People v. Wrice
406 Ill. App. 3d 43
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Stanley Wrice appeals a circuit court denial of leave to file a second successive postconviction petition alleging his confession was coerced by Area 2 police torture under Jon Burge.
- The 2007 petition relied on the July 19, 2006 Report of the Special State's Attorney finding tainted evidence and torture by Area 2/3 personnel, including Byrne and Dignan.
- Earlier petitions (1991 and 2000) raised torture claims; OPS findings and other evidence had previously been developed and denied.
- The Report concluded some officers’ conduct supported beyond-a-reasonable-doubt findings in certain cases, but prosecution was barred by statute of limitations.
- The court conducts a cause-and-prejudice analysis under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) to determine if a successive petition may be allowed, with de novo review on appeal.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a third-stage evidentiary hearing, holding the Report could establish cause and prejudice supporting relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the October 23, 2007 petition satisfy cause-and-prejudice? | Wrice satisfies cause via the Report's release; prejudice via corroboration of torture. | Holds due to cumulative and prior denials, not showing external impediment or resulting prejudice. | Yes; remanded for third-stage evidentiary hearing. |
| Is the Special State's Attorney Report cognizable as cause for filing a second petition? | Report corroborates torture claims and provides new, independent evidence beyond prior petitions. | Report is cumulative or insufficient to peak new issues. | Yes; constitutes cause under the act. |
| Does the Report's corroboration satisfy the prejudice prong? | Report, medical evidence, OPS findings, and prior torture claims collectively show prejudice. | Prejudice is lacking because evidence was overwhelming and the Report would not alter result. | Yes; prejudice established. |
| How does Hobley influence the result here? | Distinguishes Hobley because here there is medical corroboration and new Report evidence. | Hobley controls, limiting new-evidence impact on coercion claims. | Distinguished; not controlling; writs remand affirmed. |
| What is the appropriate procedural posture after remand? | Third-stage evidentiary hearing required to explore confessed coerced testimony. | No further hearings beyond the record should be required. | Third-stage evidentiary hearing ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83 (1999) (postconviction collateral attack; not direct appeal)
- People v. Barrow, 195 Ill. 2d 506 (2001) (cause-and-prejudice analysis for successive petitions)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (1998) (standards for substantiating constitutional violations)
- People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148 (2004) (one postconviction petition; relaxed bar for fundamental fairness)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002) (cause-and-prejudice test codified in 122-1(f))
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (2000) (coercion claims; corroboration standards for hearing)
- People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404 (1998) (new torture evidence; res judicata considerations)
- People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29 (1987) (coerced confessions as non-harmless error)
- People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83 (1999) (reiterated; not a separate entry due to duplication)