Davivo

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 18
  • Published : January 22, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
No. 09-1060
________________________________________________________________________

In the
Appellate Court of Illinois
Second District

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Appeal from the ) Nineteenth Judicial ) Circuit Court )
v. ) Case. No. 92 CF 2751
)
JUAN A. RIVERA, JR., ) Hon. Christopher C. Starck
) Judge Presiding.
Defendant-Appellant. )
________________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUAN A. RIVERA, JR. ________________________________________________________________________

Thomas P. Sullivan
Terri L. Mascherin
Jenner & Block LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Lawrence Marshall
Counsel of Record
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, California 94306

Jane E. Raley
Jeffrey Urdangen
Bluhm Legal Clinic
Northwestern University
School of Law
357 E. Chicago Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Juan A. Rivera, Jr.
________________________________________________________________________ ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
_____________________________________________________________________ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
NATURE OF THE CASE1
JURISDICTION1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW1
STATEMENT OF FACTS2
I.CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE2 II.THE FOCUS ON JUAN RIVERA4
A.October 27 & 28 Questioning4
B.October 29 & 30 Questioning6
1.The Trip to Chicago6
2.The Questioning from 8:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.8
3.The Questioning from 11:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m..8
4.Rivera’s Condition from 3:00 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.11
5.Continued Questioning from 8:10 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.12
6.The Meeting in the State’s Attorney’s Office13
7.Rivera’s Condition in the Jail from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.13 8.The Final Round of Interrogations from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.14 III.THE EARLIER TRIALS, APPEALS AND NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEW DNA RESULTS17 IV.THE RECENT TRIAL18

A.The Prosecution’s Case18
1.The Crime Scene & Rivera’s Statements18
2.Other Witnesses18
3.Jailhouse Informants20
B.The Defense Case22
1.Evidence Affirmatively Excluding Rivera22
a.DNA and Other Physical Evidence22
b.Electronic Monitoring Records & Other Evidence Rivera Was At Home25 2.Defense Evidence Relating to the Confessions26
a.Rivera’s Condition During the Interrogations and Confessions26 b.Rivera’s Mental Health and Capacity and Its Impact on the Confessions26 c.Inconsistencies Between Confession and Facts of the Crime27 d.The Absence of Any Information in Rivera’s Statements Not Known to the Police28 V.DELIBERATIONS, VERDICT, AND SENTENCING29

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT30
ARGUMENT32
I.THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.32 A.The DNA Evidence33
B.The Role of the Confessions in the Analysis38
C.The In-Custody Informants45
II.RIVERA’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A MEANINGFUL DEFENSE WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS BARRED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT TESTIMONY CRITICAL TO THE JURY’S ASSESSMENT OF THE RELIABILITY OF HIS CONFESSION.46 A.The Barred Evidence47

1.Dr. Galatzer-Levy’s Testimony Concerning Rivera’s Psychiatric State During the Interrogation47 2.Dr. Kassin’s Testimony Regarding the Impact of Specific Interrogation Techniques on Individuals with Particular Mental Disorders48 B.The Trial Court Erred in Precluding Drs. Galatzer-Levy and Kassin from Testifying on These Matters.49 1.The Law of the Case49

2.Rivera Was Entitled to Present Testimony from Dr. Galatzer-Levy Explaining How His Psychiatric and Psychological Disorders Were Apt to Have Affected Statements He Made in the Course of the Interrogations.52 a.Knowledge and Qualifications Uncommon to Lay Persons52

b.The Barred Testimony Would Have Aided the Trier of Fact.52 c.Dr. Galatzer-Levy’s Testimony...
tracking img