Grady v. Truitt

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition, challenging his first-degree murder conviction arising out of fatal shooting, even though defendant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge murder verdict, where, according to defendant: (1) prosecution extensively argued at trial that defendant was individual that shot victim; (2) jury rendered special verdict indicating that defendant was not shooter; and (3) instant inconsistent verdicts required that his murder conviction be vacated. Inconsistent verdicts are generally in and of themselves insufficient to justify federal collateral relief. Moreover, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to advance inconsistent verdict challenge, where: (1) at time of defendant’s trial, Illinois law provided that defendants could not challenge convictions solely on basis that they were inconsistent with acquittal on other charges; and (2) record showed that prosecutor did just enough to advance accomplice theory to jury, which would reconcile jury’s two verdicts, where record indicated that defendant and only other possible shooter were accomplices in plan to rob victim.