concluding that the petitioner abandoned several postconviction claims by failing to raise them on appeal
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the petitioner abandoned several postconviction claims by failing to raise them on appeal
- decisions regarding what witnesses and evidence to present and the extent of cross- examination are matters of trial strategy that is generally unchallengeable
- a prosecutor may respond to comments made by defense counsel in closing argument that clearly invite a response
- forfeiture does not foreclose a defendant from raising a claim in a postconviction petition based on matters outside the record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE KILBRIDE, also dissenting:
Defendant’s convictions and sentence should be set aside because the trial proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the new supreme court rules governing capital cases. See People v. Hickey, 204 Ill. 2d 585, 636-40 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), and People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 581-85 (2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting). For the reasons expressed in my dissents in Hickey and Simpson, I maintain that convictions and sentences obtained in capital cases prior to this court’s adoption of the new rules are inherently unreliable because the old system did not adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. The new rules were promulgated to address these constitutional deficiencies and, as a result, must be applied retroactively to all capital cases currently being reviewed by this court. See People v. Hudson, 195 Ill. 2d 117, 126 (2001), citing Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 661 , 107 S. Ct. 708, 716 (1987).