Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his aggravated discharge of firearm conviction, even though defendant argued that record lacked sufficient evidence to support said conviction, where, according to defendant, Illinois Appellate Court made unsupported inference that: (1) he shot at victim while victim was in his car; and (2) he shot at victim and no one else. Illinois Appellate Court, though, could properly rely on grand jury testimony, as well as victim’s testimony to establish that defendant shot and killed third party, and that, after said shooting, victim of aggravated discharge of firearm offense jumped into car, rode off and heard three shots fired. As such, defendant’s aggravated discharge of firearm conviction was not so insupportable so as to fall below threshold of bare rationality required for reversal of jury’s conviction.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Reasonable Doubt