HomeNewsLocal

Illinois Appellate Court reverses Shannon D. Hunter's first-degree murder conviction

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

DECATUR - The 2002 conviction of Shannon D. Hunter, 35, for the murder of Demetrian Forrest has been reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The court's Jan. 28 order was not unexpected in light of action last year by the Illinois Supreme Court to reverse the conviction of Hunter's co-defendant, Jacoby T. Wheeler, on the same grounds.

Macon County State's Attorney Jack Ahola said Wednesday that Hunter will be tried again for Forrest's death. He said a hearing is scheduled May 12 to determine if the case is ready for trial.

Both Wheeler and Hunter had been serving 55-year prison terms for shooting Forrest to death as he sat in his car parked in the 100 block of South Stone Street in March 1999. Forrest was scheduled to be a witness against Wheeler in a trial involving a 1996 shooting, which the prosecution said was the motive for Forrest's death.

Wheeler was tried again in December on first-degree murder charges, but the jury deadlocked. Eight days later, Wheeler pleaded guilty to aggravated battery with a firearm in Forrest's death and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. He must serve 85 percent of that time, but the time he already had been incarcerated counted toward completion of his sentence.

As part of the plea agreement, Wheeler testified that he and Hunter shot Forrest.

Hunter's 2002 conviction had been confirmed by the appellate court. He appealed to the state supreme court, which declined Sept. 26 to hear his case. However, the high court did direct the appellate court to vacate Hunter's conviction and reconsider his appeal in light of Wheeler's case.

Writing for a unanimous appellate court, Presiding Justice Thomas Appleton said many of the statements used during closing arguments by Macon County Assistant State's Attorney Richard Current were not objected to during trial by Hunter's attorney. He said that ordinarily would bar the defense from challenging those statements on appeal under the rule of forfeiture.

"When we initially considered this case, we were troubled by the prosecutor's closing argument, which struck us as an uninhibited exploitation of fear, sympathy and other passions," Appleton said. "We felt hampered, however, by the rule of forfeiture."

But in the Wheeler ruling, by viewing the challenged remarks in the entire context of the closing argument, the supreme court seemed to have softened the rule of forfeiture, at least as applied to improprieties in closing arguments, Appleton said.

By using that logic, Appleton said the appellate justices would not disregard any portion of the prosecutor's closing argument.

The justices chided Current for "bad mouthing" the defense attorneys as "Monday morning quarterbacks" who, unlike police officers whom they had cross-examined at length, "were not in the arena" risking their lives.

"The only way to subject the state's case to meaningful adversarial testing was to explore discrepancies and let the jury decide whether those discrepancies created reasonable doubt," Appleton said. "As an experienced trial lawyer, the prosecutor had to know that. But the prosecutor was counting on the jury not knowing that. This seems akin to preying on ignorance.

"Subjecting the defense attorneys to denigration and contempt simply for doing their job was wrong. Playing on the jurors' fears for their own personal safety was wrong. The whole us-versus-them approach was wrong."

Associate Judge Lisa Holder White was called as a defense witness because she had represented Wheeler prior to her appointment to the bench. She testified that she had an idea the state would call Forrest to testify against Wheeler but did not know that for sure.

Appleton said the appellate court agreed with Hunter's contention that Current's comments about White in closing arguments were nothing less than character assassination.

"It is improper, in closing arguments, to call a witness a liar if no evidentiary basis exists for such a characterization," Appleton said. "The context was that of a prosecutor who seemed willing to say anything to win."

Ron Ingram can be reached at ringram@herald-review.com or 421-7973.

Print Email

/news/local
 
Sponsored by:

Connect with Us

My H-R