People v. Hill, 2025 IL App (1st) 230604 (Ill. Ct. App. 2025)
The 1st District Court of Appeals of Illinois held that an individual is entitled to a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel where defense counsel failed to communicate sufficiently with their client and investigate a witness that was flagged by the client.
The court stated in relevant part: An attorney’s failure to communicate with a client can constitute ineffective assistance, including the failure to visit a client while he is in prison to review the case generally and discovery materials specifically. See People v. Bass, 2022 IL App (1st) 210249, ¶¶ 18-24, 466 Ill. Dec. 311, 216 N.E.3d 1144. Defense counsel’s failure to make such visits may deprive his client of the chance to meaningfully participate in his defense. Id. ¶ 22. The testimony at the posttrial hearing supports Hill’s characterization of trial counsel’s lack of communication, as the prison visitation logs confirm that counsel may not have visited at all and certainly did not do so regularly, and Hill did not review discovery (including the videos) pretrial. Additionally, counsel’s testimony supported Hill’s version that there was minimal telephone contact and that the majority of communication occurred in the courthouse lockup. Given the seriousness of the charges Hill faced and the fact he was a juvenile at the time of the incident, this level of communication constituted objectively unreasonable conduct. Id. ¶ 24 (“Given the significance of the murder charge [the defendant] faced and the nature of the evidence against him *** counsel’s alleged failure to have a confidential consultation (either by phone or in person) fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”). We find the law requires criminal defense counsel to provide representation far more thorough than what was rendered here, particularly in a case involving a first degree murder charge.
. . . .
Defense counsel has an obligation to investigate witnesses identified or disclosed by the client, and the failure to do so can constitute objectively unreasonable conduct for purposes of ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 398, 701 N.E.2d 1063, 233 Ill. Dec. 789 (1998); Bass, 2022 IL App (1st) 210249, ¶ 30.
