Jamie Snow's Attorneys' Performance Violated His Constitutional Right to Counsel

These claims of ineffectiveness are supported by the documents included in Group Exhibit 29, which show that Frank Picl, who because of health issues for G. Frank Riley, had major responsibility over Jamie Snow's trial, developed a repeating pattern of misconduct in other cases around this same time, and was shortly thereafter disbarred for major misconduct.

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different absent counsel's errors. Strickland, 466 U.S.at 687;People v. Weir,111 Ill.2d 334,337,490 N.E.2d 1,2 (1986).

Here, counsel's performance fell far below that threshold in numerous ways. Simply put, Jamie Snow's counsel could have investigated and presented evidence that would have exposed some of the misconduct in this case, challenged improper evidence, and effectively impeached questionable witnesses presented by the state. They inexpiicably failed to do so. In the face of his counsel's ineffectiveiness, he had no opportunity to combat the state's weak evidence.

Some of the evidence that Mr. Snow presents in this petition in support of his other claims is evidence that he gleaned from reviewing the discovery in this case, and from speaking with known witnesses. In some instances, this is information that his trial counsel, had they conducted meaningful investigation into his case, might have obtained and should have used to support Mr. Snow's defense.

• Counsel failed to use Jeffery Pelo' s interview transcript, the police reports concerning Danny Martinez, and testimony from Dennis Hendricks and William Hendricks as guides to elicit testimony from Pelo and to discredit Martinez's testimony about what happened in front of the gas station. (Exs. 1, 5 &7.)



• Counsel failed to subpoena the police radio tapes, which support Pelo's version of events and which, considered with Pelo and Williams' testimony, establish that Martnez's testimony is incredible. (Exs. 1,2,5, & 6)



• Counsel failed to call Thomas Sanders, whose testimony was readily available from Susan Claycomb's trial, to demonstrate that Carlos Luna's "identification" of Jamie Snow was completely weak. (Ex. 8.)



• Counsel failed to speak to Steve Scheel, who told Larry Biela that had counsel spoken to him in advance, would have exposed the reasons for his testimony. (Ex. 15, Biela Aff. at 20.)



• Given the information in the police reports concerning how Danny Martinez finally came to identify Jamie Snow, counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress arguing that his identification was unreliable and the product of inherently suggestive tactics.



• Counsel failed to investigate the report from Randall Howard that someone on the jury knew Jamie Snow and had a reason to have animus against him. (Ex. 13, at 12-55.)



• Counsel failed to investigate Karen Strong's reasons for providing false testimony against Jamie Snow.



• Counsel failed to investigate available evidence that witnesses in this case received deals in exchange for their testimony, and to use that evidence to impeach those witnesses. Counsel further failed to ask for and develop evidence that would impeach witnesses who claimed Jamie Snow confessed to them while they were incarcerated together.



• Counsel failed to investigate and present evidence that Dawn Roberts' testimony about toasts was flawed, and that the only toasting Jamie Snow did to any "Billy" was a respectful toasting for Tina Mcwhorter's brother Billy who had died shortly before.



• Counsel failed to use the testimony of Charlie Crowe to impeach Martinez by exposing how many other people he'd identified for this crime, and clearly explaining that when given the perfect opporfunity to identify Mr. Snow as the person he claimed he saw, he was unable to do so.



• Counsel failed to expose evidence that the victim's mother had been contacting the key witness in this case, Danny Martinez, possibly at the behest, direction, or with the consent of the Bioomington Police Department.



• Counsel failed to use availabie discovery to impeach testimony by Detectives Thomas and Bemardini who falsely implied at Jamie's trial that he had admitted some involvement in this crime.



• Counsel failed to investigate and present evidence from Darren Smart impeaching Mary Jane Burns.

Finally, to the extent any of the new evidence included in this petition was known or could have been known to counsel, then counsel was ineffective for failing to use it, because such evidence supports Jamie Snow's innocence.

• No Credible Witness Saw Jamie Snow at the Scene
  
  
• The Inculpatory Statements Presented Against Jamie Snow were Largely the Result of Pressure and Deals
  
  
• The Pattern of Misconduct by the Bloomington Police Department and McLean County State's Attorney's Office
  
  
• Reynard Himself Told a Witness that Jamie Snow was Innocent
  
  
• Jamie Snow's Attorney's Performance Violated His Constitutional Right to Counsel