No. 1-14-0030 Fifth Division March 4, 2016

______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) No. 89 CR 15497 v. ) ) The Honorable DARRYL CHRISTIAN, ) Diane Cannon, ) Judge Presiding. Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 The instant appeal arises from a postconviction proceeding pursuant to the Illinois

Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act (Act) (775 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 2010)). In

2011, defendant Darryl Christian filed a petition before the Torture Inquiry and Relief

Commission (Commission), claiming that he had been tortured into confessing to the murder

of his stepmother in 1989, a crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to 55 years in

the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), even though he claimed he was innocent.

After reviewing defendant’s petition, the Commission determined that sufficient evidence

existed to warrant judicial review pursuant to the Act. Defendant’s petition was assigned to a No. 1-14-0030

judge in the circuit court of Cook County, where an evidentiary hearing occurred. After the

evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found that there was no credible evidence that defendant

was entitled to any relief on his torture claim and, accordingly, denied defendant’s petition.

Defendant appeals, raising an issue of first impression in this court, namely, whether the

findings of the Commission are entitled to any preclusive effect before the circuit court.

Alternatively, defendant argues that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest

weight of the evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶2 BACKGROUND

¶3 The instant appeal concerns a question of law about the effect of the Commission’s

findings, as well as review of the circuit court’s finding that there was no credible evidence

to support defendant’s torture claim. The evidence before the circuit court included all of the

prior court proceedings in defendant’s case, so we set them forth here in order to properly

analyze whether the circuit court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We provide only the detail that is necessary for resolution of the instant appeal.

¶4 In summary, in 1989, defendant was charged with first degree murder in connection with

the death of his stepmother. After being arrested, defendant allegedly made a statement to a

police detective and an assistant State’s Attorney confessing to the crime. Defendant filed a

motion to suppress the statement, claiming that the detectives interrogating him had struck

him in the jaw and threatened to further abuse him if he did not confess. Defendant’s motion

to suppress was denied, and defendant was ultimately convicted of the murder and sentenced

to 55 years in the IDOC. Defendant unsuccessfully filed a direct appeal, two postconviction

petitions, and a petition for writ of habeas corpus before the federal district court. In 2011,

defendant filed a claim of torture before the Commission. After conducting a formal inquiry,

2 No. 1-14-0030

the Commission concluded that there was sufficient evidence to merit judicial review and

referred the claim to the circuit court for further consideration. The circuit court conducted an

evidentiary hearing, after which it concluded that defendant was not entitled to any relief

under the Act.

¶5 I. Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

¶6 On July 20, 1989, defendant was indicted for first degree murder in connection with the

death of his stepmother on June 24, 1989. According to the police report, 1 Officer Roland

Hunter was called to the scene by the Chicago fire department and, upon his arrival, was met

by defendant. Defendant informed Hunter that he had left for work at 10 p.m. on June 23,

1989, and had returned home at approximately 10 a.m. and discovered his stepmother dead in

the living room. Detective Michael Cummings also interviewed defendant, who told

Cummings that he had been at a neighbor’s house all night watching television with friends,

arriving there between 10 and 11 p.m. on June 23 and leaving at 8 a.m. on June 24 to

exercise in a nearby park, returning home at 10 a.m. and discovering his stepmother’s body.

Cummings interviewed the neighbors, one of whom stated that defendant came to his home

between 10 and 11 p.m. and smoked cocaine with the neighbor and the neighbor’s sister until

2 to 2:30 a.m., at which point defendant left.

¶7 According to the police report, defendant agreed to accompany Cummings to Area 2

Violent Crimes headquarters to be questioned further. Cummings read defendant his Miranda

rights (Miranda v. Arizona,

(1966)), which defendant said he understood.

Defendant chose to speak with Cummings and confessed to Cummings that he had killed his

stepmother during an argument. Defendant told Cummings that he and his stepmother had

1 The parties stipulated to the admission of the police report during the evidentiary hearing before the circuit court on defendant’s torture claim.

3 No. 1-14-0030

argued because she wanted him to move out because he was not doing any chores around the

house. Defendant stated that he was not leaving and his stepmother said that she would force

him out, going to the kitchen and obtaining a large kitchen knife. Defendant grabbed her

wrist and removed the knife from her hand, then began stabbing her. He pushed her away and

she fell to the floor. Defendant dropped the knife and left. Defendant later returned to the

house and retrieved the knife and also kicked out the basement window to make it look like

someone had broken into the house. Defendant drove away and threw the knife into some

bushes while he was driving, then drove back home and called the police. Before the police

arrived, he removed his bloodied gym shoes and hid them under the rear porch. 2

¶8 According to the police report, after giving that account, defendant was placed under

arrest and the felony review unit of the State’s Attorney’s office was notified. Assistant

State’s Attorney (ASA) Dave Fischer interviewed defendant, who gave him a written

statement.

¶9 Defendant’s statement stated, in relevant part:

“Darryl said that he’d been down the block watching TV with his friends when he

decided to go home. He went to his home and got into an argument with his

mother;[3] she wanted him to leave because he did not do housework that she thought

he should do. Darryl said that he refused to leave, and the argument continued. His

mother went into the kitchen and got a large knife; she then came back to where

they’d been arguing. Darryl took the knife from his mother, stabbed her once with it,

and pushed her away. She fell to the floor, and the knife was dropped beside her.

2 The knife was never recovered, but a pair of gym shoes was recovered from underneath the rear porch. The parties stipulated that the gym shoes had human blood on them. 3 The victim is referred to both as defendant’s stepmother and as his mother throughout the record. According to his presentence investigation report, defendant stated that he had been adopted by the victim and her husband, and that defendant’s adoptive father passed away in 1974.

4 No. 1-14-0030

Darryl said that he then left the house, returned for a while to his friend’s house

down the street, and then went walking. He returned to the house he’d shared with his

mother around 9:30 and took her car for a ride, throwing the knife he’d stabbed her

with into weeds at 76th St. and South Chicago. Darryl also broke a window at the

house and then called the Chicago police.

Darryl is 33 years old and received his G.E.D. in the United States Army. He

reads, writes, and speaks English. Darryl has been well treated while in police

custody. Det. Cummings has given him cigarettes and lunch and coffee. No one has

threatened Darryl nor promised him anything in return for this statement. Darryl

appears and sounds free from alcohol and drugs and tells us that he is in fact sober

and in control of his thoughts at this time. Darryl has told us that he is sorry about

what happened between himself and his mother last night.”

¶ 10 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the statement he had allegedly made

confessing to the crime, claiming, inter alia, that “the statements sought to be suppressed

were obtained as a result of physical coercion illegally directed against the defendant and that

such statements were, therefore, involuntary in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to

the United States Constitution.” Specifically, the motion claimed that “[defendant] was hit by

one of the *** Detectives.”

¶ 11 At the suppression hearing, ASA Fischer testified that on June 24, 1989, he was working

in the felony review unit at the State’s Attorney’s office and was called to Area 2 to speak

with Detective Cummings. After he spoke with Cummings, he reviewed paperwork and then

had a conversation with defendant in an interview room. Fischer entered the room with

Cummings and observed defendant sitting on a bench in the interview room. Fischer

5 No. 1-14-0030

introduced himself, explaining that he was an attorney with the State’s Attorney’s office and

did not represent defendant. He then advised defendant of his Miranda rights, which

defendant stated he understood. Defendant then spoke to Fischer about the crime for

approximately 15 minutes. At the end of that conversation, Fischer asked defendant whether

he wished to have a court reporter take his statement or if he would rather have a summarized

statement written by Fischer. Defendant chose the written statement, so Fischer and

Cummings left the interview room and Fischer drafted a three-page summary of defendant’s

confession.

¶ 12 After he had drafted the statement, Fischer and Cummings returned to the interview

room, where Fischer showed the draft to defendant. While Fisher had previously established

that defendant had obtained a GED, he nevertheless asked defendant to read the beginning of

the document out loud, which defendant did. Defendant then signed the written Miranda

warnings at the beginning of the document and was asked to read the rest of the statement

silently. On the second page, defendant pointed out that there was an incorrect time written in

the summary, so Fischer corrected the time and Fischer, Cummings, and defendant initialed

the correction. After defendant had finished reviewing the statement, Fischer, Cummings,

and defendant signed each page of the statement. When Fischer and Cummings were exiting

the interview room, Fischer waved Cummings away and stuck his head back into the

interview room to ask defendant if everything was all right; defendant responded that it was.

Fischer testified that he had also asked defendant if everything was all right prior to taking

his statement and defendant responded that it was.

¶ 13 Fischer testified that at no time did he or anyone in his presence strike defendant or use

any type of physical coercion on him. Fischer also observed defendant eating a lunch from

6 No. 1-14-0030

McDonald’s. Fischer further testified that he did not observe any injuries on defendant and

that defendant did not ask him for medical attention.

¶ 14 Detective Lawrence Nitsche testified at the suppression hearing that on June 24, 1989, he

was employed as a detective in the Chicago police department, assigned to Area 2 Violent

Crimes. He was assigned to investigate the victim’s homicide and arrived at the scene at

approximately 12:15 p.m. He observed the crime scene for 10 to 15 minutes, then left with

defendant and Detective Cummings in an unmarked police vehicle and returned to Area 2

headquarters. They returned to Area 2 about 10 to 15 minutes later and defendant was placed

in an interview room on the second floor, after which Nitsche began working on paperwork

for an unrelated assignment. Nitsche did not have any contact with defendant until

approximately 4:15 p.m. when he assisted Cummings in escorting defendant to the lockup.

Nitsche testified that neither he nor anyone in his presence struck defendant.

¶ 15 Detective Cummings testified at the suppression hearing that on June 24, 1989, he was a

detective assigned to Area 2 Violent Crimes and at approximately 11:30 a.m. received an

assignment to investigate the victim’s homicide. When he arrived, he observed the scene,

spoke to the beat officer, and spoke with defendant. He also spoke with some other

individuals living nearby, after which he returned to the scene and asked defendant to

accompany him to Area 2; they left at approximately 12:30 p.m., along with Detective

Nitsche. When they arrived at Area 2 at approximately 12:45 p.m., he and Nitsche escorted

defendant to the second floor and Cummings asked defendant to sit in one of the interview

rooms. A few minutes later, Cummings entered the interview room where defendant was

sitting and advised him of his Miranda rights, which defendant indicated that he understood.

Defendant and Cummings then had a conversation for approximately 10 minutes, after which

7 No. 1-14-0030

Cummings told defendant he was under arrest, left the room, and called the felony review

unit of the State’s Attorney’s office. While they were waiting for the felony review unit,

Cummings gave defendant coffee, smoked a cigarette with him, and took him to the

bathroom. He asked defendant if he was hungry and when defendant responded that he was,

Cummings gave defendant a lunch purchased from McDonald’s.

¶ 16 Cummings testified that ASA Fischer arrived at approximately 1:30 p.m., and they both

went into the interview room. Fischer introduced himself to defendant and again advised

defendant of his Miranda rights, which defendant stated he understood. Defendant then had a

conversation with Fischer for approximately 5 to 10 minutes, then Fischer asked defendant

whether he would be willing to give a handwritten or court-reported statement. Defendant

stated that he wished to provide a handwritten statement and Cummings and Fischer left the

room and Fischer wrote out the statement. Cummings and Fischer then reentered the

interview room at approximately 2:15 p.m. and gave the statement to defendant. Fischer

asked defendant to read the heading and Miranda warnings out loud, which defendant did.

Defendant then continued reading the statement and pointed out an error, which Fischer

corrected, and all three initialed the correction. After defendant finished reviewing the

statement, he, Fischer, and Cummings all signed each page. Fischer and Cummings then left

the room, and Fischer motioned Cummings away and stuck his head back into the interview

room. Cummings testified that he and Fischer were the only ones who ever entered the

interview room and that neither he nor anyone in his presence ever struck defendant in any

manner.

8 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 17 The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that “he was not in fact

physically coerced in any way. He was not beaten, hit, kicked or whatever by any of the

police officers or by the assistant state’s attorney.”

¶ 18 The matter proceeded to a jury trial, where defendant was convicted of first degree

murder and was sentenced to 55 years in the IDOC. At trial, ASA Fischer testified

consistently with his testimony at the suppression hearing. Officer Hunter testified

consistently with the account stated in the police report that defendant had informed him that

he had been at work from 10 p.m. on June 23 until 10 a.m. the following morning. Detective

Cummings also testified consistently with the account stated in the police report and with his

testimony at the suppression hearing. Defendant did not present any evidence and did not

testify on his own behalf.

¶ 19 II. Prior Appeals

¶ 20 Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by

failing to ask prospective jurors two questions about defendant’s drug use and the victim’s

age; (2) the prosecutor made improper remarks during rebuttal argument which deprived

defendant of a fair trial; and (3) the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new

trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Christian, No. 1-91-0758, at 1

(1993) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We affirmed the trial court’s

judgment. Christian, No. 1-91-0758, at 1.

¶ 21 With respect to defendant’s argument concerning improper remarks during rebuttal

argument, defendant argued that “the prosecutor made improper rebuttal to defense counsel’s

argument that the defendant’s confession was induced by police coercion.” Christian, No. 1-

91-0758, at 4. We rejected defendant’s argument, finding that “[w]ithin the context of the

9 No. 1-14-0030

trial as a whole, the prosecutor’s comments do not represent remarks so prejudicial that

defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial was violated. The strongest evidence against

defendant was his signed statement. The circumstances surrounding the statement do not hint

of police abuse. The defendant voluntarily went to the police station, ate lunch one hour later,

and signed a statement within the next hour. When asked, defendant stated he was free from

drugs and alcohol and did not complain to Assistant State’s Attorney Fischer about

mistreatment by the police. Most importantly, defense counsel failed to offer any evidence of

police abuse. He only argued police abuse in closing argument.” Christian, No. 1-91-0758, at

5.

¶ 22 With respect to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, defendant argued

that trial counsel should have called alibi and character witnesses to testify on his behalf.

Christian, No. 1-91-0758, at 5. We rejected defendant’s argument, finding that defense

counsel’s decisions were matters of trial strategy, and noting that “[i]n this case, defense

counsel interviewed Tiwana Alexander, an alleged alibi witness, and the trial judge was

aware of the interview. Ms. Alexander was also available during the trial. Yet, defense

counsel chose not to call her as a witness. Defense counsel further chose not to call character

witnesses. Decisions whether character and alibi witnesses will be called are matters which

defense counsel must decide for every trial as a part of strategy. We believe that the trial

court understood these matters clearly pertained to trial strategy.” Christian, No. 1-91-0758,

at 6.

¶ 23 On February 15, 1994, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition, which was

dismissed by the trial court at the first stage. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a

motion for leave to withdraw as appellate counsel and filed a brief in support of the motion

10 No. 1-14-0030

pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Finley,

(1987), in which appellate counsel stated

that he had reviewed the trial record and concluded that there were no arguable bases for

collateral relief. People v. Christian, No. 1-94-1595, at 1-2 (1995) (unpublished order under

Supreme Court Rule 23). After reviewing the record and the briefs, we found no issues of

arguable merit and, consequently, permitted appointed counsel to withdraw and affirmed the

judgment of the trial court. Christian, No. 1-94-1595, at 2.

¶ 24 On July 24, 1997, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal

district court, in which he claimed that his “involuntary confession to the police on June 24,

1989 was in violation of his fifth amendment right to the federal constitution and therefore

the confession should have been suppressed.” On April 7, 1998, defendant’s petition was

denied by the district court.

¶ 25 On October 17, 2003, defendant filed a pro se successive postconviction petition, which

was supplemented on November 1, 2006, after appointment of counsel. One of the claims in

the successive petition was that defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding

police misconduct that coerced his confession, because the state of the law had changed since

defendant’s trial and there was newly discovered evidence. The successive petition claimed

that since the appellate court decision on defendant’s first postconviction petition, there was

new case law concerning police brutality claims at Area 2, citing People v. Patterson,

(2000), and People v. Cannon,

(1997); defendant’s pro se petition

also referred to an Office of Professional Standards (OPS) report finding a systemic practice

of torturing suspects at Area 2. The petition also pointed to two appellate court decisions in

which the conduct of detectives Cummings and Nitsche had been at issue. The petition

argued that “[b]ased upon petitioner’s sworn assertions against Cummings and Nitsche,

11 No. 1-14-0030

changes in applicable law, and [the] backgrounds of Cummings and Nitsche at Area Two, a

new hearing on the voluntariness of the confession attributed to petitioner is now needed.”

Defendant’s petition was dismissed at the second stage. On appeal, defendant’s appointed

counsel filed a motion for leave to withdraw as appellate counsel pursuant to Pennsylvania v.

Finley,

(1987), and we granted counsel’s motion and affirmed the trial court.

People v. Christian, No. 1-07-2482 (2009) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule

23).

¶ 26 III. Torture Claims Under the Act

¶ 27 A. Commission Proceedings

¶ 28 On May 2, 2011, defendant filed a claim of torture before the Commission. Defendant

claimed that on June 24, 1989, “I was struck extremely hard in the face, dazed and confused

while being screamed at to give a false confession to the [assistant] States Attorney, and

threaten[ed] [that] if I did not do it, the abuse would continue. So I gave the false statement to

end the abuse. Which is the only evidence used to convict me. I am an innocent man falsely

incarcerated.” (Emphasis in original.)

¶ 29 On June 13, 2012, the Commission issued its case disposition, which stated that “it is the

decision of the Commission that, by a preponderance of the evidence, there is sufficient

evidence of torture to conclude the Claim is credible and merits judicial review for

appropriate relief.” The Commission stated that its decision was based on the following

findings of fact.

¶ 30 1. Commission’s Findings of Fact

¶ 31 On June 24, 1989, defendant telephoned the Chicago police and ambulance from his

stepmother’s home and stated that he had arrived at the home and discovered that she had

12 No. 1-14-0030

been stabbed to death. Area 2 detectives Michael Cummings and Lawrence Nitsche were

among the police personnel responding to the scene; while Jon Burge had been transferred

from Area 2 to Area 3 the year before, the detectives had worked at Area 2 while Burge was

there. While at the scene, defendant was questioned concerning his activities prior to

discovering the body and was then taken to Area 2 after being informed that the people he

mentioned did not support his account. “During the questioning of [defendant] at Area 2, the

Detectives screamed and yelled at [defendant], and Cummings struck [defendant] very hard

in the face. [Defendant] was also threatened with further beatings if he did not agree to

confess.” Defendant signed a three-page confession written by an ASA and was later indicted

for the murder of his stepmother in the circuit court of Cook County.

¶ 32 Defendant filed a motion to suppress his confession, “alleging that he was struck and

confessed as a result.” Although he swore to the contents of the motion, defendant was not

called as a witness at the hearing, nor did the defense present any other witnesses or evidence

in support of the motion. The ASA who had taken defendant’s statement testified at the

hearing that within a period of 45 to 60 minutes after arriving at Area 2, he was briefed by

the detectives about the case; interviewed defendant, who orally confessed; wrote up the

confession from memory because he had not taken any notes; and reviewed the written

confession with defendant, which was then corrected and signed.

¶ 33 According to the Commission:

“Since the motion to suppress was heard, the following evidence has emerged:

a. In 1990 the Office of Professional Standards of the Chicago Police

Department concluded after an internal investigation that there had been systemic

13 No. 1-14-0030

abuse at Area 2 for over 10 years. The Report was not released publicly until

1992.

b. On November 12, 1991, Jon Burge was suspended, and on February 11,

1993, the Police Board of the City of Chicago separated him from his position as

a Commander with the Department of Police after finding him guilty of abusing

Andrew Wilson at Area 2 in 1982.

c. In 2002 Chief Cook County Criminal Court Judge Paul Biebel appointed a

Special State’s Attorney to investigate allegations of torture by police officers

under the command of Burge at Areas 2 and 3 to determine if any criminal

prosecutions were warranted. Although the 2006 Report concluded that the statute

of limitations barred any criminal prosecutions, the Report found that ‘[t]here are

many other cases which lead us to believe that the claimants were abused’.

[Citation.] On the occasion of the Report’s release, the Special State’s Attorney

stated that he believed the abuse was an ‘ongoing’ practice, and had occurred in

approximately half of the 148 cases which were investigated. [Citation.]”

¶ 34 At trial, “the prosecution’s case against [defendant], apart from the confession, was very

weak.” The Commission pointed to the appellate court order affirming defendant’s on direct

appeal, in which we noted that “ ‘[t]he strongest evidence against defendant was his signed

statement.’ ” (quoting People v. Christian, No. 1-91-0758 (1993) (unpublished order under

Supreme Court Rule 23)). The Commission also specifically noted that it was “not finding

that [defendant] is necessarily factually innocent of the offense, only that the weakness of the

case against [defendant] gave added incentive to coerce a confession to bolster that case.”

The Commission noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the offense; the murder weapon

14 No. 1-14-0030

was not recovered; and the only physical evidence of note was a pair of gym shoes recovered

from under the front porch, which had a small amount of blood on the outside of the left heel.

Although the serology analysis was able to classify it as human blood, it was not identified as

the blood of either the victim or defendant, and the shoes were not even identified as

defendant’s other than through the confession. Defendant did not testify at trial and the

defense presented no evidence on his behalf.

¶ 35 The Commission found that there were “major inconsistencies between the confession

and other evidence in the case.” For instance, the confession did not mention the gym shoes;

the confession stated that defendant stabbed the victim one time, but the medical examiner’s

report stated that she was stabbed 24 times; and the confession stated where the murder

weapon was supposedly left but the police did not recover the knife, even though the

confession was made only about 14 hours after the murder occurred. The Commission also

found that “[t]here is a question whether the police even tried to recover [the murder

weapon]. Although the police testified at trial that they did, none of the police reports

document any attempt to do so.”

¶ 36 The Commission also found that “[t]here [were] other problems with the prosecution’s

case.” The police took custody of the clothes defendant was wearing at the house, but there

was no blood on them even though the victim was stabbed 24 times and there was testimony

she was discovered lying in a pool of blood; the clothes were also not introduced at the trial.

The Commission noted that “[a]lthough [defendant] could have changed his clothes after

committing the stabbing, the confession makes no mention of this.” The Commission further

noted that the confession stated that defendant broke a window in the basement to make it

look like an intruder committed the murder, but there was no blood or glass in the victim’s

15 No. 1-14-0030

vehicle, although the confession stated that defendant drove the vehicle afterward to the spot

where he said he threw the knife, and there was also no blood on the glass from the basement

window.

¶ 37 The Commission found that at the sentencing hearing, defendant spoke for the first time

in the entire case and challenged the prosecution’s theory that he stabbed the victim because

he was angry that she wanted him to move out because he was not doing housework.

Defendant stated that he had not been angry or argued with the victim and had in fact paid for

her funeral and burial expenses himself. The Commission noted that “[a]lthough that

statement was not investigated or corroborated at the time, the [Commission’s] investigation

has revealed that [defendant] did pay the sum of $2,198.00 for funeral and burial expenses.”

The Commission found that “[a]lthough it could be argued that [defendant] paid out of guilt

and remorse for what he had done, this is a very large sum of money in 1989 for somebody in

[defendant’s] economic situation who was in jail to boot. It seems highly unlikely that

somebody who had done what [defendant] was convicted of doing would be bothered so

much by guilt and remorse that he would pay a funeral bill of that amount.”

¶ 38 The Commission found that defendant presented a version of the same coercion claim he

was making before the Commission in his first pro se postconviction petition filed in 1994, in

which he argued that the use of an involuntary confession violated due process and that his

confession was contradicted by other evidence in the case. The Commission noted that the

petition was denied on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the argument.

Defendant presented the claim again more fully in his second pro se postconviction petition

filed in 2003, citing the Office of Professional Standards reports and the decisions of the

Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Patterson, and the Illinois Appellate Court in People v.

16 No. 1-14-0030

Cannon. The pro se petition was later supplemented by a petition filed by appointed counsel,

but these were also dismissed on procedural grounds without an evidentiary hearing and

without reaching the merits of the claim.

¶ 39 2. Commission’s Conclusions

¶ 40 Based on the above findings of fact, the Commission found that “[t]his Claim exhibits

many of the standard characteristics of coerced, false confession cases. The confession itself

is very cursory in nature: it only totals three pages, including the advice of rights, and only a

little over one page even relates to the facts of the case. The testimony of the ASA

concerning the manner in which the confession was obtained is far from convincing. The

confession omits any reference to important facts, such as the gym shoes, and conflicts with

others, such as the number of times the victim was stabbed.”

¶ 41 The Commission further found that “[t]he prosecution’s case without the confession is

almost nil. There were no eyewitnesses. There was no physical evidence other than the gym

shoes, and the small amount of blood on them was not linked to either the victim or

[defendant]. There was no blood on [defendant’s] clothing.”

¶ 42 The Commission found that “[t]he quality of [defendant’s] legal representation was very

poor. For no apparent reason, [defendant] did not testify at the hearing on the motion to

suppress and no other evidence was introduced, so other than cross-examination there was

nothing presented to support the motion. [Defendant] did not testify at trial and no evidence

was introduced on his behalf. There is no indication that any investigation was conducted to

discover exculpatory evidence, such as the funeral home information. This was obtained over

20 years later, indicating that a contemporary investigation would likely have produced

additional exculpatory evidence.”

17 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 43 The Commission noted that “[defendant] has consistently asserted his coercion Claim

from the time of his motion to suppress, which was filed in February of 1990, through his

present filing with the [Commission] in May, 2011.”

¶ 44 The Commission concluded that “the Claim is credible based upon a preponderance of

the evidence, and merits judicial review for consideration of appropriate relief.”

¶ 45 B. Circuit Court Proceedings

¶ 46 On June 20, 2013, defendant filed a petition for relief under the Act based on the

Commission’s finding that defendant’s claims of torture were credible, which he

supplemented on July 1, 2013, with the legislative history of the Act.

¶ 47 Prior to the hearing on defendant’s petition, defendant gave a discovery deposition, in

which he testified that both detectives Cummings and Nitsche interrogated him, with “a lot of

accusations, screaming and hollering, and profanity, accusing me of it.” Defendant denied

committing the crime and “after a while—it’s been like maybe a few hours going backwards

and forth with the bickering, hollering and screaming. I just shut up. It was like around

maybe 10 or 15 minutes after that, they were still hollering and then bam. Cummings hit me.

And then I just dropped my head.” He testified that Cummings told him that “you better tell

[the ASA] that you did this,” and “went to go do it again, threatening.” When the ASA

entered the room, defendant told the ASA “[y]eah, I did it,” and the ASA and the detectives

left. Defendant testified that the bulk of the statement was fabricated and “I didn’t say

anything like that.”

¶ 48 The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s torture claim on

October 9, 2013. Defendant testified on his own behalf that he was incarcerated for the first

degree murder of his stepmother. Defendant testified that on the morning of June 24, 1989,

18 No. 1-14-0030

he came home from spending the night at a friend’s house and discovered the victim lying on

the floor in a pool of blood. It appeared that she was not breathing, so defendant

“[i]mmediately” called the police and paramedics. A short time after the police and

paramedics arrived, detectives Cummings and Nitsche also arrived on the scene. The two

detectives took defendant to the kitchen and asked defendant where he had been overnight.

Defendant explained that he had been up the street at his friend’s house, and the detectives

left. The detectives returned approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, telling him that they had

spoken with his friend, who denied that defendant had been there. The detectives asked

defendant why he was lying to them, which defendant denied, and they placed defendant in

handcuffs.

¶ 49 After defendant was placed in handcuffs, he was placed in a police vehicle and driven to

Area 2 headquarters, where he was taken to a small room and handcuffed to a ring on the

wall. When the detectives returned a few minutes later “it was like *** their whole demeanor

had changed.” The detectives screamed at defendant and accused him of committing the

crime for 45 minutes to an hour, after which Detective Cummings “reared back and he hit

me, he hit me so hard I almost passed out.” The detectives then continued with their

accusations and Cummings informed defendant that “a guy outside [in] the hall is a state’s

attorney and if you don’t tell him you did this it will continue.” Defendant testified that by

“it,” he understood the detective to mean “[t]he beating.”

¶ 50 Defendant testified that a man then entered the room and identified himself as working in

the State’s Attorney’s office. Defendant confirmed to the ASA that he was able to read and

write and had a GED. The ASA asked defendant what had happened, and defendant “looked

up, and [the detectives] were just standing there behind him.” Defendant informed the ASA

19 No. 1-14-0030

“yeah, I did it,” and everyone left the room, returning approximately 20 to 30 minutes later

with some papers that they instructed defendant to sign. Defendant testified that he had never

described the situation written up in the papers as his statement to either the detectives or to

the ASA. Defendant admitted to signing the statement, but testified that he was not given the

opportunity to read it over and was not advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant testified that

he would not have signed the statement if he had not been hit by the detective.

¶ 51 Defendant testified that he was held in Area 2 for over four hours, during which time he

had not been given anything to eat or drink, had not been given an opportunity to use the

washroom, and had not been given any cigarettes to smoke.

¶ 52 On cross-examination, defendant admitted that his attorney had filed a motion to suppress

defendant’s statement on February 26, 1990, but that the motion did not claim that the

detectives had threatened defendant for over an hour. However, his motion to suppress did

claim that defendant had been hit by one of the detectives, but did not specify where.

Defendant further admitted that he had filed a direct appeal of his conviction, which did not

challenge his statement as being the product of coercion, but testified that he had not

reviewed the appellate brief and had no “say-so in what they file. It was just sent to me after

the fact.” Defendant also admitted that his postconviction petition had no allegations

concerning the detectives threatening him or hitting him, nor did the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus that he filed in federal court. On redirect examination, defendant testified that

his postconviction petition and petition for writ of habeas corpus included allegations that his

confession was involuntary. Defendant also admitted on cross-examination that he had

written several letters to the then-State’s Attorney indicating that some individuals in the

IDOC had fabricated torture claims.

20 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 53 Defendant also testified that he never testified before the Commission and did not call

any witnesses before the Commission, nor was he present for any such hearing. Defendant

testified that the proceeding before the circuit court was the first time he had appeared in

court since his 1990 trial.

¶ 54 After defendant’s testimony, the circuit court admitted the following defense exhibits into

evidence: (1) a notice of filing and certificate of service of the Commission’s findings; (2)

defendant’s written statement; (3) a copy of the medical examiner’s postmortem report; (4)

four crime scene photos; (5) the police report completed by detectives Cummings and

Nitsche, to which the State stipulated; (6) defendant’s written allocution at the time he was

sentenced; and (7) a copy of every postconviction petition filed by defendant. The defense

then rested.

¶ 55 In the State’s case in chief, Fischer, the former ASA who had taken defendant’s

statement, testified that in June 1989, he was an ASA assigned to the felony review unit. On

June 24, 1989, at approximately 12:30 or 1 p.m., he received an assignment to go to Area 2

and speak with Detective Cummings. When he arrived at Area 2, he spoke with Detective

Cummings, reviewed some reports, and then went to an interview room to speak with

defendant; defendant, Cummings, and Fischer were the only individuals present in the room.

Fischer introduced himself to defendant and read defendant his Miranda rights, which

defendant indicated he understood. Fischer then asked defendant whether he wanted to

discuss the case, and defendant gave him a verbal statement. Fischer then left the room and

drafted a written summary of defendant’s statement; the initial meeting with defendant took

approximately 10 to 15 minutes. When he finished writing the summary, Fischer again met

with Detective Cummings, who accompanied him into the interview room.

21 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 56 Fischer gave defendant the written summary that Fischer had prepared, and asked him to

read it and make any corrections that were necessary. He asked defendant to read the

beginning of the statement out loud in order to verify defendant’s literacy, which he did.

Fischer identified a copy of the written statement, which had his, defendant’s, and Detective

Cummings’ signatures on it. Fischer also identified an area of the statement in which

defendant had made a correction; he testified that defendant brought the error to his attention

and he struck out the incorrect language and inserted the correct language. Fischer testified

that all of the information contained within the statement came from defendant.

¶ 57 Fischer testified that Detective Cummings had taken McDonald’s food in to defendant

prior to Fischer’s meeting with defendant. He further estimated that he was standing three to

five feet from defendant and did not notice any bruising or marks on defendant’s face. After

Fischer spoke with defendant, Detective Cummings left the room and once he was out of

earshot, Fischer asked defendant whether “everything [was] all right” and defendant made a

positive verbal response.

¶ 58 Fischer testified that he had testified as to the circumstances surrounding the statement

both at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress and at defendant’s trial. He confirmed

that his testimony at both of those proceedings was truthful and accurate. Fischer testified

that he had not been contacted by the Commission concerning defendant’s torture claim.

¶ 59 After Fischer’s testimony, the circuit court admitted the following State exhibits into

evidence, all of which were admitted without objection: (1) defendant’s written motion to

suppress his statement; (2) defendant’s direct appeal; (3) defendant’s 1994 postconviction

petition; (4) defendant’s 1997 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in federal court; (5)

defendant’s statement; (6) and (7) November 2005 correspondence between defendant and

22 No. 1-14-0030

the then-Cook County State’s Attorney; (8) a transcript of Fischer’s testimony at defendant’s

suppression hearing; (9) a transcript of Detective Nitsche’s testimony at defendant’s

suppression hearing; (10) a transcript of Detective Cummings’ testimony at defendant’s

suppression hearing; (11) a transcript of Fischer’s trial testimony; (12) defendant’s torture

claim form that was filed with the Commission on May 2, 2011; and (13) a transcript of

defendant’s September 17, 2013, deposition concerning his torture claims. The State then

rested.

¶ 60 On November 25, 2013, the circuit court denied defendant relief on his torture claim. The

court’s order provided:

“This court finds there is absolutely no credible evidence that Darryl Christian is

entitled to any relief whatsoever on his claim of torture.

Darryl Christian gave four different versions of his actions with regard to the

murder of Lottie Anderson prior to being charged. He testified under oath he never

made the statement he signed. No credible evidence exists that Mr. Christian was ever

slapped before he gave his final version of the events leading up to the murder. It

should be noted that final statement made by Mr. Christian minimizes his actions.

Any relief would be a miscarriage of justice. Based on the evidence heard and

received, relief is denied.”

This appeal follows.

¶ 61 ANALYSIS

¶ 62 On appeal, defendant raises an issue of first impression in this court, namely, whether the

findings of the Commission are entitled to any preclusive effect before the circuit court.

23 No. 1-14-0030

Alternatively, defendant argues that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

¶ 63 I. Effect of the Commission’s Findings

¶ 64 We first consider defendant’s arguments concerning the effect of the Commission’s

findings on the circuit court, an issue of first impression before this court. Defendant argues

that the Commission’s findings are granted preclusive effect based on the doctrines of

collateral estoppel and law of the case. In order to analyze this issue, it is first necessary to

discuss the Act and its provisions.

¶ 65 A. Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act

¶ 66 The Act became law on August 10, 2009, and took effect the same day; it has not been

amended since its enactment. 775 ILCS 40/99 (West 2010). The purpose of the Act is to

“establish[] an extraordinary procedure to investigate and determine factual claims of torture

related to allegations of torture.” 775 ILCS 40/10 (West 2010). Under the Act, a “ ‘[c]laim of

torture’ means a claim on behalf of a living person convicted of a felony in Illinois asserting

that he was tortured into confessing to the crime for which the person was convicted and the

tortured confession was used to obtain the conviction and for which there is some credible

evidence related to allegations of torture committed by Commander Jon Burge or any officer

under the supervision of Jon Burge.” 775 ILCS 40/5(1) (West 2010). The Act applies to

claims of torture filed not later than August 10, 2014—five years after the effective date of

the Act. 775 ILCS 40/70 (West 2010).

¶ 67 The Act established the Commission, which is an independent commission under the

Illinois Human Rights Commission for administrative purposes. 775 ILCS 40/15(a) (West

2010). The Commission consists of eight voting members: one is to be a retired circuit court

24 No. 1-14-0030

judge, one is to be a former prosecuting attorney, one is to be a law school professor, one is

to be engaged in the practice of criminal defense law, one is to be a former public defender,

and three are to be members of the public who are not attorneys and are not officers or

employees of the judicial branch. 775 ILCS 40/20(a) (West 2010). The members of the

Commission are appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, for

three-year terms. 775 ILCS 40/20(a), 25(a) (West 2010). The Commission’s duties include

establishing the criteria and screening process to be used to determine which cases are

accepted for review by the Commission; to conduct inquiries into claims of torture; to

coordinate the investigation of cases accepted for review by the Commission; and “[t]o

prepare written reports outlining Commission investigations and recommendations to the trial

court at the completion of each inquiry.” 775 ILCS 40/35 (West 2010).

¶ 68 A claim of torture may be referred to the Commission by any court, person, or agency.

775 ILCS 40/40(a) (West 2010). The Commission may, in its discretion, either informally

screen and dispose of a case summarily or grant a formal inquiry of the claim. 775 ILCS

40/40(a) (West 2010). The Commission may only conduct a formal inquiry if the convicted

person first signs an agreement waiving his or her procedural safeguards and privileges,

including the right against self-incrimination; agrees to cooperate with the Commission; and

agrees to provide full disclosure regarding inquiry requirements of the Commission. 775

ILCS 40/40(b) (West 2010). If a formal inquiry regarding the torture claim is granted, the

Commission’s director shall use all due diligence to notify the victim, explain the inquiry

process, and notify the victim that he or she has the right to present his or her views or

concerns throughout the Commission’s investigation. 775 ILCS 40/40(c) (West 2010).

25 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 69 In conducting its inquiry, the Commission “may use any measure provided in the Code of

Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 to obtain information necessary

to its inquiry.” 775 ILCS 40/40(d) (West 2010). The Commission may also issue subpoenas

or other process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence;

administer oaths; petition the circuit court for enforcement of process or for other relief; and

prescribe its own rules of procedure. 775 ILCS 40/40(d) (West 2010).

¶ 70 At the completion of the Commission’s inquiry, the director reports the results and his or

her recommendation to the full Commission. 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.375(i), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). 4 The director’s written report is to summarize all the

relevant evidence, include the reasons for the recommendation, and present any other matters

necessary for the Commission to make an informed decision regarding the claim. 2 Ill. Adm.

Code 3500.375(i), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). After “all relevant

evidence” is presented to the full Commission, the Commission may, in its discretion,

conduct a hearing. 775 ILCS 40/45(a) (West 2010).

¶ 71 At the hearing, “all relevant evidence from the formal inquiry shall be presented to the

full Commission in summary form as part of the Director’s report and recommendation.” 2

Ill. Adm. Code 3500.380(a)(1), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). The

director shall also present any additional evidence the Commission has elected to consider,

unless the Commission orders otherwise. 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.380(a)(2), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011).

¶ 72 After the hearing, the full Commission votes “to establish further case disposition.” 775

ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2010). “If 5 or more of the 8 voting members of the Commission 4 The Act’s regulations have been amended once.

(eff. Sept. 19, 2014). However, we cite the regulations that were in effect at the time of defendant’s torture claim and the Commission’s disposition of that claim.

26 No. 1-14-0030

conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that there is sufficient evidence of torture to

merit judicial review, the case shall be referred to the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of

Cook County by filing with the clerk of court the opinion of the Commission with supporting

findings of fact, as well as the record in support of such opinion, with service on the State’s

Attorney in non-capital cases and service on both the State’s Attorney and Attorney General

in capital cases.” 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2010). “If less than 5 of the 8 voting members of

the Commission conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that there is sufficient

evidence of torture to merit judicial review, the Commission shall conclude there is

insufficient evidence of torture to merit judicial review. The Commission shall document that

opinion, along with supporting findings of fact, and file those documents and supporting

materials with the court clerk in the circuit of original jurisdiction, with a copy to the State’s

Attorney and the chief judge.” 5 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2010).

¶ 73 With respect to postcommission judicial review, the Act provides: “If the Commission

concludes there is sufficient evidence of torture to merit judicial review, the Chair of the

Commission shall request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for

assignment to a trial judge for consideration. The court may receive proof by affidavits,

depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence. In its discretion the court may order the

petitioner brought before the court for the hearing. Notwithstanding the status of any other

postconviction proceedings relating to the petitioner, if the court finds in favor of the

petitioner, it shall enter an appropriate order with respect to the judgment or sentence in the

former proceedings and such supplementary orders as to rearraignment, retrial, custody, bail

or discharge, or for such relief as may be granted under a petition for a certificate of

5 According to the Commission’s website, it has received over 200 claims. State of Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission, Mission and Procedure Statement, http://www.illinois.gov/tirc/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).

27 No. 1-14-0030

innocence, as may be necessary and proper.” 775 ILCS 40/50(a) (West 2010). The State’s

Attorney or the State’s Attorney’s designee shall represent the State at the hearing before the

assigned judge. 775 ILCS 40/50(b) (West 2010).

¶ 74 The Act provides that, “[u]nless authorized by this Act, the decisions of the Commission

are final and are subject to review as final decisions under the provisions of the

Administrative Review Law, and shall only be overturned if the court finds that they are

against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 775 ILCS 40/55(a) (West 2010). In the case at

bar, the State did not appeal the Commission’s findings.

¶ 75 B. Preclusive Effect of the Commission’s Findings

¶ 76 As noted, on appeal, defendant argues that the Commission’s findings of fact must be

given preclusive effect under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case. We note

that the Act has never been interpreted by any court in this State, so our analysis on this issue

is a matter of first impression. 6

¶ 77 In the case at bar, defendant primarily argues that “[u]nder the collateral estoppel

doctrine, the state is precluded from re-litigating issues that have been determined by a final

and valid judgment and thus the court may not revisit the finding by the [Commission] that

the Defendant was tortured.” As an initial matter, it is important to clarify exactly what the

Commission found. In his brief, defendant repeatedly states that the Commission found that

he was tortured by the police officers. However, the Commission actually found only that

“there is sufficient evidence of torture to conclude the Claim is credible and merits judicial

review for appropriate relief.” Thus, the Commission found that there was sufficient evidence

6 In People v. Whirl,

, this court considered a petition that combined a postconviction petition with a petition for relief under the Act. However, we disposed of the issue based on the postconviction petition and did not analyze the Act. See Whirl,

(“Because we have determined that Whirl is entitled to a new suppression hearing under the Postconviction Act, we need not address Whirl’s claim for the identical relief under the TIRC Act.”).

28 No. 1-14-0030

to move forward with the case, as is its duty under the Act. See 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West

2010) (“If 5 of more of the 8 voting members of the Commission conclude by a

preponderance of the evidence that there is sufficient evidence of torture to merit judicial

review, the case shall be referred to the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County

***.”).

¶ 78 While the Act is unusual in that a claim of torture is considered first by the Commission

and then by the circuit court, an analogy that is helpful in understanding the framework is

drawn by the Commission itself on its website. There, the Commission states that “[i]f a

matter is referred to [the circuit] court, a claimant can receive what is referred to in Illinois as

a ‘third stage post-conviction hearing.’ This means that the claimant can have a full court

hearing before a judge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his confession was

coerced.” State of Illinois Torture and Relief Commission, Mission and Procedure Statement,

http://www.illinois.gov/tirc/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Mar. 1, 2016). See also Whirl,

(in its motion to dismiss, “[t]he State conceded that the

judicial review contemplated under the TIRC Act is akin to a third-stage evidentiary hearing

under the Postconviction Act”). Thus, thinking about the process of a torture claim through

the lens of the more common postconviction process shows that the initial screening of the

claim is roughly comparable to the first stage, the Commission’s inquiry and

recommendations are the second stage, and the circuit court hearing is the third stage

evidentiary hearing. Each stage serves a type of gatekeeping function, screening out claims

until the circuit court is presented with those claims that are most likely to be meritorious.

¶ 79 Thus, when the Commission issues a disposition of a torture claim, it is simply finding

that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to the next step, namely, a hearing before the

29 No. 1-14-0030

circuit court. The Commission is not asked to make a final determination as to whether a

claimant in fact proved that he was tortured, as defendant implies. The question we must

determine is whether this finding is entitled to any preclusive effect at the next stage of the

proceedings before the circuit court.

¶ 80 “The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of issues resolved in earlier

causes of action.” State Building Venture v. O’Donnell,

(2010). Its

applicability is a question of law that we review de novo. State Building Venture,

. De novo consideration means we perform the same analysis that a trial judge would

perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP,

(2011).

¶ 81 “Collateral estoppel is an equitable doctrine and its application is governed by certain

general principles.” Gumma v. White,

(2005). Our supreme court has

explained that “the minimum threshold requirements for the application of collateral estoppel

are: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the

suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3)

the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior

adjudication.” Gumma,

.

¶ 82 Here, defendant argues that the “prior adjudication” in question was the Commission’s

disposition of his torture claim. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to prior decisions

by administrative agencies that are adjudicatory, judicial, or quasi-judicial.” Pedersen v.

Village of Hoffman Estates,

; Lelis v. Board of Trustees of the

Cicero Police Pension Fund,

. “The party claiming collateral

estoppel has the burden of establishing it by clear, concise, and unequivocal evidence.”

30 No. 1-14-0030

Pedersen,

. In the case at bar, we cannot find that defendant

satisfied this burden and find that collateral estoppel does not apply for several reasons.

¶ 83 1. Not a Judicial Decision

¶ 84 First, the Commission’s decision is not the type of adjudicatory, judicial, or quasi-judicial

decision to which collateral estoppel applies. For instance, in Osborne v. Kelly,

(1991), the court found that the proceedings underlying the decision of the Board

of Review were judicial in nature after examining the procedures for adjudicating disputed

unemployment claims and concluding that “[t]he administrative determination of plaintiff’s

claim was reached after a sufficiently extensive and adversarial hearing, conducted under

oath and on the record.” See also John O. Schofield, Inc. v. Nikkel,

(2000) (finding that the decision of the Department of Mines and Minerals as to the

plaintiff’s ownership interest was made in a proceeding that was adjudicatory, judicial, or

quasi-judicial in nature, after examining the Department’s statutory authority and the

procedures utilized at the hearing). By contrast, the court in Edmonds v. Illinois Workers’

Compensation Comm’n,

, found that the decision of a

district director with respect to claims under the federal Black Lung Benefits Act (

et seq. (2000)) was investigative or administrative in nature rather than adjudicatory,

due to “[t]he informal nature at the initial stage of the federal proceeding, coupled with the

constraints placed on the nature of evidence that a claimant can initially submit in support of

a claim for federal benefits.”

¶ 85 In the case at bar, the Act describes an investigative function for the Commission, not an

adjudicatory or judicial one. The Act provides that the Commission’s duties include

“conduct[ing] inquiries into claims of torture” (775 ILCS 40/35(2) (West 2010)), and

31 No. 1-14-0030

“prepar[ing] written reports outlining Commission investigations and recommendations to

the trial court at the completion of each inquiry” (775 ILCS 40/35(5) (West 2010)). Once the

claim form has been submitted, as well as the claimant’s waiver of rights, the Commission’s

director conducts an informal inquiry into the claim, “consisting of taking all reasonable

steps to interview the convicted person, interview any witnesses identified by the convicted

person, and review any documents provided by the convicted person.” 2 Ill. Adm. Code

3500.360, adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). At the completion of the

informal inquiry, the director may recommend that the Commission forego a formal inquiry

and instead refer the case directly to the circuit court for appropriate relief. 2 Ill. Adm. Code

3500.370(a), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011).

¶ 86 If the matter proceeds to a formal inquiry, the director, acting on behalf of the

Commission, may use any measure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS

5/101 et seq. (West 2010)) and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/101-1

et seq. (West 2010)) “to obtain information necessary to the inquiry,” including issuing and

serving subpoenas or other process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production

of evidence; administering oaths; issuing written interrogatories; conducting oral depositions;

conducting physical and/or psychological examinations of the convicted person to ascertain

evidence of torture; hiring experts or other specialists as needed to assist the Commission in

its inquiry; and conducting on-site visits to detention centers or other locations where torture

is alleged to have taken place. 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.375(a), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). The director then reports the results and his or her recommendation to

the full Commission in a written report that “summarize[s] all the relevant evidence,

includ[ing] the reasons for the recommendation, and present[s] any other matters necessary

32 No. 1-14-0030

for the Commission to make an informed decision regarding the claim.” 2 Ill. Adm. Code

3500.375(i), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). The Commission may vote to

decide the disposition of the case at that point or may choose to conduct an “evidentiary

proceeding” to receive additional evidence. 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.375(i), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011).

¶ 87 If the Commission chooses to conduct an evidentiary hearing, “all relevant evidence from

the formal inquiry shall be presented to the full Commission in summary form as part of the

Director’s report and recommendation.” 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.380(a)(1), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). Additionally, “[t]he Director shall present the additional

evidence the Commission has elected to consider, unless the Commission orders otherwise.”

2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.380(a)(2), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). All

testimony is to be taken under oath or affirmation, and all proceedings are to be recorded by

audio and transcribed as part of the record. 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.380(a)(3), 3500.380(c),

adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011). After hearing the evidence, the

Commission votes to establish further case disposition, either referring the case to the circuit

court or concluding there is insufficient evidence to merit judicial review. 775 ILCS 40/45(c)

(West 2010).

¶ 88 Examining the procedures set forth by the Act and its regulations, we cannot find that the

Act sets forth a judicial proceeding for purposes of collateral estoppel. The Act does not

describe an adversarial proceeding but describes an investigation conducted by the

Commission after the claimant has filed a claim of torture. While the Act provides that the

claimant is entitled to an attorney prior to signing a waiver of his or her procedural rights and

“throughout the formal inquiry” if such a formal inquiry is granted, the Act does not provide

33 No. 1-14-0030

either the claimant or the State any other rights. A hearing on the claimant’s torture claim is

purely discretionary, and the Commission may refer a claim to the circuit court without such

a hearing. See 2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.370(a), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25,

2011) (referring a claim directly to the circuit court after an informal inquiry by the director);

2 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.375(i), adopted at

(eff. Aug. 25, 2011) (referring a

claim to the circuit court based on the director’s recommendation after conducting a formal

inquiry). Furthermore, if a hearing is conducted, it is the director who presents evidence, not

any party. Indeed, the State is not even entitled to notice of the Commission’s proceedings

until after the Commission has issued a decision. See 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2010)

(providing for service on the State’s Attorney of the Commission’s opinion with supporting

findings of fact). Thus, defendant’s claims in his brief that the Commission “hears opening

and closing arguments from counsel” and “both the Defendant and the prosecution had an

adequate opportunity to present witnesses and evidence” are without support in the language

of the Act or its regulations. In fact, in the case at bar, the Commission heard no additional

evidence prior to issuing its decision, much less argument from the parties. We cannot find

that this is the kind of adjudicatory or judicial decision to which collateral estoppel applies.

¶ 89 In support of his argument that the Commission’s decision was a judicial one, defendant

relies primarily on Crot v. Byrne,

(N.D. Ill. 1986), a federal district court

case interpreting whether the Illinois Industrial Commission acted in a judicial capacity when

denying the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim. We first note that, as a decision by a

federal court interpreting Illinois law, Crot is at most persuasive authority and is not binding

on this court. 7 In re Estate of Opalinska,

. More importantly,

7 Curiously, on this issue, defendant’s brief relies almost entirely on federal law, with only one citation to an Illinois case.

34 No. 1-14-0030

however, the procedures described in that case differ greatly from the procedures described

in the Act at issue in the instant case.

¶ 90 The district court there noted that it was required to determine whether the agency’s

procedures entailed the essential elements of an adjudication, including “adequate notice, the

right of parties to present evidence on their own behalf and rebut evidence presented by the

opposition, a formulation of issues of law and fact, a final decision, and the procedural

elements necessary to conclusively determine the issue in question.” Crot,

. Considering these factors, the court found that “[t]he rules and procedures utilized by

the Illinois Industrial Commission to resolve workers’ compensation claims clearly entail the

essential elements of an adjudication,” pointing to rules providing that (1) all parties receive

notice of the hearing and an opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf and rebut

evidence presented by the opposition; (2) only attorneys licensed to practice in Illinois may

appear on behalf of parties; (3) parties may issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of

witnesses and the production of documents at the hearings; (3) the Illinois Rules of Evidence

apply in all proceedings; (4) evidence depositions may be taken pursuant to stipulation of the

parties or order of the arbitrator; (6) attorneys are entitled to make opening and closing

statements; and (7) arbitrator decisions are required to clearly state the legal and factual

issues presented for resolution by the parties and state findings of fact and conclusions of law

with regard to each issue presented. Crot,

. The court concluded that

“[g]iven the procedural and evidentiary safeguards afforded claimants before the Industrial

Commission, this Court has no doubt that the procedure utilized allows claimants a full and

fair hearing.” Crot,

.

35 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 91 By contrast, in the case at bar, the Act provides no such procedural and evidentiary

safeguards, and does not entail the essential elements of an adjudication. As explained above,

the parties are not entitled to present evidence on their own behalf or rebut evidence

presented by the opposition; the State is not even afforded notice of any Commission

proceedings until they have concluded. Furthermore, there is no indication that any

evidentiary rules apply, with the Commission able to consider “all relevant evidence.” 775

ILCS 40/45(a) (West 2010). The only evidentiary safeguard in place is the provision that

“[a]ll State discovery and disclosure statutes in effect at the time of formal inquiry shall be

enforceable as if the convicted person were currently being tried for the charge for which the

convicted person is claiming torture.” 775 ILCS 40/40(f) (West 2010). Accordingly, the

analysis in Crot is not applicable to the statute in the instant case, as the provisions of the two

statutes are significantly different.

¶ 92 We are also not persuaded by defendant’s attempt to minimize the State’s argument by

claiming that the State “waived its right to contest the procedures of the commission when it

failed to petition for an administrative review of the commission’s findings.” Defendant fails

to recognize that the State is not challenging the procedures of the Commission or the

propriety of its findings; those challenges would properly be brought in an administrative

review action, as defendant notes. 8 Instead, the State is simply highlighting the

8 We note that the State pointed out at oral argument that it is not entirely clear whether the State has the right to appeal the Commission’s decision under section 55 of the Act (775 ILCS 40/55 (West 2010)) since, as we explain below, the State was not a party to the Commission’s proceedings. “ ‘[T]he interests that will justify an appeal by one not a party must be direct, immediate and substantial. It must be an interest which would be prejudiced by the judgment or benefit from its reversal.’ ” People v. Pine,

(1989) (quoting In re Estate of Tomlinson,

(1976)) (Secretary of State had standing to appeal trial court’s order directing it to issue judicial driving permits). See also In re O.H.,

, 257-58 (2002) (Department of Children and Family Services had standing to appeal trial court’s probation orders in delinquency cases); People v. White,

(1988) (Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities had standing to appeal trial court’s order requiring it to monitor compliance with conditions imposed on an individual found not guilty by reason of insanity who is conditionally released). But see Braglia v. McHenry County State’s

36 No. 1-14-0030

Commission’s procedures in an attempt to argue that the procedures do not result in an

adjudicatory or judicial proceeding. After our independent review of the procedures, we

agree with the State. Accordingly, collateral estoppel would not apply to the Commission’s

findings and the circuit court properly considered whether defendant was able to prove that

he had been tortured by the police.

¶ 93 2. Elements of Collateral Estoppel

¶ 94 Furthermore, even if the Commission’s decision was the type of judicial or adjudicatory

decision to which collateral estoppel could apply, defendant fails to demonstrate that the

required elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied. As noted, our supreme court has

explained that “the minimum threshold requirements for the application of collateral estoppel

are: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the

suit in question, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication, and (3)

the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior

adjudication.” Gumma,

. In the case at bar, none of these requirements is

satisfied.

¶ 95 First, the issue decided by the Commission was not identical to the one presented to the

circuit court, nor did it represent a final judgment on the merits. As noted, after either an

informal or a formal inquiry, the Commission votes to determine, by a preponderance of the

evidence, whether “there is sufficient evidence of torture to merit judicial review.” 775 ILCS

40/45(c) (West 2010). If so, the case is referred to the circuit court. 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West

2010). The case is then assigned to a circuit court judge “for consideration” of the torture

Attorney’s Office,

(2007) (Department of State Police did not have standing to appeal trial court’s order directing it to issue a firearm owner’s identification card to the plaintiff). We have no need to decide whether the State would have had a right to appeal the Commission’s decision in the instant case, however, since the State did not seek such an appeal and the resolution of the question does not impact our analysis.

37 No. 1-14-0030

claim. 775 ILCS 40/50(a) (West 2010). The circuit court may receive additional evidence

and, if it “finds in favor of the petitioner, it shall enter an appropriate order.” 775 ILCS

40/50(a) (West 2010). Thus, while the Commission is asked to determine whether there is

enough evidence of torture to merit judicial review, the circuit court is asked to determine

whether defendant has been tortured. These are two different issues determined by two

different entities.

¶ 96 Defendant claims that “[t]here is nothing in the [Act], or in the legislative history of the

act, which indicates that the Illinois General Assembly wanted the claimants to have to go

through yet another round of proving their claims, when these claims had already been

investigated, evaluated, analyzed, and ruled upon by the commission appointed by the

governor and with the advice and consent of the Illinois State Senate.” However, we agree

with the State that the Commission’s decision did not relieve defendant of the burden of

proving before the circuit court that he had been tortured.

¶ 97 Defendant’s argument would render section 50 of the Act, which provides for

postcommission judicial review, to be superfluous. “Statutes should be read as a whole with

all relevant parts considered, and they should be construed, if possible, so that no term is

rendered superfluous or meaningless.” In re Marriage of Kates,

(2001)

(citing Kraft, Inc. v. Edgar,

(1990), and Advincula v. United Blood

Services,

(1996)). Section 50 specifically provides that, once the case

is assigned to the circuit court, “[t]he court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral

testimony, or other evidence. In its discretion the court may order the petitioner brought

before the court for the hearing.” 775 ILCS 40/50(a) (West 2010). If, as defendant argues, the

issues before the Commission and the circuit court are identical and the circuit court is barred

38 No. 1-14-0030

from deciding the question, there would be no need for a hearing in which the court could

receive additional evidence. Defendant’s interpretation of the Act flies in the face of the

express language of the statute and we will not interpret the Act in that way.

¶ 98 The process of considering the torture claim set forth under the Act also demonstrates

why the Commission’s decision referring the case to the circuit court was not a final

judgment on the merits for the purposes of collateral estoppel. “A final judgment is a

determination of the issues presented which ascertains and fixes absolutely and finally the

rights of the parties.” Gallaher v. Hasbrouk,

(citing

Hernandez v. Pritikin,

). In the case at bar, the Commission’s

disposition did not finally ascertain or fix the rights of any of the parties. The Commission’s

disposition simply sent the case onto its next step in the circuit court. While the Act is

somewhat unusual in that the proceedings before the Commission were concluded but the

case itself was not, reaching back to the analogy to a postconviction petition is helpful. What

the Commission did was analogous to finding that a postconviction petition could advance to

the third stage. No one argues that the second-stage finding is a final judgment on the merits

that precludes the consideration of the merits of the issue at the third stage. Likewise, here,

the Commission’s finding that the case should proceed to the circuit court does not bar the

circuit court from conducting its evidentiary hearing.

¶ 99 Additionally, the State, the party against whom the estoppel is asserted, was not a party to

the Commission’s proceeding. As noted, the first time that the Act mentions notice to the

State is when the Commission has issued its disposition. 775 ILCS 40/45(c) (West 2010).

The Act also provides that the State is represented at the hearing before the circuit court, but

contains no such provision for any hearing before the Commission. 775 ILCS 40/50(b) (West

39 No. 1-14-0030

2010). Thus, the State was not a party during any of the Commission’s proceedings and

collateral estoppel cannot apply. We again note that defendant’s claims that “both the

Defendant and the prosecution had an adequate opportunity to present witnesses and

evidence” are not supported by the language of the Act or its regulations, which do not afford

any of these rights.

¶ 100 Defendant argues that since the Commission is a creation of the State, “[i]f it is a state

agency that is conducting the investigation and making the findings, then it is impossible to

say that the state was not part of the proceeding.” This argument fundamentally

misunderstands the nature of the Commission. The Commission is an independent

commission, categorized under the Illinois Human Rights Commission for administrative

purposes. 775 ILCS 40/15(a) (West 2010). The Commission is not a part of the State’s

Attorney’s office and does not act on behalf of either party when it conducts its investigation.

If we accepted defendant’s argument, we would be saying that the State is a party to every

decision issued by an administrative agency in this State, regardless of whether the State had

any interest in the matter at hand or was even notified about the issue. That is a broad

proposition we are not willing to accept, nor has defendant provided any legal authority for

this sweeping generalization. Instead, courts have consistently found that the mere fact that

two entities are both State agencies does not mean that they are in privity for purposes of res

judicata or collateral estoppel, and at least one court has rejected an argument similar to

defendant’s. See Hayes v. State Teacher Certification Board,

(2005) (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE),

who issued the decision being appealed, and the State Superintendent were in privity, finding

that the School Code required the ISBE to perform certain neutral and ministerial functions

40 No. 1-14-0030

with regard to employment-dismissal proceedings and that the ISBE was not an adversarial

or interested party in its cases); People v. Jones,

(1998) (finding the

State was not estopped from pursuing a criminal prosecution where it was not a party to the

Department of Corrections’ disciplinary proceeding and it was not afforded a full and fair

opportunity to litigate the issue). See also, e.g., Pedersen,

(“The fact that both a municipality and a pension board are public entities is not enough to

establish they are the same parties or are in privity for the purpose of collateral estoppel.”);

Hannigan v. Hoffmeister,

(1992) (“We are not prepared to accept

the plaintiff’s argument that the parties are the same because [the University of Illinois and

the State Universities’ Retirement System] were both State agencies.”). But see Gumma v.

White,

(2003) (finding the State was a party at both proceedings for

collateral estoppel purposes where the State participated in both proceedings, once through

the State’s Attorney’s office and once through the Secretary of State’s office). Thus, none of

the three requirements for collateral estoppel are satisfied.

¶ 101 As a final matter, in addition to all of the reasons set forth above, collateral estoppel

would not apply in the instant case because “the doctrine extends only to the facts and

conditions that existed when the original judgment was entered.” Gallaher,

(citing Consiglio v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation,

). In the case at bar, after the Commission issued its

disposition, the case was referred to the circuit court, which conducted an evidentiary

hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court heard the testimony of two witnesses, including

defendant, who had not testified before the Commission and who had never testified during

the proceedings leading up to his conviction. Thus, the Commission’s decision could not act

41 No. 1-14-0030

as collateral estoppel with respect to evidence that was not before it. See Gallaher,

(where a statute had been amended since the first case, “[t]he 2010

order could not act as collateral estoppel with respect to a statute it did not construe”).

¶ 102 For all of the reasons set forth above, we find that collateral estoppel did not apply to the

Commission’s disposition of defendant’s torture claim.

¶ 103 3. Law of the Case

¶ 104 For similar reasons, we find defendant’s arguments concerning law of the case to be

equally unpersuasive. Defendant argues that “[a]s law of the case, the [Commission’s]

finding that Defendant was tortured controls all of [defendant’s] post-conviction relief.”

“[T]he law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same

case.” Krautsack v. Anderson,

(2006). However, in the case at bar, as we

have explained above, the issue before the Commission was not the same issue that was

before the circuit court. The Commission was required to determine whether sufficient

evidence existed for the torture claim to proceed to the circuit court for a hearing. By

contrast, the circuit court was required to consider whether defendant had proven that he was

tortured by the police officers. Since these are not the same issues, there can be no

“relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.” Krautsack,

.

Consequently, the law of the case doctrine is not applicable.

¶ 105 II. Propriety of Circuit Court’s Findings

¶ 106 As his second basis for appeal, defendant argues that the circuit court’s order denying

him relief under the Act was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The parties agree

that we should review the circuit court’s decision under the manifestly erroneous standard,

which “represents the typical appellate standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial

42 No. 1-14-0030

judge.” People v. Coleman,

(1998). This deference reflects “the

understanding that the post-conviction trial judge is able to observe and hear the witnesses at

the evidentiary hearing and, therefore, occupies a ‘position of advantage in a search for the

truth’ which ‘is infinitely superior to that of a tribunal where the sole guide is the printed

record.’ ” Coleman,

(quoting Johnson v. Fulkerson,

(1957)). A circuit court’s decision is manifestly erroneous if it contains an error that is

“ ‘ “clearly evident, plain, and indisputable.” ’ ” People v. Morgan,

(2004) (quoting People v. Johnson,

(2002), quoting People v. Ruiz,

(1997)).

¶ 107 In the case at bar, after an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered an order finding

that “there is absolutely no credible evidence that Darryl Christian is entitled to any relief

whatsoever on his claim of torture.” The court further found:

“Darryl Christian gave four different versions of his actions with regard to the

murder of Lottie Anderson prior to being charged. He testified under oath he never

made the statement he signed. No credible evidence exists that Mr. Christian was ever

slapped before he gave his final version of the events leading up to the murder. It

should be noted that final statement made by Mr. Christian minimizes his actions.

Any relief would be a miscarriage of justice. Based on the evidence heard and

received, relief is denied.”

We cannot find that the circuit court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 108 First, defendant argues that the circuit court’s finding that defendant “gave four different

versions of his actions” concerning the murder was “absolutely without any basis in the

43 No. 1-14-0030

record whatsoever.” However, as the State points out, (1) Officer Hunter testified at

defendant’s trial that defendant told him that he had left for work at 10 p.m. on June 23 and

did not return until 10 a.m. the next morning; (2) Detective Cummings testified at

defendant’s trial that defendant told him at the scene that he had been with friends from 10

p.m. until 8 a.m.; (3) Detective Cummings testified at defendant’s trial that after questioning

at Area 2, defendant admitted that he had an argument with his mother that resulted in his

stabbing her more than once; and (4) ASA Fischer testified at defendant’s trial that defendant

told him that defendant and his mother had argued and that, while trying to take the knife his

mother held away, his mother received one stab wound. Thus, there is a basis in the record

for the circuit court’s finding and we cannot find that it was against the manifest weight of

the evidence.

¶ 109 Defendant next challenges the circuit court’s finding that defendant “testified under oath

he never made the statement he signed.” While defendant admits that “this is technically

true,” he argues that “[t]here is much more to it.” Defendant argues that he testified before

the circuit court that he admitted that he killed the victim after being abused, but that all of

the facts included in the statement were fabricated by others, which he says is consistent with

the testimony from his discovery deposition concerning the torture claim, which was

admitted into evidence by the circuit court at his hearing. However, as the State points out, it

is not only these two places where defendant made representations under oath about the

statement. For instance, defendant attached an affidavit to his habeas corpus petition in

which he stated that he did not make an incriminating statement when he spoke with

Detective Cummings. Thus, there is a basis in the record for the circuit court’s finding and

we cannot find that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

44 No. 1-14-0030

¶ 110 Next, defendant argues that the circuit court erroneously found that “[i]t should be noted

that [the] final statement made by Mr. Christian minimizes his actions.” Defendant argues

that the only thing arguably “minimizing” in the statement is the statement that defendant

was sorry. However, defendant overlooks the fact that his statement makes the victim into the

aggressor, indicating that she was the one who retrieved a knife from the kitchen. “It is

unlikely that a person whose will was overborne would be unable to resist confessing, yet at

the same time attempt to mitigate the effect of a confession.” People v. Kincaid,

(1981). Thus, we cannot find that the circuit court’s finding was erroneous or

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 111 Finally, defendant challenges the circuit court’s finding that “no credible evidence exists

that Mr. Christian was ever slapped before he gave his final version of the events leading up

to the murder” and its ultimate conclusion that “there is absolutely no credible evidence that

Darryl Christian is entitled to any relief whatsoever on his claim of torture.” Defendant

argues that he has continually maintained that he was abused by the police since 1990 and

that his testimony at the evidentiary hearing was unrebutted. Defendant also argues that his

testimony that the written statement was fabricated was corroborated by inconsistencies

between the statement and the actual facts, pointing to examples such as the number of stab

wounds. While defendant is correct that Detective Cummings was not called to testify before

the circuit court, a transcript of his testimony from defendant’s suppression hearing was

admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Detective Cummings testified that he did not strike

defendant. Thus, defendant’s testimony was not unrebutted. Furthermore, “the reviewing

court does not retry the defendant, and the trier of fact remains responsible for making

determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony,

45 No. 1-14-0030

and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” People v. Ross,

(2008). We cannot find that the circuit court’s determination that defendant was not

credible was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 112 CONCLUSION

¶ 113 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of defendant’s

claim for relief under the Act. Collateral estoppel did not apply to the Commission’s finding

and the circuit court’s conclusion that defendant was not entitled to any relief was not against

the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 114 Affirmed.

46