Ill.2d 252 (1990) (witness’s earlier nonincriminating grand jury testimony not inconsistent with invoking Fifth Amendment at trial)
- People v. Redd, 173 Ill.2d 1 (1996) (contextual review of prosecutor’s remarks in closing; isolated phrases assessed against entire argument)
- People v. Wheeler, 226 Ill.2d 92 (2007) (discusses standard for reviewing improper closing arguments)
- People v. Blue, 189 Ill.2d 99 (2000) (addresses appellate review of improper prosecutorial comments)