The "Add" button adds a page to the "Build a Report" function to gather pages across our site and email them to a preferred email address. Access your pages by clicking on "Build a Report." The "Remove" button removes a page from the "Build a Report" function. Access your pages by clicking on "Build a Report."
The "Build a Report" function allows you to add links to selected pages and send them in an email to your preferred email address. Use the Add button to the left to add a page to your Report. Use the Remove button to remove a page. Click on the "Build a Report" link to open your collection of pages.
Daniel Staroselsky in William Johnson, Petitioner-Appellee v. Gerardo Acevedo, Respondent-Appellant, Docket No. 08-1731
6 January 2009
Mayer Brown Article
In May 2001, William Johnson was convicted in Illinois state court of armed robbery, aggravated battery, and unlawful use of a weapon. At trial, Mr. Johnson took the stand on his own behalf and testified that his cousin--who matched early descriptions of the offender but who, despite being in custody, was not placed in a police lineup on the night of the offense--was the guilty party. On cross-examination, over repeatedly sustained objections, the prosecutor asked Mr. Johnson twenty-five times why he failed to tell his story after he was arrested and advised of his Miranda rights. During closing argument, the prosecutor returned to this theme, urging the jury not to believe Mr. Johnson's defense because Mr. Johnson had failed to tell it upon arrest.
Mr. Johnson appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing that the prosecutor's comments violated the rule that “the use for impeachment purposes of [a defendant’s] silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, violate[s] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976). The Illinois Appellate Court agreed that the prosecutor violated Doyle, but held that the violation was harmless. Mr. Johnson then sought habeas relief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court granted Mr. Johnson's habeas petition, and Illinois appealed.
Mayer Brown accepted the Seventh Circuit's appointment to defend the district court's judgment on appeal. Mr. Johnson's brief emphasized the knowing, deliberate, and repeated nature of the constitutional violations at his trial, as well as the holes in the prosecution's case. Chief Judge Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Cudahy and Sykes heard oral argument on September 3, 2008. The argument focused on whether a constitutional violation took place and largely set to a side the question whether any violation was harmless.
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe-Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown Mexico, S.C., a sociedad civil formed under the laws of the State of Durango, Mexico; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated legal practices in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. Mayer Brown Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd and its subsidiary, which are affiliated with Mayer Brown, provide customs and trade advisory and consultancy services, not legal services.
“Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
You have no pages selected. Please select pages to email then resubmit.