People v. Williams
41 N.E.3d 607
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 2000 Sandy Williams was charged and convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery after DNA from a vaginal swab was matched to his blood sample; the match relied in part on testing performed by outsourced lab Cellmark.
- At trial forensic expert Sandra Lambatos testified that Cellmark produced the assailant DNA profile and that it matched Williams’ profile; the Cellmark report itself was not admitted and no Cellmark witness testified.
- Defense counsel moved to strike Lambatos’s testimony about Cellmark under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; the motion was denied and Williams was convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
- Williams appealed; Illinois appellate and supreme courts upheld the conviction, finding Lambatos’s testimony was not offered for the truth of the Cellmark report and thus did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari; a plurality and Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012), holding no Confrontation Clause violation (Thomas concurred on different grounds); four justices dissented.
- Williams filed a pro se postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance (trial counsel for not probing the outsourced report’s certification; on appeal he argued appellate counsel should have presented documents to persuade Justice Thomas). The circuit court dismissed the petition as forfeited and meritless; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lambatos’s testimonial reference to the Cellmark report violated the Confrontation Clause | Testimony was not offered for the truth of Cellmark’s results; no Confrontation Clause violation | Cellmark report was testimonial and admission of its substance via Lambatos violated confrontation rights | Prior decisions (state and U.S. Supreme Court plurality/concurrence) held no Confrontation Clause violation; not redecided here |
| Whether Williams’s postconviction claim that appellate counsel was ineffective (for failing to present certain documents to the U.S. Supreme Court) was preserved | Forfeiture: petitioner failed to raise this specific ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim in his postconviction petition | Argues petition’s exhibits and allegations imply appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness and should be liberally construed to include it | Claim forfeited under 725 ILCS 5/122-3 because petition alleged trial-counsel ineffectiveness, not appellate-counsel omissions before the U.S. Supreme Court |
| Whether the postconviction petition, liberally construed, stated an arguable claim that appellate counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable | Appellate counsel presented the substantive arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court, including addressing Justice Thomas’s concerns | Appellate counsel should have cited three documents (FBI Standards, ASCLD/LAB manual, Cotton transcript) which might have persuaded Justice Thomas to change his vote | Even if considered, petition fails on the merits: appellate counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable and the claim is speculative as to prejudice |
| Whether Williams showed prejudice from alleged appellate counsel errors (i.e., that Justice Thomas would have changed his vote) | N/A | Better citation might have led Justice Thomas to join dissent and reverse, excluding evidence | Speculative; no arguable prejudice. The record shows counsel made the substantive arguments and amici briefs addressed same documents, so prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 385 Ill. App. 3d 359 (affirming conviction; expert testimony referencing Cellmark not hearsay offered for truth)
- People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. 2010) (Illinois Supreme Court affirming no Confrontation Clause violation)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (U.S. Supreme Court plurality and concurrence; no Confrontation Clause violation; Thomas concurred on formality grounds)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (discussed as precedent treating forensic reports as testimonial)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates can be testimonial)
- People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498 (Ill. 2004) (Post-Conviction Act forfeiture/waiver rule requiring claims be raised in petition)
- People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (standards for first-stage postconviction pleading; arguable basis test)