2020 IL App (4th) 190333-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Michael Yost was convicted after a September 2016 bench trial of first-degree murder (sentenced to 75 years) for the stabbing death of Sheri Randall.
- Trial counsel Bradford Rau represented Yost at trial; court records showed Rau had previously represented the victim, Randall, on a 2008 DUI matter—fact unknown to Yost until after conviction.
- Yost raised the conflict claim posttrial; this court granted a Krankel remand and the trial court appointed new counsel to investigate.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied a new-trial motion, finding no per se conflict (relying on Hillenbrand); Yost appealed.
- The appellate court held Rau’s prior representation of the victim created a per se conflict and, because Yost did not knowingly waive conflict-free counsel, reversed and remanded for a new trial; the court also found evidence was sufficient so retrial is not barred.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Yost's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rau’s prior 2008 representation of the victim created a per se conflict | Under Hillenbrand, a remote, unrelated prior representation is not a per se conflict; Rau’s work for Randall ended years earlier | Under Hernandez, a per se conflict arises from prior representation of the victim regardless of remoteness; no knowing waiver by Yost | Court: Per se conflict existed; Yost did not knowingly waive; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial (sufficiency of evidence) | The record (threats, presence at scene, DNA, defensive wounds, expert testimony) supports conviction; retrial allowed | (Implicit) Retrial would raise double jeopardy concerns only if evidence was insufficient | Court: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction; retrial is not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134 (2008) (per se conflict applies even when representation of victim is prior/remotely related)
- People v. Hillenbrand, 121 Ill. 2d 537 (1988) (prior, unrelated representation of victim was not a per se conflict on those facts)
- People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill. 2d 1 (1988) (per se conflicts arise from prior or contemporaneous association with victim or prosecution)
- People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465 (2003) (conviction must be reversed if counsel has an actual/potential conflict and defendant did not waive)
- People v. Peterson, 106 N.E.3d 944 (2017) (criminal defendant’s right includes conflict-free representation)