Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hauad

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division

February 28, 2017

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME HAUAD, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court Of Cook County No. 97 CR 16984. The Honorable Stanley J. Sacks, Judge Presiding.

          NEVILLE JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Pierce and Mason concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          NEVILLE JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 A jury found Jaime Hauad guilty of two murders and an aggravated battery with a firearm. In a proposed supplement to a successive postconviction petition, Hauad alleged that new evidence showed that (1) the trial court should have barred the prosecution from presenting testimony about statements Hauad allegedly made while in police custody, (2) the prosecution withheld evidence that would have substantially impeached a key prosecution witness, and (3) Hauad did not commit the offenses. The trial court denied Hauad's motion for leave to supplement the successive postconviction petition. We hold that the report of the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (Torture Commission) constitutes only a reassessment of evidence available to Hauad before he filed his prior postconviction petitions, and thus it does not qualify as new evidence. The new evidence about a key witness does not show that she committed perjury. Because Hauad has not shown that the evidence would probably have changed the result of the trial, he has not sufficiently shown prejudice needed to add the allegation to the successive postconviction petition. Hauad has not adequately explained his failure to present the evidence of actual innocence in support of his prior postconviction petitions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

         ¶ 2 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 On May 21, 1997, Miguel Salgado, Jose Morales, and Jason Goral, members of the Maniac Latin Disciples street gang, went to a bar at the corner of Kedzie Avenue and George Street in Chicago. They left the bar together around 1 a.m. Someone shot them as they walked on George Street. Morales and Goral died from the gunshot wounds. Salgado, shot in the shoulder, walked south to a nearby convenience store, where he called his mother before collapsing. A police officer found Salgado in the store and took him to a hospital.

         ¶ 4 Around 3 a.m. on May 22, 1997, about two hours after the shooting, Officer Julie Wlezien arrested Hauad for a traffic offense committed not far from the scene of the shooting. Later that morning, another officer spoke to a woman who lived very close to the scene of the shooting. The woman, who identified herself as Luz Contreras, told police that after she heard gunshots, she went to the window and saw a man walking away with a gun in his hand. Police showed her some books of photographs of known gang members. She could not identify any of the men pictured as the man she saw after the shooting. On May 24, 1997, police showed Contreras a photo lineup with only a few photos. Contreras picked Hauad's photo as a picture of the man she saw walking away from the scene of the shooting.

         ¶ 5 Police brought Hauad to the police station for questioning on May 26, 1997. Contreras identified Hauad in a lineup on May 27. Salgado viewed a lineup and identified Hauad as a person he had seen in the bar not long before the shootings occurred. Prosecutors charged Hauad with two counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm.

         ¶ 6 Trial

         ¶ 7 Hauad moved to bar the prosecution from presenting testimony about statements he allegedly made to police after the police picked him up for questioning. At the hearing on the motion, Hauad testified that Detective Daniel Engel and another officer hit him and threatened him while he was in custody. The trial court denied Hauad's motion.

         ¶ 8 At the trial, held in 1999, Officer Cesar Echeverria testified as a gang specialist, to help establish the motive for the crime. Echeverria said that in 1997 the Maniac Latin Disciples included several different factions, identified primarily by areas in which members lived. The factions were struggling for power. According to Echeverria, Hauad and a man Echeverria knew as Cave Man belonged to the Kedzie and Barry faction. David Ruiz and another man, known as Little Bum, belonged to the Rockwell Potomac faction, which had a friendly relationship with the Kedzie and Barry faction, but stood opposed to the Tallman Wabansia faction and its ally, the Kenneth and Belden faction.

         ¶ 9 Salgado testified that he belonged to the Kenneth and Belden faction, while Morales and Goral belonged to the Tallman Wabansia faction. Salgado saw Hauad in the bar. Salgado saw Morales get into an argument with Little Bum of Rockwell Potomac in the bar. After the argument, Little Bum spoke with Hauad, a member of the Kedzie and Barry faction allied with Rockwell Potomac and opposed to Tallman Wabansia. Hauad left the bar around 12:30 a.m. on May 22, 1997.

         ¶ 10 Salgado testified that around 1 a.m., as Salgado and his friends walked on George Street, Salgado heard gunshots, and he and his friends hit the ground. Salgado saw that both of his friends had been shot. Salgado went back to the bar first, but no one there would help him. Salgado returned to the crime scene before heading to the convenience store. On cross-examination, Salgado said he heard the shooter run north from the scene, across George Street, before Salgado got off the ground.

         ¶ 11 The officer who came to the convenience store testified that Salgado first told him that he did not see anything, and he had no idea who shot him and his friends. Salgado then told the officer he saw several men dressed in black get out of a small maroon car and walk towards the victims while shooting.

         ¶ 12 Ballistic evidence showed that all bullets at the scene, including the fatal bullets, came from a single gun.

         ¶ 13 Contreras testified that she was watching television around 1 a.m. on May 22, 1997, when she heard gunshots. She went to the window and saw a man she did not know standing over the victims, then walking on George Street, carrying a gun. The man turned south. She saw his face and the tattoo on his arm clearly as he walked past her window. She identified Hauad in court as the man she saw walk away from the crime scene.

         ¶ 14 Officer Wlezien testified that she responded to a call about the shooting. Around 1:30 a.m., she saw Hauad, whom she knew from the area, approach the crime scene. Later that morning, around 3 a.m., she stopped Hauad after he drove past a stop sign without stopping. She asked him why he had come to Kedzie and George at 1:30. Hauad answered that he wanted "to see if any of his fellow gang bangers got shot."

         ¶ 15 Detective Engel testified that, under questioning on May 27, 1997, Hauad said that an officer arrested him on May 21, 1997, around noon, for a traffic violation. Hauad said that because of an outstanding warrant, police kept Hauad in custody from May 21 until the morning of May 24, 1997, and therefore he had been in police custody on May 22, 1997, at the time of the shooting. An assistant State's Attorney testified that Hauad gave her the same alibi. Police records, especially Wlezien's record of her arrest of Hauad at 3 a.m. on May 22, 1997, proved the alibi false.

         ¶ 16 Hauad did not testify. The jury found Hauad guilty on all three counts. The trial court denied Hauad's posttrial motion and sentenced him to two concurrent terms of life in prison for the two murders, plus 15 years for aggravated battery with a firearm. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences. People v. Hauad, No. 1-99-2817 (2000) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

         ¶ 17 First Postconviction Petition

         ¶ 18 Hauad filed a postconviction petition in 2001, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove him guilty. He attached police reports showing that police spoke to a witness who did not testify and the witness said that, after the shooting, he saw a white van and a small red car, possibly a Toyota, driving north, away from the crime scene, at a high rate of speed. Another police report said that Officer "Joseph MIEDZIANOWSKI had developed information from an anonymous street source that a Latin Disciple by the nickname of 'Red' fit the description of the offender. The source also related that there was internal strife between the various faction[s] of Maniac Latin Disciples[, ] and that the three victims could have been shot by another member of the MLD street gang." Hauad alleged:

"Joseph Miedzianowski is a corrupt cop that worked out of Area Five Violent Crimes police station as far as the federal government is concerned as he was indicted for allegedly committing various federal offenses. *** A well-documented history of frame-ups happening at Area Five Violent Crimes police station involving murder cases militates in favor of allowing the petitioner to conduct discovery to further support this claim." (Emphasis in original.)

         ¶ 19 The trial court dismissed the postconviction petition as frivolous. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. People v. Hauad, No. 1-01-2070 (2002) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

         ¶ 20 Habeas Corpus Petition

         ¶ 21 In 2003, Hauad filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, again claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and adding claims for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, improper jury instructions, and actual innocence. Hauad supported his innocence claim with an affidavit from Salgado, who said he did not see Hauad at any time on the night of the murders, and in particular he did not see Hauad in the bar. Thus, Salgado admitted that he committed perjury in his testimony against Hauad. The federal court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, so that Hauad could exhaust state remedies for his actual innocence claim.

         ¶ 22 Second Postconviction Petition

         ¶ 23 In January 2005, Hauad sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence based on Salgado's recantation. He added allegations that during questioning, police threatened to cut off his toes. He supported the allegation with photographs of his sneakers, shown in the police station intact, and later shown in photographs taken in the police station with the toes of the sneakers cut off. Javier DeJesus, who was in custody at the police station at the time police questioned Hauad, signed an affidavit stating that Hauad showed him the sneakers after police cut them, and DeJesus took the cut sneakers to Hauad's mother when police released DeJesus. The trial court denied Hauad leave to file the successive postconviction petition and the appellate court affirmed. People v. Hauad, No. 1-05-1287 (2006) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

         ¶ 24 Third Postconviction Petition

         ¶ 25 Hauad filed a motion for leave to file another postconviction petition on August 17, 2005. He claimed only that the trial court erred when it gave an improper instruction concerning eyewitness identifications. The trial court denied the motion for leave to file the successive postconviction petition, finding the claim procedurally barred. The appellate court affirmed. People v. Hauad, No. 1-05-3896 (2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).

         ¶ 26 Fourth Postconviction Petition

         ¶ 27 Hauad later filed another motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, arguing that the mandatory life sentences the trial court imposed violated the eighth amendment because Hauad was only 17 years old at the time of the shooting. Hauad based his argument on Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). We will refer to this petition as the Miller petition.

         ¶ 28 On July 22, 2014, with the motion to file the Miller petition still before the court, Hauad filed a motion for leave to file a supplement to the Miller petition. He attached the proposed supplement to the motion for leave to file. In this appeal, we address the motion for leave to supplement the Miller petition, and the proposed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.