Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #2 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1628 Exhibit 26 Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:1629 STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SANTOS Flores do Santos My state name on oath and under penalty the following Santos is Flores reside currently at of iju Menard Correctional the of People Facility understand Gabriel Solache affidavit may be filed No me anything mj one has member of my gang am shot no longer any way me robbery man During with 13 for prepared No Case to CR 98 case and 12440 that the that this return this given this making statement when member of was period for murder into one has fellow the Latin gang was 1995 making to escalated time this in anything relation iii No statement this give me or promised in On December being County threatened affiliated is case in pressured participated Disciples Coolc court in that not offered anything statement in this affidavit Reyes Arturo was me that arrested and the and taicen Area to be to questioned At Area told the interrogation Even made though officers this officer questioned room and who me At what when was did me other people know the would Icept lead wall to talking to detective come in to spealc them without an tile attorney me on the case and question Guevara During interrogated would me He with along Sometimes they enter the interrogation alone Guevara first saying he not was want and sometimes Detective together question the officers request to did not that Guevara Reynaldo white handcuffed was would would get angry were in sit next iEd the interrogation to over room me me and and talk yell to at me If me He he did not acted like like this Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:1630 Over Numerous and hit the 10 confessed During appeal my second was never representing Under 14 the certifies that matters therein that got Guevara would me with physical only me slap my charged to as me and trtal first see daylight murder degree sentenced again the on theory of 90 years to because was reversed about Solache be would never was denied my Miranda pled guilty contacted set with was sentenced penalties stated did not confess if of the robbery part Gabriel statements certifies Guevara my head on the side of ultimately On 13 undersigned my jury convicted 12 attorney me told to was accountability ogati the were alone Guevara eventually rights me times he slapped me when we of course as until by in this aforesaid that he law instrument information verily Solache case by anyone or by any of 2008 January provided forth on the Gabriel and the undersigned are true and correct and belief believes Santos the same as to to such except matters be true SANTOS FLORES AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY SUBSCRIBED OF iyh lic My Commission State of Exp 05132009 Flores as to the Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:1631 Westlaw 734 N.E.2d 315 IlI.App.3d FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 387 Cite as 315 734 387 Ill.App.3d HPeople v. II1.App. Dist.2000. 63 N.E.2d 734 63 N.E.2d Page 355 I1l.Dec. 248 248 Ill.Dec. 355 11 Flores OXXIV Review I1OXXIVL Court of IllinoisFirst District Appellate De Novo. Sixth Where Division. The PEOPLE of the of Illinois Plaintiff the State FLORES No. Defendant-Appellant. Defendant Circuit was murder degree held that armed his right and counsel to 11 first J. did double jeopardy and counsel Law Criminal OXX 11 7362 110 OXXF Law OX VII Court and Jury 0k733 Questions of 10k736 Law in Introductory Once motion to after with requested question Criminal 110 Criminal presents and S.H.A. Const. Const.Amends. jJ law Law 110 Cited fact. Art. the or made 12.2 10. initiates by Accused Absence k. or Criminal further Law the him right to unless counsel the communication with the police. S.H.A. Const. 110 Art. 414 flQ Criminal Law 1OXVII Evidence 1OXVIlM Law 11 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. 0k41 Govt. Denial Cases invokes conversations Caution Right to Counsel interrogate U.S.C.A. 1139 2008 Art. court J2 to right U.S.C.A. Declarations Const.Arnends. 10. in 412.24 Cited accused cannot himself Cases statements counsel of Confessions k. Most suppress incriminating suspect mixed Declarations. an police 10k7362 and Most of Counsel. Questions of Fact Admissions constitutional interrogations. Declarations 110k4 of Fact or Preliminary has 11Ok412.24 or or While Law 10k411 of as Evidence General 11 110 10XVllM Province Interrogation Attorney S.H.A. Const. Criminal Trial for custodial all at Inquiry k. defendant Criminal 11 Law 110 Criminal 11 110 Stage Counsel to Proceedings Cases Const.Amends. 141 of 10k641.36 Formerly West Headnotes 111 Right of Defendant Request Custody. Most Cited remanded. suspect Const.Amends. 1722 110k1722 criminal Reversed 110 OXXXIB2 Conversation not suppress after Right Affecting invoked issue novo Counsel an produce and de 10. OXXXIB 11 of defendant. retrial OXXXI 11 Trial Law 110 Criminal the defendants to defendant had after of J. Law and motion to U.S.C.A. Art. Criminal Defendant to likely in M. OBrien Sheila response reasonably statement incriminating Reyna robbery. Court detectives was question bar and trial jury County Ralph The Appellate appealed. after convicted Cook Court jJ 14 2000. July at made statements S.H.A. Const. 1-98-2036. not is regarding counsel. General uncontroverted essentially appropriate requested in Proofs Cases are of witnesses incriminating V. Santos is Additional k. Cited facts credibility review Appellee Most the of Review Scope 139 lOki Declarations Declarations Works. by Accused the accused exchanges U.S.C.A. 10. Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:1632 734 N.E.2d 315 I11.App.3d FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 Cite as 315 387 1fl.App.3d 110k414 734 63 and An 248 I1l.Dec. 355 Most Effect. 10k4 12.2 he that presumption advice and lawyers authorities that of that invocation U.S.C.A. the bears state waiver that of and was on going were likely 1. had provided and Law Criminal 412.24 110 0k41 Right invoked the desire for the which elicit to likely or an does not must not should know 2031XG incriminating is Art. Criminal 1OXVII 11 U.S.C.A. in of Counsel. Most Cited In determining reasonably after the focus is rather had primarily than upon the Const.Amends. an or by of the police counsel Art. Law 110 and Criminal 11 OX 11 184 Most k. 203 the 186 Homicide lXG 203 U.S.C.A. 2O3k1 10. 412.24 Act by Accused Most Declarations. and Weight Robbery 342 by Accused 2008 Thomson/West. 342 No Claim to U.S. or Participation Identity 186 Cited Govt. Works. k. Cases 24.152 Robbery Orig. Sufficiency Commission of 176 Declarations Declarations Particular 2O3IX Evidence VII Evidence 10k41 Miscellaneous Cases Cited Law OXVIIM or Participation Identity Formerly 203k2536 110 Identification. Sufficiency Commission of 203k1 Criminal Eyewitness is in J.j Participation Formerly 2O3k2536 of the suspect police. S.H.A. Const. or Denial response incriminating the right to the perceptions intent k. Weight 176 Homicide 203 invoked upon Absence statement elicit to likely suspect Sufficiency Homicide Circumstances. Cases whether 181 203k1 by Accused k. and Commission of Identity Act by Accused Right to Counsel Caution 12.2 l0k4I2.24 10. 203 IX Evidence Declarations 10k4 Art. 1184 Homicide 203 Evidence Declarations the U.S.C.A. 10. 1. 203k1 110k41 focus Formerly 203k2536 in Law OXVIIM to Cases Cited 2031XG 110 response reasonably 412.24 110 after investigation suspect. S.H.A. Const. Weight 203k1 Most the 203 Law Criminal the 1181 Act by Accused express response. S.H.A. Const. in having respond reasonably statement the of that Homicide Denial about discussion officer Const.Amends. after question counsel police the and case counsel about what number amount of evidence on 203k1176 generalized investigation manner to right or as to was placed his right to 56 Denial 203 IX Evidence Cases comment accuseds Absence k. be incriminating the concerned Homicide 203 203 Counsel Caution to 10k412.24 of Counsel. Most Cited J21 reviewing the information investigation by Accused Declarations l10k412.2 If the new station that to invoked Const.Amends. OXVH Evidence 11 OXVIIM Declarations 11 were an or suspects question police Law Criminal 11 it to going elicit to suspect 10. at Attorneys charges intelligent. Art. response Absence k. Cases Cited Detectives States following S.H.A. Const Const.Aniends. the at burden heavy counsel was knowing right come has Most of Counsel. the without proceed waiver any raises ounse1 unable to is and behest prove for request Caution Right to Counsel 10k412.24 accuseds 110 Page 355 II1.Dec. N.E.2d Proof k. 248 Cases Cited to 63 387 734 N.E.2d Confessions and Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:1633 734 N.E.2d 315 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 387 734 Ill.App.3d Cite as 315 342k24 387 lll.App.3d and Weight 342k24.15 63 N.E.2d 734 248 N.E.2d Ill.Dec. 355 of Evidence Sufficiency 110 of Classification or Degree 248 63 Law OXXIV Review Criminal 11 Offense 342k24.152 Most Robbery. that he and and that and eyewitness of gray and defendants armed Honda that men Hispanic defendant had that tried the convictions dark for the had crime been three Favor in of Government Cases Cited murder degree and Criminal Law Criminal Jeopardy 135H 135H Double l35H1 1159.27 110 Law IOXXIV Review General In 110k1159.2 of Multiple Prohibition k. Prosecutions. Multiple Cases double jeopardy prosecution failed muster to clause or second precludes Const.Amend. the in first 108 of Proceedings Effect 135Hk107 is trier Sentence or 135Hk108 or Particular k. Vacating or conviction sustain been introduced U.S.C.A. in error even verdict the the if Grounds once trial not for Relief erroneously was Const.Amend. Office Gordon Chicago has preclude been to the providing legally is insufficient to admitted the sufficient to was degree murder. the aside set jury Flores Law evidence prosecution found the reasonable of H. the in any essential doubt. State Appellate Berry of counsel for 110 sentences evidence On evidence inthat convict. 60 to years run defendants for to first 30 first years for murder degree Defendant consecutively. of counsel Claim and rather At testimony to trial the Orig. U.S. than circuit court erred have been should was denied defendants defendants concurrently the confession defendant suppressed 1144.133 No sentenced was defendant contends appeal assistance ThomsonlWest. He and robbery appeals. 5. 2008 of armed Shorty Santos defendant trial convicted robbery and excessive Criminal the have could fact criminal the viewing to Defender armed retrial proceedings leading evidence discounted at after the reviewing support of the court New of Granting Cases The double jeopardy clause does defendant whose conviction of because of to favorable 64388356 Following of an whether in ask evidence the Attorney of Cook County Chicago Linda D. Woloshin Lalisha Foster of counsel for Appellee. Justice SHEILA M. OBRIEN delivered the opinion Trial Cited to question of most light Doubt. Reasonable k. States Attachment After of Arresting Effect Judgment in Appellant. of Jeopardy Reversing relevant rational Jeopardy 135HIV Evidence Cases elements of the crime beyond Jeopardy 135H 135H Double The the 5. jjjjDouble Cited conviction IJ.S.C.A. proceeding. Most sufficiency trial for the of affording the purpose another opportunity it to supply evidence successive 159.27 lOkI 135Hk6 of Weight General Proceedings Punishments Cited Verdicts 159 Conclusiveness of Verdict lOki Jeopardy 135Hk5 has Construction k. State or Prosecution. supported clothes first of Construction 33 110k 1144.1 plate near of Evidence Sufficiency Evidence man old IOXXIVP Most Not Shown Proceedings 144.132 lOki 110 The or robbery. 11ll Double or Presumptions Facts 110k1144.13 her man license observed perpetrators wearing told an old rob shot regarding vehicle the to men had testimony 144 lOkl .1 by Record men had of the other one number witness other two Armed Degree First Cases Cited from Testimony scene OXXIVM 11 k. Page 355 I1l.Dec. effective sentences sentences should were run consecutively. revealed Govt. Works. that the victim Ted Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:1634 734 N.E.2d 315 Ill.App.3d at North of Elston corner each day and Alfa Elston the home around 1ll.Dec. northwest the end the at of money proceeds December 13 1995 the victims 355 Supply Company Usually on but the 815 248 took the days home of the incident date 63 N.E.2d took the money wife p.m. Christine Officer the she that scene bleeding James that p.m. Radkins the Company entered Radkins and 65357 from street saw moved slowly parked about and stopped license car the gray car and over knelt had it gray Honda Granias scene. another witness gunshots His then had not seen Restaurant the told the area windows in make northbound parking 390 who and chest at glanced could not wearing two see dark falling white yelling for station The and officers victim was Dr. was their on on the man parking lot him to saw knees. an noticed An went the about ground with were with went also to the and Albazi Granias toured Officer Honda with CPP 816 plate and tinted two for hoodies. the testified died of consisting of two Ortiz girlfriend Rivera testified Harding gray testified with that the someone. Shortly tried have Nelson pale upset to and said further 13 that 1995 he shot in going on. Defendant man that that Nelson Gloria that him Park. Irving had he and said shot Nelson and Pulaski near admitted She defendant walked was old an happened seemed Defendant evening looking the Rivera owned of December thereafter rob to it Miriam. She members of windows. tinted him what asked that man. on North Nelsons Rivera David that Nelson 1839 at wife defendant were Honda came home Nelson and and lived Davids Disciples and Latin N. printouts co-defendant she Nelson and Rivera Nelson ground 4150 at computer of that with Chicago David brother evening the papers. Coco in the behind the garage lying other on snow on shot the should not shot the person. Gloria and Gloria at Miriam left in the police seen. where the people aiding Thomson/West. victim that testified 13 1995 he found Gloria the him. 2008 and was lot he had Albazi to the scene he gray technician and invoices they or He they nearby what took his papers to the chest. paperwork Gloria Albazi parking to for Choi Eupil evidence man alley. contrasted in he stomach his his but officers the when Albazi through which Albazi followed lying to faces The two Alfa he was prompting lot. running clothes told he victim Avenue was holding sinking males help. alley that coming from parking who snow. the reported testified men approached He said he Radkins Bradke license wounds Maniac of Elston side lot the Mr. bearing testified Elston on into the U-turn the said the to and police Albazi Sargon left-hand saw and Elston and gray Honda. couple of gunshots the on the to to went that testified looking Springfield sheets which then lot talked Radkins witness traveling heard parking went ledger Radkins before. number of Another Radkins and her what victim his car of direction After and money. him male Hispanics wearing dark he heard p.m. of his house out shot. papers Supply ground. license in been saw computer about at the ran neighbor had somebody and from coming Avenue. that his interviewing of December testified the of the chest lot. Caraballo two that them the in parking asked shot They any. After gunshot she did. further said Officer and Radkins victim him to give to ran. with suspicious report have not and The told shot the Officer down one Radkins past where Radkins 816. on down. was car and police houses and lights The pulled walked number CPP area and the gray the call alley seven or noticed plate wife to six its the garage. the Supply. their garage. with did victim in was summoned Berteau driving access car blocking down the investigated compact the at and wife was their at family Restaurant Berteau to gray motor running Alfa Radkins off alley his Springfield Springfield the lot. parking the North the snow the she testified Albazi an ambulance summoning him and before shortly with arrived 4150 at of intersection across he evening home family that testified Mr. found in lying partner Caraballo whom officers happened. 389 Page 355 Il1.Dec. Chicago on Berteau. victim paperwork 248 Restaurant in and 734 387 Ill.App.3d operated 4318 63 387 734 N.E.2d Cite as 315 Kontzias FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 No Pulaski the to wheel see Granias stopped what the and Miriam and questioning. After Claim to Orig. U.S. and Govt. went really 66358 took them conversation Works. to Honda gray to Irving happened. car arrested police with with Park Gloria station Gloria and Officer for Officer Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:1635 734 N.E.2d 315 Ill.App.3d 387 Cite as 315 Granias window white in Nelson David and placed rooms interrogation and T-shirt in in around milling black 355 The the front third time were four and and arrested all to and a.m. he to wish to assistant The make revealed defendant without police statement to back to stopped at asked Attorneys the i what Attorneys was who on. going the Nelson trying to snatch began to alley dropped fence jumped home Nelson Defendant then that Coco Nelson He brother David. and Nelson Get five that at job Nelsons planned to use job Defendants following factory in about 63 man to put Riveras i.e. the David Alfas. parking saw two lot they and straight they left 2008 the shot victim was The man him. defendant went very the to he shouldnt said have saw The to the jury. defendants denied previously statement. his suppress v. 392 not appropriate. People v. 215 188 662 Il1.Dec. only They returned again to L.Ed.2d at 414. get beer. Thomson/West. No thus Claim 206 to Orig. v. 694 review IV 1966 U.S. 671. 384 Ill. People 645 Govt. Works. is 447-48 1996. Here are has the not in constitutional interrogations. 436 v. of review 409 IIl.2d Const.l970 U.S. are appropriate. custodial all 486 credibility statement is fact. facts novo 1328 defendant at Arizona IIl.Dec. 169 N.E.2d criminal amends. the and Ill.Dec. the issue de at Oaks de novo counsel Miranda and presents law 221 Where defendants surrounding Const.. the one 1996. incriminating of 25-26 that police statements question lll.2d 910. is right to together 175 an prompt his 359 counsel requested made by suppress uncontroverted 131 that to to mixed Kidd N.E.2d facts They likely with had statement to contends first suppressed67 he after given motion witnesses the to was essentially all defendant appeal it court have money him. defendant to reasonably 675 left further left. Nelsons pushed was published had response dispute went When trucks the car. the me defendant papers threw the gun over the Honda and went home. Back statement statement. People until the in Alfa exit with on gun indicated discussion and the was he everybody take to and Latin at wait would was statement this Nelson truck David to him. defendant became and and should have been because it and would said the into motion pretrial to Nelsons man the Nelson the point was Maniac They planned came in and trucks Defendants cash. who In prior to the incident that hep Nelson looked pale and court On knew he so gun and that street with him give told then coming the went out those Disciple also robbing briefcase. company because with stated Supply in was Latin admitted discussed Restaurant money Rivera Defendant Disciple. Maniac scared come man. them. statement. gave defendant admitted he was victim got the man old on-hes turned The Nelson left. confession 391 the help yell and circuit and According responded to talk to victim his papers. hand. Defendants case be charged to money. shot the The The the crossed and victim David of States reviewing be placed. then want in. and around number were going to defendant detective States looked were him defendant the into also told victim Defendant lot. empty the come Nelson .25 confronted scared After escorted way the who was going were charges there office were deciding they what him 850 restroom. an grabbed two gun detective fountain detective told the attorney and police the On room. drinking the detective the interview the did Nelson he approximately use defendant used the restroom an said a.m. at that asked to 505 at Attorneys testimony a.m. with gave States defendant said statement speak Nelson warnings. toward with trucks statement for street said the factory defendant exited saw Nelson Nelson building and the across When out. the Nelson thereafter there parked as the all pull Nelson alley. David street left returned Defendants cars. and trucks trio lot. of the side in waited now. Armed 230 approximately at come of the Nelson with spoke police both Miranda Nelson present. that with defendant gave wished not revealed and a.m. at and parking shortly the the employees leave that park by Honda for questioning. the three When the in same the and lot to The testimony on saw again food. get trucks indicated windowless small to observed the were they returned trio Honda male hoodies. There separate Ill.Dec. Chicago other dark were 248 including two or headquarters. and processed in Harding defendant Area to 63 N.E.2d Page 355 Ill.Dec. Granias looked wearing subjects 734 North saw people subject taken 387 Officer p.m. 248 63 N.E.2d 1839 to 10 and Hispanic 734 IH.App.3d went at arriving tall FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 86 McCauley N.E.2d 923 art. S.Ct. 10 1. 1602 163 16 lll.2d 1994. Once Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:1636 734 N.E.2d 315 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 I1l.App.3d Cite as 315 invokes interrogate him unless that with the 101 request presumption that advice. lawyers 108 1988. 2093 the at 681 State waiver S.Ct. of counsel was knowing and 68 11 186 lll.2d Where accused 2830 for which to likely 164 Rhode whether elicit 64 1682 S.Ct. such of the police. Olivera. 647 at In People 647 in relation officer to shooting advised Olivera invoked officer placed Olivera asked 164 9. been Ill.2d The at Olivera his the officer 387 207 officer 100 291. likely primarily because S.Ct. 930. at contrasted Bradshaw which in defendants the not the question reasonably me 462 to likely at you He 410. You the rather than me to officer with 103 You an requested talking S.Ct. do not attorney unless know it 462 so you you say-because-since you Bradshaw will. 1042 at stated have Well asked now U.S. 2833 77 L.Ed.2d at 164 Olivera N.E.2d Supreme Court to anything free knowing 647 433. an attorney you requested the and has be to U.S. at 1042 at 410. at the told in Attorneys to were they upon the intent 207 Ill.Dec. 392. to observed several him deciding who charges were The police response going States the reviewing case be charged to the in going on. The number of were who was going what people was were there office after Upon overnight. what the detective the restroom the use department police defendant detective the upon defendant asked at and be placed. to than Ill.2d at and Olivera in the police here are strikingly similar. Each provided response the defendant with information rather than new 382 207 IIl.2d Olivera to The of his Miranda to counsel. in rights what happened Ill.Dec. responded 433 that identified 2008 the 647 about and the defendant whereupon Thomson/West. supreme at police had court and statement the No persons Claim each by to Orig. U.S. to is response the that Govt. Works. for concerned the it is but focus or investigation nature of conduct likely to the Olivera deciding is which evidence human in standard when reasonably the information case focus question established police the Admittedly determined incriminating contained of suspect the defendant. answer Olivera each rights investigation amount of evidence upon which N.E.2d the defendant was another after his reiterating police arresting Later line-up 433 lll.Dec. surrendered investigation. right Olivera positively is desire concerning rights. warning want room and asked determining reasonably rather 164 1995 926 In dont desire evince defendant the happen me. to and exiting at 930. Olivera v. N.E.2d is the focus 164 Olivera U.S. 1980. by police of the suspect 446 hinis v. 297 to L.Ed.2d talk inquiry not response. Bradshaw 77 to being N.E.2d 647 433. and with jJ Here reasonably is proper not Illinois the in respond to when going is 2833 103 express response. lll.Dec. Island response N.E.2d not Bradshaw your own the about know incriminating statement perceptions 433. must should L.Ed.2d not be to officer an incriminating have 391. If of the held have the 382 1995. does discussion officer an about lll.2d 926 question 391-92 207 at citing 9. or police elicit lll.2d 164 N.E.2d generalized the investigation manner 647 comment defendants Olivera v. at and willingness Ill.Dec. had he defendants did Miranda with information. the initiated 207 of his The constituted his Illinois responded of of the what the totality discussion generalized investigationPeople 433. the defendant manner evincing in lI1.Dec. 1983 under which Olivera68360 In 103 1044. 412 holding so elicit the 1039. 405 whether the whether is at In was 1977. 57 the stated victim. discussion 390-9 Ill.2d response right communication U.S. L.Ed.2d is inquiry for desire 462 77 and Washington v. issue further initiated circumstances 207 the here 2834 conversation People that waiver intelligent U.S. of that held generalized investigation that prove 603 369 N.E.2d lll.Dec. Bradshaw v. preliminary desire following as to for has 713 at invocation intelligent himself Oregon burden heavy bears L.Ed.2d the 647 433. Olivera Olivera shot about the results of the lineup 714 486 Roberson. 100 2097 at 704 waiver any Court Supreme 675 U.S. L.Ed.2d that behest authorities 108 the then he next. happen 1lI.Dec. advised officer time when alone would 207 387. at The second rights what inquired Ill.2d 929. at been without 486 164 N.E.2d 386 raise 100 Olivera 477. 378 393 defendant initiates U.S. proceed Roberson 2099 355 conversations 451 counsel presumed is it Ill.Dec. cannot L.Ed.2d unable to is Arizona S.Ct. Thus come for he 248 police Arizona v. 63 himself or 1885 68 1880 S.Ct. 1981. S.Ct. the accused Page 355 Ill.Dec. N.E.2d right the Edwards police. 484-85 the 734 248 communication exchanges further at 387 fll.App.3d defendant 683 63 387 734 N.E.2d by whether to elicit primarily an upon Case: 1:04-cv-04992 Document #: 50-30 Filed: 12/03/09 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:1637 734 N.E.2d 315 Ill.App.3d 63 387 734 N.E.2d Cite as 315 the FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 63 387 IIl.App.3d of the perceptions intent of the police. Thus with 734 248 rather suspect 63 N.E.2d than fll.Dec. 248 355 128 the upon detectives made aspersions the officer Court Supreme made by warning United States the statement was reasonably counsel in be the detectives to after response him. had with The man motion to suppress the statement. 1911101 consider new whether the The double the affording 98 2141 S.Ct. the in David incident happened victim an elderly to 172-73 Because not 57 Ill.Dec. evidence at jjj The relevant of sufficiency conviction the is rational trier elements People 538 once is evidence for when evidence. 40 1988 the at 109 People v. 285 Avery to v. 102 180 480. 1996 remand issues and motion to social on evidence the to against remand the 395People lll.2d at v. 670 22. lll.Dec. 141 was police we 219 at standing verdict retrial. Mink at 173-74 979-80. sentencing history which Reversed and with plaintiffs the psycho and summary Forensic prepared by taken was of assistance and moot record psychological summary Services are defendants trial ineffective the supplement psychiatric new for regarding with the case is Clinical denied. criminal doubt. lll.Dec. Ill.App.3d 387 734 N.E.2d END OF DOCUMENT all be of the sufficiency Ill.App.3d 2008 may trial 488 265. 146. Thomson/West. U.s. 273 157 No Claim J. concur. Flores been jeopardy Nelson 86 v. verdict has L.Ed.2d 315 BUCKLEY and even permitted sustain People J. Dist.2000. Ill.App. any essential 131 CAMPBELL in the is remanded. the reasonable double the 290. 464 293 565 N.E.2d we counsel the prosecution original determining S.Ct. aside evidence 6936lLockhart lll.2d 708 700. Ill.Dec. remaining 163. evidence the 49 of for gunshot fatal Accordingly court the The Park. from the Pulaski statement circuit 172 Because legally whether found Retrial insufficient of an reviewing in the lll.2d 152 1990. 975 support have purposes submitted considered to admitted erroneously discounted 33. 128 the that convict. beyond 1989. was set is ask to N.E.2d conviction lll.2d N.E.2d viewing could crime 461 141 to to after of fact evidence though sufficient favorable Young v. trial consider evidence the at conviction error we to an old rob of his business distance sustain but unnecessary. to Irving lot This to defendants Birdsall 11 because the to sufficient evening together defendant Mink 565 question of the N.E.2d v. to cause 1978. aside introduced whether most light set helpful first U.S. of retrial leading 293. was trial the in 437 L.Ed.2d People trial muster to been has convict. of opportunity of short the and from parking intersection. was and suffering the tried against he on that man old Pulaski male Berteau defendant purpose the near in had Rivera shot found Irving alone for precludes the another preclude defendants account for trial proceedings 152 clause and testified her of male Hispanic later defendant told and Nelson was defendant and 816. Gloria driver its Ortizs testimony to Nelson that and we suppress to hoodie CPP the vicinity in questioned police incident Elston circuit courts remanded United States v. providing the evidence sufficient be may jeopardy 2147. it does However whose conviction error to failed it Burks proceeding. the prosecution evidence supply cause successive or in motion error defendants the trial. second found Having of denial led driving number Honda as three and clothes plate this and scene dark wound license located According of the Miranda. defendants denying crime Ortiz. Ortiz an elicit with the perpetratOrs dark wearing promptly wearing proper. defendant violated and thus erred court that the the to likely Police the which Honda gray Illinois to males 1989. 1296 described eyewitnesses Hispanic statement than found the find the Bradshaw in Court conclude we the to which improper officer 394 incriminating requested be to Supreme Olivera Following circuit found akin Olivera in we the detective was more statement by to 691 534 N.E.2d IlI.Dec. Here no Page 355 lll.Dec. to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 63 248 Ill.Dec. 355