A panel of Illinois Appellate Court judges on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the case of Kevin Jackson, a man seeking his release from prison more than two decades after he was found guilty in a fatal South Side shooting.
The case has come under extra scrutiny in recent years after allegations of coercion and other misconduct have been leveled at the Chicago police detectives who investigated the case.
Jackson, 43, is serving a 45-year sentence for the 2001 slaying of 54-year-old Ernest Jenkins and shooting of a second man at a Southwest Side gas station. Jackson has maintained his innocence as his post-conviction case has taken several unusual turns.
About a dozen members of Jackson’s family and some supporters were present in court for the arguments given to justices Mary Mikva, Raymond Mitchell and Sharon Johnson, who each peppered attorneys with questions for a little more than an hour during Tuesday’s hearing at the Bilandic Building in the Loop.
The judges’ inquiries largely focused on the procedures and steps taken by prosecutors, investigators and judges who have been involved in the case at various times in recent decades.
Earlier this year, after Jackson’s attorneys discovered a conflict of interest in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office unit that reviews potential wrongful convictions, the prosecutor’s office asked special prosecutors to conduct an independent review of his claim of innocence.
After an investigation, they produced a bruising report that was critical of the Chicago Police Department’s original investigation as well as the Conviction Integrity Unit’s review of the case.
Following the report, the state’s attorney’s office dropped its objection to Jackson’s petition for relief from his convictions — often a signal that a defendant will eventually have their convictions reversed.
But, in a blow to Jackson’s case, Cook County Judge Angela Petrone in June ruled that the convictions should stand.
Though the prosecutors’ office previously dropped its objection, Assistant State’s Attorney Christopher “Thor” Martin told the three justices Tuesday that the state’s attorney’s office took “no position” on the report or its findings.
“In this case, the state’s attorney’s office took its ethical obligations very seriously,” Martin said.
“The trial court considered that report and made findings based on the facts,” he added. “This court should affirm the trial court’s decision.”
Accessibility to the full report was a sticking point for the judges overseeing Tuesday’s hearing.
“How can a court decide a matter of any significance … with a disparity of information?” Mitchell asked. “One side has a report, the court has the report, but the opposing party doesn’t have the report. I don’t see how that can possibly be proper procedure.”
After Petrone issued her ruling in June, Jackson’s sister Lakisha Jackson said, “We’re going to keep fighting every day.”
The detectives who investigated Jackson’s case, Brian Forberg and John Foster, have generated scrutiny in the past year with more than a dozen defendants accusing them of coercing and manipulating witnesses in order to close cases. Forberg was married to an assistant state’s attorney who worked closely with the Conviction Integrity Unit (now called the Conviction Review Unit), which reviews potential wrongful convictions.
“Judge Petrone’s refusal to consider newly developed evidence, perpetuates the injustice that Mr. Jackson’s case presents,” a defense brief said.
The state’s attorney’s office, though, in a brief argued that although it did not oppose the defendant’s petition and “agreed with defendant’s request for relief,” Petrone acted appropriately in making her decision.
“Even though the decision of the trial court was not the desired outcome of the People, the trial court did not act outside its role in finding that defendant failed to establish that he was entitled to have his convictions vacated,” the brief said.
Prosecutors also noted that although they decided not to contest the defendant’s petition, that decision did not mean that it fully endorsed all the findings in the special prosecutors’ report or that it takes as fact that Jackson is innocent.
