People v. Donahue

(Court opinion modified 7/25/14.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder. Evidence was sufficient for conviction; all weaknesses in eyewitnesses' testimony were presented clearly to factfinders for them to make judgment about credibility. Prosecutors' remarks, that the victim would have been safer in war zone than in Chicago streets, and that military death rate was lower than in Chicago, were improper but so completely unrelated that it is unlikely they tipped scales of justice at trial. Prosecutors' argument in closing that defense theory was a police conspiracy, over objection, was improper attempt to shift burden of proof onto Defendant, but was so outlandish that it was of little prejudice and did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. (McBRIDE and TAYLOR, concurring.)