IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent,
-vsANTHONY McKINNEY,
Petitioner.
No. 78 CR 5267
VERIIFIED PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Petitioner, ANTHONY McKINNEY, by his attorneys, KAREN L. DANIEL and
STEVEN A. DRIZIN, CENTER ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS, BLUHM LEGAL
CLINIC, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, respectfully requests relief
pursuant to the Illinois Post Conviction Hearing Act, 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq., and in support of
this request, alleges and states the following:
INTRODUCTION
In 1978, Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, James Thompson was
Governor of Illinois, and Muhammad Ali and Leon Spinks were battling each other for boxing’s
heavyweight championship. On the same night that Ali regained the title from Spinks, September
15, 1978, a private security guard named Donald Lundahl was shot to death in his car outside the
Masonic Temple in Harvey, Illinois. Harvey police detectives questioned numerous AfricanAmerican teenaged boys who lived in the neighborhood and eventually fixed their sights on 18year-old Anthony McKinney, from whom they extracted a confession. Another teenager, Wayne
Phillips, testified at trial that from 50 yards away he heard Anthony threaten the victim and saw
1
Anthony fire into the car. Anthony, however, maintained his innocence and testified that he
signed a confession only because the police beat him. Unfortunately, Anthony’s attorney was
unsuccessful in his efforts to present evidence that Wayne Phillips and another teenager, Dennis
Pettis, were beaten and coerced into fingering Anthony, and that a known hoodlum named
Anthony Drake had confessed to the crime. The jury concluded that Anthony was guilty.
The murder having occurred the year after capital punishment was reinstated in Illinois,
the State sought the death penalty. The sole eligibility factor was that the murder took place in
the course of another felony: armed robbery. Despite Anthony’s eligibility for the death penalty,
the court declined to impose it and instead sentenced Anthony to natural life imprisonment.
Since that time, Anthony has been housed in psychiatric units of the Illinois Department
of Corrections. With the passage of three decades, it would not be surprising if the world forgot
about him. But Anthony was not forgotten. In 1999, Anthony’s brother Michael McKinney had a
chance encounter with Wayne Phillips, during which Phillips broke down in tears, apologized for
what he had done to Michael’s brother, and explained that the police had forced him to give false
testimony against Anthony. This encounter renewed Michael’s interest in his brother’s case and
caused him both to reinvestigate the case himself and to seek investigative and legal assistance.
The results of this reinvestigation confirmed what Anthony’s attorney maintained at the
time of trial: that the Harvey police coerced Wayne Phillips and Dennis Pettis into falsely
identifying Anthony as the perpetrator of a crime they did not even witness. Both Pettis (who
testified at the grand jury) and Phillips (who testified at trial) have signed affidavits explaining
that they did not see Anthony shoot anyone, and that they testified against Anthony only because
the police beat and coerced them into making untrue statements. Moreover, newly obtained logs
of the televised Ali-Spinks bout on the night of the murder demonstrate that Phillips’s and
2
Pettis’s prior accounts of witnessing the murder could not have been true, based on the starting
and ending times of the various rounds of the fight.
Further, Anthony Drake admitted on videotape in 2004 that he was involved in the crime.
Although he has since disavowed that admission, numerous other people have sworn in affidavits
that Drake made many similar inculpatory statements immediately after the murder and at
various times over the following years, which lends credibility to the 2004 admission. In
implicating himself and a group of other young men bent on robbery that night, Drake confirmed
that Anthony McKinney was neither present for nor involved in the crime.
Finally, public records reveal that one of the officers who obtained Anthony’s confession
was the subject of numerous complaints of brutality and other misconduct during the years
before and after Anthony signed his confession. Harvey internal personnel records or other
sources may reveal even more such incidents, which would additionally support Anthony’s
longstanding claim that he was beaten into confessing by the Harvey police.
In pleading for Anthony McKinney’s life at the sentencing hearing, his court-appointed
attorney, Stephen Broussard, described at length his own investigation of the case and why it had
led him to believe that Anthony’s confession was false and that someone else had committed the
murder. Broussard concluded his remarks as follows: “It is my hope that this information can be
developed to a point that ultimately can result in the truth coming out that Anthony McKinney
was not the perpetrator of this offense.” R. 695.
Although many years have elapsed since then, the Illinois Legislature has wisely decreed
that there is no time bar on innocence. In the face of the new evidence of innocence set forth in
this petition, it is incumbent upon this Court to vacate Anthony McKinney’s conviction and
order a new trial.
3
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.
A jury found Anthony McKinney guilty of murder and armed robbery on
December 10, 1981. The State sought the death penalty. After Anthony McKinney waived his
right to a jury for the capital sentencing hearing, the Honorable Richard J. Samuels imposed a
sentence of natural life imprisonment on January 13, 1982. The judgment was affirmed by the
Appellate Court on August 30, 1983. People v. McKinney, 117 Ill. App. 3d 591 (1st Dist. 1983).
See Exh. 18.
2.
On February 22, 2006, Anthony McKinney filed a motion for post-conviction
fingerprint testing under 725 ILCS 5/116-3, requesting that fingerprint lifts from the victim’s car
be run through the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). It was
determined prior to trial that the prints did not come from either Anthony or the victim, but the
prints have remained unidentified. This Court ordered that the prints be submitted to the Illinois
State Police (ISP) crime lab for analysis, but the ISP analyst concluded that the prints were not
suitable for submission to IAFIS. See Exh. 19.
3.
Anthony McKinney has not previously filed a petition under the Post Conviction
Hearing Act.
TIMELINESS OF PETITION
4.
Because this petition advances a claim of actual innocence, it is not subject to the
ordinary statutory limitation period for post-conviction petitions. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c).
EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL
Anthony McKinney’s Activities on the Night of the Murder
5.
On the night of September 15, 1978, beginning at 7:00 p.m., Anthony McKinney
watched the entire televised Ali-Spinks boxing match at his family’s home at 15147 South
4
Loomis Avenue in Harvey, Illinois. R. 497, 498, 543. (See Map, Exh. 20, for a guide to this and
other key locations.) Anthony watched the fight with his father, Robert McKinney, and his
father’s friend, Donnell Hood, and did not leave the house during that time. R. 497-99, 521, 523.
6.
After the fight had ended, Robert McKinney and Donnell Hood left Anthony at
the McKinney residence and went to buy beer from a liquor store located on 154th Street, near
Myrtle Avenue. R. 498, 500. The two men walked south on Loomis Avenue until they reached
153rd Street. R. 501-02. At the intersection of 153rd and Loomis they saw police cars one block
east on Lexington Avenue; they walked past and continued to the liquor store. R. 501-02.
7.
At about 10:30 p.m., just after the conclusion of the post-fight analysis on
television, Anthony left the McKinney house to go to a party at a karate school located on 154th
Street next door to the liquor store. R. 523, 544. The walk to the party took about 10 minutes,
and when Anthony arrived at the party, he stood outside talking to some friends for about 20
minutes. R. 523, 544, 545.
The Chase
8.
Anthony was standing outside the karate school talking with his friends when a
young man (Tony Parham) approached Anthony and said he wanted to speak to him. R. 524.
Anthony noticed several youths he did not know come running from around the corner of the
building. R. 524. Fearing he was about to be jumped, Anthony ran away in an attempt to get back
home. R. 524.
9.
Anthony ran south on Loomis Avenue. R. 524. Lena Haller (also known as Ms.
Sasco) was with her family in her front yard near the corner of 154th and Loomis and saw a
group of youths chasing Anthony in the direction of her house. R. 468-69, 470. Anthony jumped
over a fence and into Haller’s yard. R. 470-71, 524, 546. The teenagers then stopped chasing
5
Anthony and stood outside Haller’s yard. R. 547. Haller noticed that the youths chasing Anthony
were carrying chains, knives, and pipes. R. 471, 547. Anthony informed Haller that he needed
help. R. 470, 524. Haller instructed Anthony to ask for help from the police officers who were
standing nearby on 153rd Street, between Lexington and Loomis Avenues. R. 472, 524.
10.
Anthony jumped out of Haller’s yard and ran toward the police officers. R. 524.
The young men chased Anthony from Haller’s yard but stopped when they saw that Anthony
was headed for the police. Id. A crowd of spectators was gathered around the scene. R. 359.
When Anthony reached the police, he told Detective Coleman McCarthy that he was being
chased by a group of armed young men and needed help. R. 524, 547, 549-50. The youths
chasing Anthony were close enough that McCarthy should have been able to see them. R. 550.
The Crime Scene
11.
What Detective McCarthy and his fellow Harvey police officers were
investigating was the shooting death of Donald Lundahl, a security guard who had been on duty
that evening at the Masonic Temple located on 153 rd Street near Lexington Avenue. R. 297, 333,
396. Earlier that evening, a coworker had found Lundahl’s body in the driver’s seat of Lundahl’s
car, which was parked in front of the Masonic Temple. R. 333-36. The first officer to respond to
the scene received a call about the incident at 10:03 p.m. See Exh. 21, Harvey Police
Continuation Report, 9/25/78, p. 2. The police estimated that the murder occurred between 9:30
and 9:45 p.m. Id., p. 1. Lundahl died of a shotgun wound to the back of his head. R. 395-96.
12.
Harvey Police Detectives Coleman McCarthy and Thomas Morrison were in
charge of the investigation of Lundahl’s death. R. 368. While at the crime scene, McCarthy saw
Anthony McKinney running down Loomis Avenue toward 153rd Street. R. 353-54, 473.
McCarthy also saw Anthony’s younger brother, Michael McKinney, near the scene. R. 347.
6
McCarthy took both McKinney brothers into custody and sent them to the Harvey police station
for questioning about the Lundahl murder. R. 347, 473, 524-525. The Harvey police held the
McKinney brothers at the station overnight. R. 525.
The First Interrogation
13.
On September 16, 1978, at approximately 11:50 a.m., McCarthy questioned
Anthony about the Lundahl shooting in the presence of Detective Morrison and Michael
McKinney. R. 526. Anthony said he knew nothing about the murder. R. 527.
14.
With no indication that either Anthony or Michael was involved in the shooting,
the Harvey police released the McKinney brothers that afternoon. R. 347, 359. McCarthy and
Morrison offered the boys a $500 reward for information about the shooting. R. 551.
The Second Interrogation and the Confession
15.
Detectives McCarthy and Morrison arrested Anthony four days later, on the
morning of September 20, 1978, and transported him to the police station. R. 529. During this
trip, McCarthy said he knew that Anthony had killed Lundahl. R. 529. McCarthy also told
Anthony that Lundahl’s son was at the station waiting to kill Anthony and that McCarthy would
let him do it. R. 529-30.
16.
When they arrived at the police station, the detectives took Anthony directly to
the Detective Division. R. 530. On the way, Anthony noticed a tall, blond Caucasian wearing a
white t-shirt and carrying a gun in the front of his pants. R. 530. This man was not wearing a
uniform or a badge. R. 530. When they reached the Detective Division, Anthony was seated in a
chair, still handcuffed behind his back. R. 531. McCarthy told Anthony that there were
eyewitnesses who had seen Anthony shoot Lundahl. R. 531. Anthony responded that he did not
know what McCarthy was talking about. R. 531. McCarthy then said that he could arrange for
7
Anthony to be released after six months in a mental institution if Anthony told the truth. R. 531.
Anthony again said he had no idea what McCarthy was talking about and that the detectives had
the wrong person. R. 531.
17.
After Anthony repeated that he did not shoot Lundahl, Morrison hit Anthony
across the back with a pipe. R. 531, 541. McCarthy once more asked Anthony to tell the truth;
Anthony insisted he did not know anything. R. 531. The detectives then knocked Anthony off his
chair and onto the floor, and McCarthy kicked Anthony in the stomach. R. 531-32. McCarthy
took a “dent snatcher” from a filing cabinet and beat Anthony so that his knees and arms were
numb and the skin on his elbows and knees was torn. R. 521, 532, 541, 557.
18.
At some point after McCarthy kicked Anthony, the man with the white t-shirt
came into the room. R. 534. This man took the gun out of his trousers, cocked it, and put it to
Anthony’s head. R. 534. One of the detectives opened the back door to the office and tried to
drag Anthony over to the door, telling him he might as well confess. R. 534. When Anthony
persisted in refusing to do so, the detectives continued beating him. R. 534.
19.
Eventually, one of the detectives pulled out a form, handed Anthony a pen, and
told Anthony to sign his name on the form. R. 535. Still handcuffed behind his back, Anthony
told the detectives he was not going to confess to a homicide he did not commit. R. 535. The
officers continued to beat Anthony until his body ached and he agreed to sign the form. R. 535.
20.
Anthony was un-handcuffed just long enough to sign the papers. R. 542. He was
then re-handcuffed, taken back to a cell, and locked up. R. 536, 542.
21.
Anthony testified at trial that he did not shoot Lundahl or take his wallet, and that
he never told the police he committed the crime. R. 538, 542, 554.
8
Alleged Eyewitnesses to the Shooting (prosecution evidence)
22.
According to Detective McCarthy, two teenagers named Wayne Phillips and
Dennis Pettis told him that they had witnessed Anthony McKinney shoot Lundahl. R. 341, 346.
Pettis, however, did not appear at trial to testify; he went into “hiding” a few days beforehand
and his family refused to disclose his whereabouts. R. 423, 439-40.1
23.
Wayne Phillips testified that on the night of September 15, 1978, he was watching
the Ali-Spinks fight at his brother’s house at 15219 South Loomis Avenue. R. 308-10, 322.
Phillips told the jury that at the end of the ninth round of this fifteen-round championship bout,
he left the house to buy beer, although he was only 18 years old at the time. R. 310, 320-21.
Phillips ran into his friend Dennis Pettis, then 15 years old, on the way to the liquor store. R. 312.
Phillips testified that while he and Pettis were standing on the southeast corner of 153rd and
Loomis, they saw Anthony by the driver’s side of Lundahl’s car. R. 311-13. Lundahl’s car was
parked approximately 50 yards away from them, facing east, so that Phillips and Pettis were
looking at the rear passenger side of the vehicle. R. 323-24. Phillips testified that Anthony aimed
a shotgun into the window of the car and said to Lundahl, “your money or your life,” and then,
“well, you just going to have to die.” R. 314. Phillips said that he saw Anthony fire the gun, take
something out of the vehicle, and run down the alley. R. 314-15. Phillips testified that he and
Pettis went to Pettis’s house and later returned to the crime scene. R. 315, 330. Although the
police were at the scene investigating the murder, neither Phillips nor Pettis told the police that
they had witnessed the crime. R. 317, 330, 346, 348.
Police Version of the Interrogation and Confession
24.
Detective McCarthy testified at trial that as a result of his conversations with
1
Dennis Pettis signed a statement for the police that was consistent with Wayne Phillips’s trial testimony, and Pettis
testified before the grand jury. See Exh. 22, Pettis Statement to Police, and Exh. 1, Pettis Affidavit.
9
Wayne Phillips and Dennis Pettis, he decided to question Anthony McKinney as a suspect in the
Lundahl murder. R. 341. On the morning of September 20, 1978, McCarthy and Morrison picked
up Anthony and drove him to the Harvey police station. R. 341, 342. McCarthy testified that he
did not speak to Anthony during the drive. R. 361. At the police station, Anthony was processed
in the booking area and then was taken to the Detective Division. R. 343. McCarthy stated that
Morrison advised Anthony of his constitutional rights pursuant to a form and that Anthony filled
out and signed the form. R. 343-44.
25.
When McCarthy and Morrison first asked Anthony about the shooting of Donald
Lundahl, Anthony said he knew nothing about it. R. 345. According to McCarthy, however, after
he told Anthony that witnesses had seen Anthony commit the crime, Anthony confessed to
shooting Lundahl and taking his wallet. R. 346. Morrison took notes about what Anthony said,
and a secretary was there at the station to type up a statement based on Morrison’s notes, even
though it was in the wee hours of the morning. R. 27, 348-49. On the other hand, no assistant
state’s attorney was present for either the interrogations or the confession. Both Anthony and the
detectives signed the statement. R. 349-50.
26.
According to McCarthy, after the statement had been signed, Anthony added that
he had taken three dollars from the victim’s wallet. R. 351.
Lack of Corroborating Evidence
27.
McCarthy testified that he searched for the shotgun and the victim’s wallet in the
vacant lot where Anthony allegedly said he discarded them, but neither McCarthy nor any other
police officer ever found them. R. 350.
28.
Police evidence technicians dusted the victim’s car and lifted six latent
fingerprints, some of which were on the driver’s side door near the window, the very area from
10
which the fatal shots had been fired. R. 362, 371. None of the latent prints matched either the
victim’s or Anthony’s fingerprints. R. 373.
NEW EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE
29.
Although it has taken nearly three decades to accumulate, there is now substantial
new evidence supporting Anthony McKinney’s claim of innocence. Wayne Phillips, the alleged
eyewitness who testified against Anthony McKinney at trial, has come forward and explained
that the police coerced him into making false statements. Phillips’s retraction is corroborated by
Dennis Pettis, who likewise states under oath that Harvey police officers beat him until he falsely
implicated Anthony McKinney in the murder.
30.
Newly discovered television logs from the Ali-Spinks heavyweight bout further
demonstrate that Phillips’s and Pettis’s accounts were patently false. The murder had already
taken place at the point in the fight when both witnesses originally claimed they went outside and
witnessed the murder.
31.
The allegations of police brutality by Anthony McKinney, Dennis Pettis, and
Wayne Phillips are corroborated by similar allegations of other individuals against one of the
same Harvey police officers.
32.
In addition, there is now admissible evidence that Anthony Drake has repeatedly
acknowledged being part of a group of thugs that robbed Donald Lundahl—a group that did not
include Anthony McKinney. The most recent of these admissions is on videotape.
33.
This new evidence refutes the eyewitness testimony presented at trial and
supports Anthony McKinney’s longstanding claim that the police forced him to falsely confess
to the murder. Taken together, the new evidence completely undermines the reliability of the
original verdict and requires that Anthony McKinney receive a new trial.
11
A.
The Supposed Eyewitnesses Now Swear They Were Beaten And Coerced By Police
Into Falsely Implicating Anthony McKinney.
Wayne Phillips
34.
Wayne Phillips was the sole person to testify at trial that he saw Anthony
McKinney shoot Donald Lundahl. Phillips testified that he was watching the Ali-Spinks boxing
match at his brother’s house, but left at the end of the ninth round to purchase beer, whereupon
he met up with Dennis Pettis on the street and witnessed the murder. R. 309-14.
35.
This testimony was consistent with a signed statement that Phillips gave to the
Harvey police on September 19, 1978. See Exh. 23. Phillips, however, has now repudiated this
statement as well as his testimony at Anthony’s trial.
36.
On February 4, 2006, Wayne Phillips signed an affidavit admitting that the
statements he made to police and at trial were untrue, and explaining that the Harvey police
intimidated him into saying that Anthony McKinney committed the crime. See Exh. 2.
37.
In his affidavit, Phillips swears that a couple of days after the shooting, both he
and Dennis Pettis were stopped by Detectives McCarthy and Morrison and were taken to the
Harvey police station. Id. at 2. Phillips and Pettis were placed in separate rooms for questioning.
Phillips states that he “could hear the police beating up Dennis Pettis in the other room . . . [and]
could hear Dennis hollering and screaming . . .” Id. The detectives also pushed Phillips against
the wall, yelled at him, slammed things down on the table, made a lot of noise, and scared him.
Id. In the face of this intimidation, Phillips decided to cooperate with the police and say whatever
the police told him to say. The teenager agreed to the officers’ story so that they would release
both him and Pettis. Id.
38.
As a result of this coercion, Phillips signed a piece of paper stating that he had
seen Anthony shoot the security guard. Id. McCarthy told Phillips to include in the statement that
12
he heard Anthony say “your money or your life.” Id. The officers later rehearsed Phillips’s court
testimony with him. Id. at 3. Phillips did what the police instructed him to do and lied at trial
because he was “scared of what they would do if I didn’t go along with their story.” Id.
Dennis Pettis
39.
In a signed statement obtained by the Harvey police on September 19, 1978,
Pettis stated that he left his house at the end of the tenth round of the Ali-Spinks fight, and that
he saw Anthony shoot the security guard while he was talking to Wayne Phillips on the corner of
153rd Street and Loomis—in other words, a city block away from the crime scene. See Exh. 22.
40.
Although Dennis Pettis testified in front of the grand jury (Exh. 1 at 3), neither the
State nor the defense was able to serve him with a trial subpoena because he was “in hiding,” and
thus he did not testify at Anthony McKinney’s trial. R. 423, 439, 685.
41.
Like Phillips, Dennis Pettis has since retracted his statement to the police. On
October 8, 2005, Pettis signed an affidavit explaining that both his statement to the police and his
grand jury testimony were fabrications. See Exh. 1. Pettis’s affidavit not only negates his own
earlier statements, but also contradicts Phillips’s trial testimony.
42.
In his affidavit, Pettis details the physical abuse and coercion he endured at the
hands of Detectives McCarthy and Morrison. Pettis confirms that he and Phillips were picked up
by the police on 154th Street, two nights after the shooting. Id. at 2. The police told Pettis that if
he “didn’t give Anthony McKinney up, Anthony would give [him] up.” Id. at 3. When Pettis
refused to implicate Anthony, the officers began to beat him; Pettis states that they “hit me,
punched me, kicked me, and tried to intimidate me.” Id. This went on for over an hour and a half.
Id. at 3. The officers also implied that they would kill Pettis if he “said anything different from
what they were telling [him] to say.” Id. The beating and intimidation were so intense that Pettis
13
was “scared for [his] life when [he] was in that interrogation room.” Id. Because the 15-year-old
feared that the officers would kill him if he did not cooperate, Pettis finally complied with
Officer Morrison’s demands to write that he had seen Anthony commit the crime. Id. at 3-4. This
fear of the police is also why Pettis testified as he did in front of the grand jury. Id. at 4.
43.
Pettis did not appear in court to testify at Anthony’s trial because he “did not want
to lie again, and [he] was scared of what McCarthy and Morrison would do to [him] if [he] told
the truth” on the stand. Id. As a result, about three weeks after he was interrogated and beaten by
the police, Pettis left Harvey and went to live with his aunt on the west side of Chicago. Id.
Pettis’s fear of the Harvey police forced him to live outside of Harvey for about seven years. Id.
44.
Pettis did not suddenly invent this version of events. During Anthony’s trial
proceedings, defense counsel stated that an investigator had obtained a statement from Dennis
Pettis wherein Pettis recounted that the police had beaten him and forced him to implicate
Anthony as the murderer in this case. R. 685. (See also Exh. 24.) Pettis’s testimony was not
available at the time of trial, however, because he was in hiding and avoided subpoena service.
Corroborative Evidence: Gwendolyn Phillips
45.
Dennis Pettis’s sister Gwendolyn Pettis testified through a formal offer of proof
that she saw both her brother and Wayne Phillips the day after they were interrogated by
McCarthy and Morrison. R. 434. Wayne told her that he and Dennis had been kept overnight in
the police station, that they had been beaten, and that they had been instructed to say that
Anthony shot the security guard. R. 434. Gwendolyn noticed at this time that her brother Dennis
was walking bent over, as if he were hurt. R. 435. After they returned home, Dennis showed
Gwendolyn the bruises on his back; she also felt a knot on his lower back. R. 436-37.
(Gwendolyn’s testimony is attached as Exhibit 25.)
14
46.
The trial court excluded Gwendolyn’s testimony from trial as a discovery sanction
for defense counsel’s failure to include her on his list of witnesses, despite defense counsel’s
explanation that he did not discover Gwendolyn’s prospective testimony until after the trial had
commenced, while unsuccessfully attempting to subpoena her brother Dennis. R. 428, 660.
B.
The Alleged Eyewitnesses’ Accounts Are Demonstrably False Based On The ABC
Television Log Detailing The Timeline Of The Major Heavyweight Boxing Match
That Both Witnesses Say They Were Watching On The Night Of The Murder.
47.
Post-conviction counsel has obtained a written log detailing the timing of the
ABC television broadcast of the events in the Ali-Spinks boxing match. 2 The log provides the
times when each round began and ended and when there were commercial breaks, and explains
the important events in the fight. See Exh. 27.3 This log conclusively shows that the statements
Wayne Phillips and Dennis Pettis gave to the police about witnessing the crime were false.
48.
The relevant police report states that the shooting took place between 9:30 and
9:45 p.m. Exh. 21 at 1. (The police department received the call about the security guard’s death
at 10:03 p.m., id. at 2, but one of Donald Lundahl’s coworkers—who did not witness the murder
or hear gunshots—made that call to the police after finding Lundahl dead in his car. R. 333-36.
Thus, the call was not placed immediately after the shooting.)
49.
Wayne Phillips testified at trial that he left his brother’s house at the end of the
ninth round of the Ali-Spinks boxing match. R. 310. The ninth round began at 9:59:48 p.m. and
2
The Muhammad Ali-Leon Spinks bout was the second of the year between these two heavyweight champions.
Spinks had taken Ali’s title by beating him in a 15-round decision on February 15, 1978. In the rematch in New
Orleans on September 15, 1978, Ali regained the heavyweight crown, besting Spinks in a 15-round unanimous
decision. The victory was historic; by beating Spinks, Ali became the first three-time heavyweight champion in
history. Jack Hawn, Ali Turns Back Clock and Wins Title Again, L.A. TIMES, September 16, 1978, at B1 (Exh. 26).
3
Post-conviction counsel made a diligent but unsuccessful effort to obtain an affidavit to accompany this log. See
Exh. 14.
15
ended at 10:02:49 p.m. Exh. 27 at 12.4 If Wayne left the house when he said he did, he could not
have been at the corner of 153rd and Loomis until after the shooting had already occurred.
50.
Dennis Pettis’s signed statement to the police indicated that he left his house at
the end of the tenth round of the Ali-Spinks fight. Exh. 22. The tenth round began at 10:03:49
p.m. and ended at 10:07:45 p.m. Exh. 27 at 12-13. According to his own statement to the police,
then, Pettis could not have been at the scene of the crime until after the crime was committed.
51.
In short, Wayne Phillips and Dennis Pettis could not have witnessed the murder if
they left their respective houses after the ninth or tenth round of the fight, as they testified at the
grand jury and at trial. This discrepancy supports the assertions in their recent affidavits that their
prior statements about having witnessed the murder were fabrications.
C.
New Evidence Reveals A Series Of Other Allegations Of Brutality And Misconduct
Against One Of The Harvey Detectives Who Investigated The Homicide.
52.
Petitioner has discovered new evidence that former Harvey Police Detective
Coleman McCarthy frequently used improper techniques—including promises, threats, and
physical force—against both suspects and civilians. In addition to the sworn statements of
Wayne Phillips and Dennis Pettis, the following cases contain allegations of misconduct by
McCarthy:
53.
McCarthy was one of a group of Harvey police officers indicted on federal
charges arising from a 1982 incident in which a man named Alieck John Kelly was severely
beaten. Kelly had testified against two different Harvey police officers at a hearing to determine
whether those officers should be fired for misconduct. According to the indictment, a group of
officers, including McCarthy, went to Kelly’s residence two days after the hearing, beat him, and
4
The ABC broadcast began at 7:00 p.m., Chicago time. See Exh. 28. The ABC television log for the broadcast
contains entries beginning at “0:00.” See Exh. 27 at 1. Therefore, when the log shows that the first round of the AliSpinks fight began at “2:27:48” (Exh. 29 at 10), this means it started at 9:27:48 p.m., Chicago time.
16
then conspired to conceal the incident. See Exh. 29, Indictment, No. 87 CR 418 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
Northern Dist. of Ill.).5
54.
In 1983, Lavin Balfour filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Harvey Police
Detectives McCarthy and Fike, among others, for intimidating and threatening Balfour after he
was arrested for murder. According to the complaint, on June 4, 1981, Balfour got into a fight
with a Harvey fireman named Richard Rodgers, and Rodgers died of his injuries. While Balfour
was being held in the Harvey police lockup on suspicion of murder, McCarthy and Fike allowed
two other men access to the cell in which Balfour was confined. One of those men, who claimed
to be Rodgers’ brother, pointed a gun at Balfour and threatened to kill him. See Exh. 31, Balfour
Complaint; Exh. 32, Balfour Amended Complaint. A federal civil jury returned a verdict in
Balfour’s favor against McCarthy and Fike, though the jury did not assess damages against
McCarthy. Exh. 33, Balfour Mem. in Opp. to Def’s Post-Trial Motion at 2. The threat against
Balfour by an armed man claiming to be the murder victim’s brother is reminiscent of Anthony
McKinney’s account of being threatened with a gun by a non-uniformed man at the police
station after McCarthy told him that Lundahl’s son was waiting there to kill him.
55.
McCarthy was also one of the defendants in a 1980 federal civil rights lawsuit
filed by Reuben Poindexter. According to the complaint, on December 4, 1975, Poindexter was
present during the interrogation and attempted arrest of his nephew by Harvey police officers,
including McCarthy. Without provocation, the police began to beat Poindexter. One of the
officers, Detective Nick Graves, struck Poindexter on the head several times with a blackjack,
and McCarthy twisted Poindexter’s arm and hit Poindexter in the side with his fist. The officers
also struck Poindexter in his left eye, forced him to his knees, dragged him to a police car, and
5
All of the defendants, including McCarthy, were eventually acquitted of the charges. See Exh. 30, John O’Brien, 4
Acquitted Beating Linked to Harvey Cop Corruption, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Oct. 31, 1987.
17
took him to the Harvey Police Department. At the station, the officers verbally abused
Poindexter and attempted to intimidate him into signing a statement that he had assaulted
Detective Graves. The officers brought another young man into Poindexter’s cell, showed the
youth how Poindexter had been beaten and bruised, and told the youth, “this is what could
happen to you.” Exh. 34, Poindexter Complaint; Exh. 35, Poindexter First Amended Complaint.6
56.
James Smylie was arrested for murder in Harvey on August 17, 1978, less than a
month before Anthony McKinney’s arrest. See Exh. 36, People v. Smylie, 103 Ill. App. 3d 679,
681-82 (1st Dist. 1981). Smylie alleged that he never signed a confession; instead, at McCarthy’s
behest, he signed a blank sheet of paper on which his confession was later typed. Id. at 683.
(Detective Morrison claimed at trial that Smylie voluntarily confessed to the murder but said he
was too nervous to write out the statement and asked Morrison to do it for him, and that
McCarthy dictated the statement to a secretary in the office—Phyllis Egelbrecht—who typed it
up before Smylie signed it. Id. at 682.) Smylie’s account of the signing of the confession is
strikingly similar to Anthony’s testimony on the same subject—indeed, Egelbrecht is the same
secretary who allegedly typed up Anthony’s statement. R. 13, 349.
57.
On August 2, 1979, Victor Johnson was arrested for rape and murder. Exh. 37,
People v. Johnson, 132 Ill. App. 3d 1, 2, 5 (1st Dist. 1985). Johnson testified that he was coerced
into giving a false confession when McCarthy threatened him with a gun after picking him up in
a police car. Exh. 38, U.S. ex rel. Johnson v. Lane, 639 F. Supp. 260, 264 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
According to Johnson, McCarthy told him to confess to the crime or else he would be sent to a
mental hospital or to prison for the rest of his life—and possibly electrocuted. Id. In the face of
this intimidation, Johnson confessed to the crime. Id. (McCarthy claimed that Johnson
6
On information and belief, and according to Poindexter’s attorney, former Judge Loretta C. Douglas, the lawsuit
was settled and Poindexter received a monetary award.
18
voluntarily confessed and that a secretary typed up a statement from McCarthy’s notes, which
Johnson signed. People v. Johnson, 132 Ill. App. 3d at 4.) Thus, like both Anthony McKinney
and James Smylie, Johnson reported that McCarthy used intimidation to induce him to sign a
statement that had been typed by a secretary at McCarthy’s direction.
58.
It is entirely possible that the personnel files of the Harvey Police Department
contain additional information regarding complaints of coercion and misconduct against
Detectives McCarthy and Morrison, and Petitioner intends to request leave to subpoena such
information at the earliest practicable opportunity.
D.
There Is New Evidence Of Repeated Admissions By A Convicted Murderer That He
Was Part Of A Group Of Men Who Robbed And Murdered The Victim, And That
This Group Did Not Include Anthony McKinney
59.
In addition to the new evidence that Harvey police coerced Pettis and Phillips into
fabricating statements and testifying falsely against Anthony McKinney, there is also new
evidence suggesting the true identities of the individuals who robbed and murdered Lundahl.
Anthony Drake
60.
Since the time of the crime in 1978, Anthony “Tony” Drake has repeatedly stated
to different individuals that he was involved in the crime, that he saw who committed the crime,
and, most importantly, that Anthony McKinney was not present for the crime.
61.
On May 28, 2004, in a videotaped interview with journalism students from
Northwestern University, Drake stated that he knew that Anthony McKinney did not murder
Lundahl because he (Drake) was present for the crime. See Exh. 17, Transcript of Interview of
Anthony Drake, at 1.7 Drake stated that he was there along with Roger “Magooder” (McGruder)
and several other individuals, that “there was a[n] armed robbery in progress,” and that from
7
A copy of the videotaped interview is available upon request.
19
about 15 feet away, he saw Roger McGruder “pull the trigger” and shoot Lundahl. Id. at 1-2.8
62.
Several other people have heard Drake make similar statements throughout the
years since the murder, starting from immediately after the crime.
63.
Drake’s nephew, Francis Drake (“Francis”), remembers that on the night of the
security guard’s shooting, Drake and his friend Michael Lane came into the home of Drake’s
mother (Francis’s grandmother) at about 11:00 p.m. Exh. 3, Francis Drake Affidavit, at 1. Drake
told his mother that “they had shot a man next to the house.” Id. According to Francis, his uncle
appeared “very nervous and excited” when he spoke these words and his voice “sounded higher,
like he was upset.” Id. Meanwhile, Michael Lane sat silently next to Francis, which Francis
found unusual because Lane—known as “Big Mouth”—was normally quite talkative. Id.
Drake’s mother told Drake not to say anything else about the incident. Id. at 2. Drake and Lane
ate some food and left before Drake’s father came home at around 11:45 p.m. Id. Francis
remembers that around that time, Anthony Drake, Roger McGruder, Michael Lane, and others
often robbed people in Harvey. Id.
64.
A friend of Anthony Drake’s named Dennis White has stated—also in a
videotaped interview by journalism students—that on the day after the Lundahl murder, he, too,
heard Drake talk about the crime, this time in a park across the street from Drake’s mother’s
house. Exh. 17, Transcript of Dennis White Interview, at 1-2.9 Anthony Drake and Michael Lane
showed up at the park looking shaken and scared, and told White and the other people gathered
there that they and Roger McGruder had tried to rob a man, and that McGruder had shot the man
when he resisted. Id. at 1-3, 5. Drake and Lane said that Anthony McKinney was not present
8
The videotaped interview of Anthony Drake is described in affidavits from former journalism student Evan Benn
and investigator Sergio Serritella. See Exhs. 10 and 11.
9
A copy of the videotaped interview is available upon request.
20
when this happened. Id. at 2.10
65.
Law student members of Petitioner’s legal team visited Dennis White in an effort
to discuss these videotaped statements and in hopes of having him sign an affidavit. While White
in no way disavowed his statements from the videotaped interview, he told the law students that
he did not wish to discuss the incident again and asked them to leave his apartment. Exh. 13,
Bianca Chapman Affidavit, at 2. Notably, White told the law students to talk to Drake “and
them” because they were the ones who were there at the murder. Id. at 2.
66.
Four additional people have signed affidavits stating that they heard Drake talk
about the Lundahl murder around the time of Anthony McKinney’s trial. Leslie Washington,
Robert Holmes, Angelo Nelson and Michael McKinney (Anthony’s younger brother) were all
regulars at the Skins Lounge, a bar located on 139th Street in Robbins, Illinois. Exhs. 4, 5, and 6,
Leslie Washington, Angelo Nelson, and Robert Holmes Affidavits, at 1; Exh. 7, Michael
McKinney Affidavit, at 4. One evening, Michael McKinney approached Anthony Drake at the
lounge to ask him what he knew about the Lundahl murder, because Michael had heard rumors
that Drake knew something about who really committed the crime. Exh. 7 at 4. Drake admitted
being present when the security guard was shot and said that Anthony was not there. Exhs. 4, 5,
and 6 at 2. Drake mentioned the names of other people who were involved in the murder,
including Roger “Big Magooda” McGruder and/or Robert “Little Magooda” McGruder/Mahone.
Exhs. 4 and 6 at 2; Exh. 7 at 5.11
10
The videotaped interview of Dennis White is described in an affidavit from former journalism student Sarah
Forte. See Exh. 12.
11
Prior to trial, the court ruled that Leslie Washington and Michael McKinney—whose identities were known to
defense counsel—would not be permitted to testify about Drake’s inculpatory statements at the Skins Lounge on the
ground that such evidence would constitute hearsay. R. 279-84. Now that Drake himself has made an incriminatory
statement on videotape, and now that there is additional evidence that Drake admitted participation in the crime to
close acquaintances shortly after the murder, such evidence is admissible under current law. See paras. 82-83, infra.
21
67.
Drake also talked about his knowledge of the murder to Darnell Fearence while
the two were incarcerated together during the summer of 1991. Exh. 9, Affidavit of Darnell
Fearence, at 2. Drake told Fearence that Roger McGruder and Robert “Bird” Anderson12
murdered the security guard, and that Anthony McKinney was not there. Id.
68.
The Lundahl murder is not the only murder in which Anthony Drake has admitted
involvement. In 1988, Drake pleaded guilty to the 1985 armed robbery and murder of a
physically disabled man. After spending the afternoon in the victim’s house partying and
drinking liquor with high school girls, Drake and his 15-year-old nephew, Francis Drake, beat
the disabled homeowner to death with a pole and a rifle. Drake admitted that he then carried the
victim into the basement, tied him to a pole, and stole the victim’s stereo, television, and car.
Drake left the victim’s dead body in the basement and went to purchase more liquor. When the
police found Drake, he was driving the victim’s car and he had a shotgun scope and shotgun
ammunition in the car. The motive for this horrific murder was robbery. See Exh. 41, Guilty Plea
Hearing in Cook County No. 86 CR 112.
69.
Drake is currently serving a prison term for aggravated domestic battery under the
name Anthony “Drakes.” See Exh. 39, IDOC Web Page for Anthony Drakes [sic]. In addition to
the convictions for murder and aggravated domestic battery, Drake’s criminal background
includes convictions for armed robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and criminal
damage to property. Id.
Roger McGruder
70.
In addition to the foregoing evidence regarding Drake, there is evidence that
Roger McGruder, also known as “Magooda” or “Big Magooda,” has admitted to detailed
12
Upon information and belief, Robert “Bird” Anderson was murdered shortly after the Lundahl killing.
22
knowledge about the Lundahl murder. Roger McGruder’s cousin William Hambrick has signed
an affidavit stating that McGruder, Drake, and a man named Robert “Bird” Anderson came to
Hambrick’s home on the night of the crime. Exh. 8, Affidavit of William Hambrick, at 1. Drake
appeared “fidgety” and soon departed. Id. Hambrick heard McGruder and Anderson say that
Drake had just shot someone. Id. Hambrick knew that both McGruder and Anderson owned
shotguns, as well as other weapons. Id. at 2.
71.
Roger McGruder, like Drake, has an extensive criminal history that dates back to
1979 and includes convictions for armed robbery, burglary, possession of stolen motor vehicles,
possession of illegal narcotics, unlawful use of weapon by a felon, and violation of bail bond.
See Exh. 40, IDOC Web Page for Roger McGruder.
72.
Together, these accounts constitute powerful evidence that a group of people not
including Anthony McKinney was responsible for the armed robbery and murder of Donald
Lundahl. This evidence further supports Anthony McKinney’s longstanding claim of innocence.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
A.
New evidence of actual innocence may be offered in a petition filed under the Post
Conviction Hearing Act.
73.
A claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence is cognizable under the
Illinois Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA) as a matter of due process. People v. Washington,
171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996). Moreover, the language of the PCHA itself contemplates claims of
actual innocence. 725 ILCS 5/122-1(c).
74.
The Illinois standard for granting a new trial based on new evidence was set forth
in People v. Baker, 16 Ill. 2d 364, 374 (1959): “To warrant a new trial, the new evidence must be
of such conclusive character that it will probably change the result on retrial, that it must be
material to the issue but not merely cumulative, and that it must have been discovered since the
23
trial and be of such character that it could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise
of due diligence.” The new evidence outlined in this petition satisfies all prongs of the Baker test.
75.
Likely to change the result at trial. As described in this petition and summarized
in paragraphs 29 through 33, supra, the explosive new evidence set forth in this petition
completely undermines the State’s original case against Anthony McKinney and almost certainly
would result in acquittal if heard by a jury on retrial.
76.
Material and non-cumulative. Evidence is cumulative if it adds nothing to what
is already before the jury. People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128, 135 (1984). The affidavits signed
by Phillips and Pettis, the television log from the Ali-Spinks heavyweight bout, the similar
allegations of police brutality against one of the same officers, and the new admissions that the
crime was committed by a group of young men that did not include Anthony McKinney are all
clearly relevant to the identity of the perpetrator(s) of the crime, and all would “create new
questions in the mind of the trier of fact.” See People v. Ortiz, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 902 at *21
(1st Dist., Sept. 8, 2008). As such, this new evidence is both material to the case and not
cumulative of the evidence presented at trial.
77.
New and not discoverable prior to trial through due diligence. Wayne Phillips
has explained that he testified falsely against Anthony only because the police coerced him into
making untrue statements. Phillips’s retraction was unavailable at the time of trial because he
was concerned for his safety if he did not cooperate with the police. Dennis Pettis’s new
testimony was equally unavailable at the time of trial because he was hiding and avoiding
subpoena service out of fear of the police. “[N]o amount of diligence” could have forced these
two teenagers to give truthful testimony at Anthony’s trial in the face of their fear of the police.
See Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d at 135 (no amount of diligence could have forced the codefendants to
24
give up their fifth-amendment privilege against self-incrimination and testify on the defendant’s
behalf at trial). The 2004 videotaped admission by Anthony Drake and the numerous affidavits
from witnesses who corroborate Drake’s admission were not in existence until after the trial took
place. The allegations of police brutality within the Harvey police department either had not
arisen before Anthony McKinney’s trial or were not discoverable by the defense through due
diligence. Likewise, the defense did not possess the television log detailing the timing of the
ABC television broadcast of the Ali-Spinks boxing match at the time of trial, and seeking it out
was beyond the ordinary standard of diligence that is applied to trial counsel.
78.
The new evidence described in this petition thus meets the criteria established in
Baker and warrants a new trial. Moreover, because this new evidence establishes Anthony
McKinney’s actual innocence of the Lundahl murder, his continued incarceration is not only a
violation of due process but it is also abhorrent to any civilized notion of justice. On either basis,
Anthony McKinney’s conviction should be set aside.
B.
Anthony Drake’s videotaped statement regarding the murder would be admissible
at a new trial under Illinois rules of evidence, even if he were to testify that the
statements he made therein are untrue.
79.
During the 2004 interview that was recorded on videotape, Anthony Drake
averred that he was present at the shooting of Donald Lundahl and that Anthony McKinney was
not present when the shooting occurred. Drake also stated during this videotaped interview that
he saw another man, Roger McGruder, shoot Lundahl during the course of an armed robbery.
See Exh. 16.
80.
While Drake has subsequently claimed that he lied during the videotaped
statement (see Exh. 15, Affidavit of Cynthia Estes), Drake’s recorded statements would still be
admissible at a new trial under Illinois rules of evidence. “In all criminal cases, evidence of a
25
statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if (a) the statement is
inconsistent with his statement at the hearing or trial, and (b) the witness is subject to crossexamination concerning the statement, and (c) the statement . . . (2) narrates, describes, or
explains an event or condition of which the witness had personal knowledge, and . . . (C) the
statement is proved to have been accurately recorded by a tape recorder, videotape recording, or
any other similar electronic means of sound recording.” 725 ILCS 5/115-10.1.
81.
In the videotaped recording, Drake describes his personal knowledge of Donald
Lundahl’s murder. Thus, even if Drake were to deny the truth of this statement at a new trial, the
statements he made during the videotaped recording would be admissible as substantive
evidence.
82.
In addition, Drake’s past admissions are more persuasive than his recent
repudiation. In 1978 he had no reason to falsely implicate himself in the murder; whereas now he
has a motive to falsely distance himself because his admissions expose him to criminal liability.
The witnesses who observed Drake on the night of the crime and the following day described
him as nervous and scared, which would make sense only if he witnessed or participated in the
murder. His admissions were repeated and spanned many years, lending them further credibility.
C.
Evidence that Anthony Drake and Roger McGruder made inculpatory statements
regarding their involvement in the murder is now admissible under the hearsay
exception for statements against penal interest, based on the new evidence that has
been discovered since trial.
83.
The testimony of the numerous witnesses who have now sworn under oath that
they heard Anthony Drake and Roger McGruder admit to being present at Lundahl’s murder
would likewise be admissible at a new trial. Extrajudicial statements against penal interest such
as these qualify as exceptions to the rule against hearsay when they are made under
circumstances suggesting that they are trustworthy. The factors to be considered in reaching this
26
determination include (but are not limited to): (1) whether the statement was spontaneously made
to a close acquaintance shortly after the crime occurred; (2) whether the statement is
corroborated by other evidence; (3) whether the statement is self-incriminatory and against the
declarant’s interests; and (4) whether there was adequate opportunity for cross-examination of
the declarant. People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 97 (2001) (citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410
U.S. 284, 300-01 (1973)). All four factors do not need to be present in order for the statement to
be admissible. Id.
84.
Here, seven people state in affidavits that they heard Anthony Drake admit to
being at the scene of the murder, and another states that he heard similar assertions from Roger
McGruder. Several of these statements were made to close acquaintances of Drake and
McGruder within a day or two of the murder. The statements accurately describe the murder and
are corroborated in that regard; they are also corroborated by each other and by Drake’s recent
videotaped admission to witnessing the murder. The statements place Drake and McGruder at the
scene of an armed robbery that became a murder when the victim was shot, and therefore expose
them to criminal liability on the basis of accountability. Should there be a new trial, all of the
witnesses to the out-of-court statements would be available for cross-examination. Therefore,
these statements are admissible under a Chambers analysis.13
D.
Evidence that Harvey Police Detective Coleman McCarthy engaged in a course of
conduct of abusing witnesses and suspects is admissible in this case in support of
Anthony McKinney’s claim that he confessed as a result of a beating administered
by McCarthy and his partner.
85.
Evidence of prior allegations of police brutality is admissible to support a
defendant’s claim of similar brutality when the prior allegations are similar and involve the same
13
The trial court’s hearsay-based exclusion of testimony by Leslie Washington and Michael McKinney regarding
Anthony Drake’s admissions at the Skins Lounge could not take into account Drake’s 2004 videotaped statement or
the evidence that Drake made admissions to close acquaintances immediately after the crime. Accordingly, the
court’s ruling does not have res judicata effect.
27
officers. See, e.g., People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93, 141-45 (2000); People v. Reyes, 369 Ill.
App. 3d 1, 18-19 (1st Dist. 2006); People v. Cannon, 293 Ill. App. 3d 634, 642 (1st Dist. 1997).
The incidents do not need to happen all at once; rather, “a series of incidents spanning several
years can be relevant to establishing a claim of a pattern and practice of torture.” Patterson, 129
Ill. 2d at 140.
86.
In Patterson, the Illinois Supreme Court found new evidence of police brutality to
be material and likely to change the result upon retrial, citing the following factors as relevant in
determining the admissibility of the evidence: that the defendant has consistently claimed he was
tortured, that the defendant’s claims were similar to other claims of abuse, and that the same
officers were involved in the defendant’s case and in the other allegations of torture. Patterson,
192 Ill. 2d at 145.
87.
On the other hand, there need not be a whole litany of complaints; even a single
similar incident involving the same police officers may be relevant and admissible. People v.
Banks, 192 Ill. App. 3d 986, 994 (1st Dist. 1989).
88.
Here, Anthony McKinney has consistently maintained that he was beaten by
Detectives McCarthy and Morrison and was forced to confess to the murder. Although the issue
of the voluntariness of Anthony’s confession has been previously litigated, in the interest of
fundamental fairness, the doctrine of res judicata may be relaxed if the defendant presents
substantial new evidence. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d at 139.
89.
The new evidence presented in this petition includes numerous similar allegations
of physical and psychological coercion by one or both of these officers, and all of the incidents
happened within a relatively short period of time. Accordingly, they are material and admissible,
and could change the outcome on retrial.
28
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Petitioner Anthony McKinney requests that this Court:
1.
Docket this Petition for further proceedings;
2.
Grant Petitioner sufficient time and leave to amend this petition to add additional
claims, supporting affidavits, and factual material as his investigation continues;
3.
Grant Petitioner authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, documents, and other
discovery necessary to prove the facts alleged in the petition, including disciplinary records of
Detectives Coleman McCarthy and Thomas Morrison from the Harvey Police Department and
records of judgments and settlements in civil suits involving these officers;
4.
Conduct an evidentiary hearing;
5.
Reverse Petitioner’s convictions for murder and armed robbery or order a new
trial; and
6.
Grant such other relief as may be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Karen L. Daniel
Attorney for Anthony McKinney
Karen L. Daniel
Steven A. Drizin
Attorney No. 15245
Center on Wrongful Convictions
Bluhm Legal Clinic
Northwestern University School of Law
357 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 503-8576
(312) 503-8977
October 29, 2008
29
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondent,
-vsANTHONY McKINNEY,
Petitioner.
No. 78 CR 5267
AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION FOR
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
I, Karen L. Daniel, counsel for Petitioner Anthony McKinney, do swear under oath that
the allegations set for the in this Petition for Post-Conviction Relief are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
__________________________________
Karen L. Daniel
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ______ day of _____________, 2008.
_________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
30