Griffin v. Truitt

1

LAMONT GRIFFIN #B-15748, Petitioner, v. CHARLES TRUITT, Warden, Stateville Correctional Center, Respondent.

No. 15-cv-02313

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

January 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge

Petitioner Lamont Griffin, a prisoner at Stateville Correctional Center has filed a pro se petition in this Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. With his petition, he challenges his 2007 convictions in the Circuit Court of Cook County for first-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, raising various claims of trial-court error, insufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the § 2254 petition and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND^[1]

Following a bench trial, Griffin was convicted of first-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, based on the 2004 shooting of Cedrick Nailing. People v. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶¶ 4, 9. Griffin was sentenced to life imprisonment. Id. ¶ 4.

I. Trial

A. State's Case

On April 5, 2004, Tiffany Ryan was talking on a payphone across the street from her apartment building on South State Street in Chicago, Illinois when her boyfriend, Griffin, passed by. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. Griffin asked to whom she was talking, but she refused to tell him; she was talking to another man, the father of her two children. Id. ¶ 10. Griffin and Ryan argued as they walked to their apartment. Id. They lived with Ryan's father, Cedric Nailing, and Nailing's girlfriend, Phyllis Alcorn, as well as Ryan's children. Id. ¶ 9.

Ryan testified at trial that when she and Griffin reached the apartment, Griffin lifted his shirt, exposing what appeared to be a gun, and said, “This is going to your head.” Id. ¶ 10. Ryan thought he was going to shoot her. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 114-15.) As they continued arguing in the kitchen, Nailing came from his bedroom, stood between the two, and tried to calm them down. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶ 11. Griffin reached around Nailing and hit Ryan in the head. Id. Nailing then grabbed Griffin's collar and the two began “tussling.” Id. ¶ 12. As the tussling continued, Ryan went to her bedroom.^[2] Id. Meanwhile, Alcorn went back and forth from her own bedroom to the kitchen to check on Nailing. Id. Alcorn testified that, after about 10 minutes of Nailing's struggling with Griffin, as she was walking away from the kitchen, she heard Nailing say, “It doesn't have to go this far,” followed by a muffled gunshot.^[3] Id. Ryan testified that, just before the gunshot, she heard Nailing say, “Come on man. Don't do it. Ain't worth it.” Id. After the gunshot, Griffin ran into Ryan's bedroom and said, “Bitch, I was in love with you.” Id. ¶ 13. He then walked down the hall with a gun in his hand and left the apartment. Id.

Alcorn found Nailing on the kitchen floor shot in the neck and struggling to breathe, and she called the police. Id. ¶¶ 13, 14. Police Officer Robert Stegmiller responded to the call and spoke with Ryan, though he did not testify regarding the content of their conversation. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 172-73.) Two days later, on April 7, 2004, Ryan called the police and alerted them to Griffin's whereabouts, and he was arrested that day. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 174-77.)

The shooting rendered Nailing a quadriplegic and he was hospitalized for more than three months before he died of sepsis on July 22, 2004. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶ 14. The parties stipulated that from June 1 to July 22, 2004, Nailing was in a coma. (Dkt. No. 19-4 at 4546; Dkt. No. 19-7 at 6-7.) The parties also stipulated to the medical examiner's autopsy report, which included the opinion that the manner of death was homicide. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 7-15.) The medical examiner testified that the bullet traveled from the front of Nailing's neck to the back, and from left to right and slightly downward. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶ 14.

After the state's last witness testified, the prosecutor sought to introduce a certified copy of a prior murder conviction of Griffin (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 65), to prove the prior-felony element of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (“UUW”). (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 182.) Defense counsel argued that using the prior murder conviction would be unduly prejudicial, suggesting that the state could use Griffin's prior conviction of UUW instead. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 182-83.) The judge severed the UUW count from the murder count and, noting that the state chose, in its discretion, to predicate the UUW charge on Griffin's prior murder conviction, admitted the prior murder conviction for purposes of the UUW count only. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 183-87.)

B. Motion for directed verdict

After the state rested, Griffin moved for a directed finding of not guilty, arguing that the state failed to prove that he intended to shoot or kill Nailing, or that he pointed a gun at anyone; instead, he claimed that the evidence proved the fatal shot occurred accidentally during the tussle or, at most, proved involuntary manslaughter or second-degree murder. (Dkt. No. 16-7 at 18-21.) In response, the prosecutor argued, among other things: “The testimony is clear [Griffin] armed himself, they were tugging on each other's shirts, and he decides to shoot [Nailing] through the throat. We have met our burden and ask [the court] to deny the motion.” (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 22.) Defense counsel responded: “I don't know where the state comes up with the idea that [Griffin] took a gun out and shot [Nailing]. There is not one bit of evidence that he did that.” (Dkt. No. 197 at 22.) The trial judge denied the motion for a directed verdict. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 23.)

C. Defendant's case

Before Griffin testified, defense counsel asked the trial judge to address a motion in limine to bar evidence of Griffin's prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 37.) The judge deferred ruling, saying he needed to hear Griffin testify before balancing the probative and prejudicial effects of the prior convictions. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 37.)

Griffin's version of the shooting differed from that presented in the state's case in the following ways. According to Griffin, although he showed Ryan a gun during their argument, he did so not to threaten Ryan but to indicate he needed to take the gun out of the apartment because Nailing was on electronic home monitoring and the police often visited the apartment to check on Nailing. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶ 17. As for the altercation with Nailing, Griffin testified that, after he struck Ryan, Nailing “attacked” Griffin from behind, put his arms around Griffin's neck, and threw Griffin on the couch. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19. Nailing was eight inches taller than Griffin and outweighed him by 20 pounds (Nailing was 6'1” and weighed 160 pounds while Griffin was 5'5” and weighed 140 pounds). Id. ¶ 18. According to Griffin, as the two struggled, Nailing gained control of the gun and, while holding Griffin around the neck with his left arm, hit Griffin in the head and face. Id. As Griffin tried to free himself, Nailing swung his right arm, with the gun in his right hand, and the gun discharged. Id. Griffin said that he swung his arm at Nailing's right hand to try to knock the gun away (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 113-14), but he did not say whether his arm made contact with Nailing's hand. Griffin repeatedly stated that the gun was in Nailing's hand when it discharged. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 53, 56, 106, 112.)

According to Griffin, after the gun discharged, he did not know what had happened but saw Nailing lying on the floor and picked up the gun to get it away from Nailing. Griffin, 2011 IL App (1st) 080654 ¶ 19. Griffin told Ryan that he loved her and then, as he passed through the apartment, saw that Nailing was not responsive and called 911. Id. Later he gave the gun to a friend. Id. A family member of Griffin's testified that, shortly after the shooting, Griffin had a “busted” lip, his nose was bleeding, his eye was swollen, and he had marks on his neck that looked like handprints. Id. ¶ 20.

At the beginning of Griffin's cross-examination, defense counsel renewed her concern about the use of Griffin's prior convictions for impeachment purposes, but the judge again deferred ruling, saying he had not yet heard Griffin's entire testimony and that, in any event, the prosecutor was not permitted to use the prior convictions on cross-examination. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 58.)

During Griffin's cross-examination, as the prosecutor was preparing to introduce four color booking photographs of Griffin to show that he had no visible injuries a couple of days after the incident (Dkt. No. 19-4 at 32-35), defense counsel objected, claiming the prosecutor had failed to disclose the photos, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 9294.) The judge barred the prosecutor from using the photos on cross-examination and gave defense counsel until the state's rebuttal case to investigate the photos. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 95, 124.)

Before Griffin's redirect examination, defense counsel again renewed her concern about the use of Griffin's prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 95-96.) The judge ruled that the state could introduce the prior murder conviction in rebuttal, as relevant to Griffin's credibility, concluding that the conviction was more probative than prejudicial; the judge further confirmed he would not consider the prior conviction as propensity evidence. (Dkt. No. 19-7 at 97 -98.)

Following Griffin's redirect examination, defense counsel sought leave from the court to probe whether Nailing had an aggressive character and whether Griffin...