Legal Case Summary

The fourth district of the state of Illinois has now convened the Honorable Thomas M. Harris. Providing. All right. Good afternoon, Council. This is case number four dash 21 dash 0 6 2 0. People versus Charles Watts. Council, could you identify yourself for the record first for the appellate? Yes. How many of you Gilbert Lens from the DePaul legal clinic for Charles Watts. Thank you. And for the appellate

. My name is Douglas Malcolm for the state. Thank you. Mr. Lens, you may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor, and good afternoon to the court and to council again Gilbert Lens for Charles Watts. There are two issues before the court, but I'd like to focus this afternoon on the first issue regarding the sufficiency of the state's evidence. Although I'll be happy to ask the answer any questions that the court has about the sentencing argument. This court should reverse Charles Watts's conviction because it rests upon a single unreliable eyewitness identification made in court more than 16 months after the incidents. That identification was already unreliable because it was merely an in court identification so long after the incident, but it was also from a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the incident. And whose testimony about the incident had so many inconsistencies that it so affected his general credibility that his ultimate identification was liable

. Because Mr. Trotter's testimony was not credible in general. This court should already find that evidence was insufficient, but largely because of that lack of credibility. His testimony about the identification also fails the bigger factors. And for both of those reasons, this court should reverse Watts's conviction. So, yeah, what specific factor do you believe is missing here or I should be underscored for our review? Well, there are five separate figures factors. I've sort of for today, I sort of grouped them into two different categories in combination with the other factors that the court should consider in the bigger analysis. The first is that the time and opportunity that Trotter had to observe the offender. The court found after the trial that Trotter had an ample opportunity to view the offender, but I think that finding was contradicted by the record and by the court's own pretrial finding. Trotter himself testified that when the offender knocked on the door, he looked at him only for a moment before letting him in

. And then by Trotter's own words, he stopped paying attention to the man after he entered. Mr. Rosickey was in the chart. Council, can I stop you there just for one moment? I know you take issue with that that there wasn't sufficient opportunity, but when you think about someone answering the door. And opening the door and someone is outside. The two people are in very close proximity. There was no indication here that the lighting was insufficient or that there was some other impairment to Trotter's view. He answered the door and looked at the person standing outside the door. Why is that insufficient? It's insufficient because his while he was able to see the person who's at the door, his testimony about the rest of the incident. Is so incredible that it's hard to lay to get lend way to his later tentative identification of the person at the door as having the nickname LC

. Mr. Rosickey was in the apartment the entire time as well as the offender and the court found that Mr. Rosickey only had a brief opportunity to look at the offender. So while the record indicates Trotter was closer to the offender at the door. I don't think that the court's finding after the trial that he had an ample opportunity to observe. Was accurate given the court's own pre trial finding and the fact that Trotter himself acknowledged that once the person entered the apartment, he stopped paying attention to him. Well, at this is the thing I'm having trouble with. Are you saying that requires a substantial period of time for one person to look at another person in order to be able to later make an identification. I mean, what if it's just two seconds at the door and Trotter has a clear view of the individual on the other side, who's at the doorway. Why isn't that sufficient? You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the claim that Trotter was in proximity to this person when it seems like identification of an individual can be based on something

. Very time period that's very short. Why am I wrong? And before you answer this, let me add to just the Harris comment because he's in the apartment is Trotter testified for about 15 to 20 minutes. And they're looking at each other. He testified that he bumped in brush past and walking in. So in answering to that question, let's also address the issue that they're in the apartment, they're in close proximity to each other for 15 to 20 minutes. Well, I think Trotter's testimony about the 15 to 20 minutes is not completely credible. Given that Riziki said he was, you know, if it was only there briefly in the court said the person was only there briefly before the trial, but more importantly, your honors. The amount of time here has to be balanced with the other factors that were present Trotter was the record in the case that Trotter was intoxicated at the time the person knocked on the door. He's a, he's a Rosiki both testified that they had been drinking. Rosiki said they've been drinking a lot before the shooting

. Trotter actually told the detective that he had been drinking before the shooting. And yet a trial, he denied that he had been drinking. And that's important here in two ways. First, the record shows he wasn't toxicated, which affects his ability to observe. And second, his denial of trial of his intoxication. Calls into question his general credibility. And that's crucial here is general credibility. Because what is there in the record that evidence is Trotter's intoxication. You say the record establishes his intoxication. What are you referring to? Well, he told the detective hours after the incident that he had been drinking with with he's in Rosiki prior to the shooting

. He's in Rosiki both corroborated that and and Rosiki added that they had been drinking quite a bit of alcohol prior to the shooting. So, I think, I think the only reason why reason why reading other record is that he had been drinking alcohol at least. And was to some degree then intoxicated. And then his again, going back to his denial of that at trial, that's key here because it calls into question his general credibility, which was even more called into question by his. His clearly faulty recollection of the incident subsequent to the first shot without any support from other evidence. Trotter said that as he fled the scene, the offend or fired two more shots at him and that that just. I think there's no other way to say it. That's just completely wrong based on this record and his record his mis recollection of such a remarkable fact. I think really raises doubt about what about how much weight you can lend Trotter's other testimony. And you say that because there was no cooperation by finding more shell casings and the witness that was what a block away she was a block away

. Is that the basis for saying that it was an incredible statement by Trotter. And those two facts and Rosicie who was standing in the apartment when the first shot was fired, he also testified there was only one shot fired so. Specifically on that are you saying he was questioned about the number of shots and said there was only one. I don't know if he was asked if there were more than one shot, but he only testified to seeing or hearing one shot. He's are only testified to seeing or hearing one shot and the police. The police were questioned about the thoroughness of their search and they said they searched in the apartment in front of the apartment, the parking lots, the area and they found no other evidence of any other shots being fired. So I think that this record indicates that Trotter's testimony about the first shot was simply incredible. And again, that such a remarkable fact to be misremembered is raises a lot of doubt about his general credibility. And I think that was the defendant's nickname wasn't that. According to both he's are in detective deadly they knew Mr

. Watts as LC. Yes, they go ahead. And but but the degree so the key here is the degree of Trotter's familiarity now Trotter may know someone is LC. And he may recognize the shooter. The state proved that Mr. Watts was LC and LC was the shooter. And I think Trotter's testimony indicates a lack some lack of familiarity with the person. He may have had a vague record a vague recognition of him. But if it was someone he knew very well, he would have told the police right away who that person. How well do you have to know someone before the description of previously acquainted of bloods? Well, you can certainly rely on well, it was very it's an unspecified previous acqua

. He actually testified or the officer Cleveland testified that Trotter told him the person that had tried and tried to rob him on a prior occasion reason I emphasize this is because. I've been on this court a long time dealing with criminal cases and it's not in the common that we have an issue raised about the claim of misidentification typically as you know that's because of the crime of let's say I'm robbery being committed over a counter and some liquor store where the. Victim clerk doesn't know it has never seen the person before and subsequently or so line up or. A person is identified as the guy who committed the crime by the victim and what I am out of you seconds sometimes no more in a few minutes of most of up during the sea. But no prior acquaintance of any kind reason I mentioned this is I'm not aware of any case and I don't think you cited the case where any court of review has ever deemed a identification by a victim in a crime is in this case to the Matt sufficient Matt credible Matt's vision to carry the states burden of poop the other reason we'll doubt. Where is here there's a prior acquaintance between the victim and the assailant are you aware of any. I believe the Smith case that the real I most on in our brief is one of those cases your honor in the Smith case the eyewitness the the sole eyewitness who identified the defendant as the shooter had known the defendant for I believe more than two years. And much much closer I think in fact then then Mr. Trotter knew this LC. In Smith despite the fact that that witness knew the defendant the Supreme Court reverse that conviction and it's it's key here because what the Smith court said was the reason that witness was so incredible was because of her mis recollection. The defendant based on of the incident based on the other evidence in the record you know they seem like minor points but what the Supreme Court emphasized was that this witness said the defendant was alone in the parking lot every other witness said there was a group. This witness said the defendant came out of one door every other witness said the defendant came out of a different door and based on those two facts the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that that was those were the two main reasons why that witnesses testimony was not credible despite her familiarity with the defendant. So I think this case it doesn't share every fact with Smith but it's factually analogous on those crucial points Mr. Trotter's testimony his recollection of the incident was similarly non credible to the Smith witness. Well the other aspect of this case is that this is a bench trial we have an experienced trial court was hearing all this and weighing all this and before we were blessed with these jobs we were all trial court judges ourselves and education to make this kind of a determination and trial judges have a lot better opportunity to see and evaluate the moment we do from a cold record. This court heard this defendant heard and heard Trotter I should say and notwithstanding called the deficiencies you pointed out concluded that the state based primarily upon his testimony and proved the defendant going down the street without why shouldn't we refer to that determination under the circumstances in this case. Well I think the court I think one reason is that is the court the trial courts own treetrial rulings when the court suppressed Rosicke's coerced identification one of it cited several factors in suppressing his identification one of the key factors the court cited in suppressing that was the suggestive nature of the police identification procedures because just like with Trotter I mean just like with Rosicke detective Dudley when when Trotter told Detective Dudley that he thought the shooter was someone he knew as LC detective Dudley his immediate reaction was to tell Trotter oh that's Charles and Trotter acknowledged a trial that from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. Well why does that make any difference was there any dispute that defendant didn't go by the nickname LC. No there was evidence that he goes by the nickname LC he never acknowledged that himself but there was evidence that he did but the key here is Trotter's familiarity with the person he said was LC. Yeah but the detectives attachment of a name to the nickname LC how did that somehow nullify Trotter's identification of defend

. The defendant based on of the incident based on the other evidence in the record you know they seem like minor points but what the Supreme Court emphasized was that this witness said the defendant was alone in the parking lot every other witness said there was a group. This witness said the defendant came out of one door every other witness said the defendant came out of a different door and based on those two facts the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that that was those were the two main reasons why that witnesses testimony was not credible despite her familiarity with the defendant. So I think this case it doesn't share every fact with Smith but it's factually analogous on those crucial points Mr. Trotter's testimony his recollection of the incident was similarly non credible to the Smith witness. Well the other aspect of this case is that this is a bench trial we have an experienced trial court was hearing all this and weighing all this and before we were blessed with these jobs we were all trial court judges ourselves and education to make this kind of a determination and trial judges have a lot better opportunity to see and evaluate the moment we do from a cold record. This court heard this defendant heard and heard Trotter I should say and notwithstanding called the deficiencies you pointed out concluded that the state based primarily upon his testimony and proved the defendant going down the street without why shouldn't we refer to that determination under the circumstances in this case. Well I think the court I think one reason is that is the court the trial courts own treetrial rulings when the court suppressed Rosicke's coerced identification one of it cited several factors in suppressing his identification one of the key factors the court cited in suppressing that was the suggestive nature of the police identification procedures because just like with Trotter I mean just like with Rosicke detective Dudley when when Trotter told Detective Dudley that he thought the shooter was someone he knew as LC detective Dudley his immediate reaction was to tell Trotter oh that's Charles and Trotter acknowledged a trial that from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. Well why does that make any difference was there any dispute that defendant didn't go by the nickname LC. No there was evidence that he goes by the nickname LC he never acknowledged that himself but there was evidence that he did but the key here is Trotter's familiarity with the person he said was LC. Yeah but the detectives attachment of a name to the nickname LC how did that somehow nullify Trotter's identification of defend. Well it didn't nothing nullifies the identification but yeah or in parrot nullifies too strong a word. The reason it raises further doubts about the identification is because when when detective Dudley. He heard detective Dudley believed that this LC person was Charles Watts what detective Dudley did not do just as he did with Rosicke I'm sorry not unlike as he did with Rosicke he did not show Trotter a photo array he did not show Trotter a lineup photo in the hospital or anything he just told Trotter the shooter was Charles and Trotter admitted a trial from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. The next time he was asked about who the shooter was on the record at least was at trial 16 months later when he's in a courtroom in the case of people be Charles Watts and Charles Watts is the only person in black and white stripes so courts have have cited like the ash court and and other courts they've cited the fact that police procedures were suggestive as one of the one of several factors that might render. It's a crucial fact in this case because they had ample opportunity to to get Trotter to identify a pretrial identification of the shooter and they just did not do so and actually that raises questions about their confidence in Trotter's ability like if they believed 100% certain that he would be able to identify the shooter in an array. I think they probably would have done that and here we're left wondering why they didn't do that. So there after the motion and suppress was denied then the court heard further testimony at trial that's when Trotter testified at some length. I'm sorry can you repeat that you're under? Yes after the motion and suppress was denied a vent trial was conducted at which Trotter testified at some length. The motion of suppress was granted as to Rosicie there was no motion of suppress as to Trotter. But yes yes Trotter right Trotter the principal witness of trial

. Well it didn't nothing nullifies the identification but yeah or in parrot nullifies too strong a word. The reason it raises further doubts about the identification is because when when detective Dudley. He heard detective Dudley believed that this LC person was Charles Watts what detective Dudley did not do just as he did with Rosicke I'm sorry not unlike as he did with Rosicke he did not show Trotter a photo array he did not show Trotter a lineup photo in the hospital or anything he just told Trotter the shooter was Charles and Trotter admitted a trial from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. The next time he was asked about who the shooter was on the record at least was at trial 16 months later when he's in a courtroom in the case of people be Charles Watts and Charles Watts is the only person in black and white stripes so courts have have cited like the ash court and and other courts they've cited the fact that police procedures were suggestive as one of the one of several factors that might render. It's a crucial fact in this case because they had ample opportunity to to get Trotter to identify a pretrial identification of the shooter and they just did not do so and actually that raises questions about their confidence in Trotter's ability like if they believed 100% certain that he would be able to identify the shooter in an array. I think they probably would have done that and here we're left wondering why they didn't do that. So there after the motion and suppress was denied then the court heard further testimony at trial that's when Trotter testified at some length. I'm sorry can you repeat that you're under? Yes after the motion and suppress was denied a vent trial was conducted at which Trotter testified at some length. The motion of suppress was granted as to Rosicie there was no motion of suppress as to Trotter. But yes yes Trotter right Trotter the principal witness of trial. Yeah I misspoke so Trotter's principal witness and now with standing the evidence presented the motion is suppressed the trial court is now hearing this testimony from Trotter so. And this is what the court heard immediately before the court's decision why shouldn't we give weight to the court's assessment of Trotter's credibility? Well this court definitely under the standard review must give weight to the the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations. But this court cannot simply rubber stamp of finding that that that the record shows is unreasonable and I think Trotter's testimony was so unreasonable on so many crucial points that it rendered the state's evidence in this case simply insufficient the state's conviction here rested really the bedrock is Trotter's identification and without that identification without without that identification being reliable. There's simply cannot be enough confidence in this conviction to let it stand and I think the trial courts find it to the contrary in this case we're unreasonable and that's why this court should reverse watch this conviction. If they know further questions I'll reserve a remainder for a bottle. All right thank you you may Mr Malcolm. Thank you may I please the court council. The evidence that trial was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This court's questions have already largely teased out the meat of my arguments so I will endeavor to keep my comments short and concise and to the point. On appeal the standard is whether any rational trial effect viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the role of this court to retry the defendant and the credibility determinations of the trial fact below receive great deference because the trial fact below is better positions to make those credibility determinations here

. Yeah I misspoke so Trotter's principal witness and now with standing the evidence presented the motion is suppressed the trial court is now hearing this testimony from Trotter so. And this is what the court heard immediately before the court's decision why shouldn't we give weight to the court's assessment of Trotter's credibility? Well this court definitely under the standard review must give weight to the the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations. But this court cannot simply rubber stamp of finding that that that the record shows is unreasonable and I think Trotter's testimony was so unreasonable on so many crucial points that it rendered the state's evidence in this case simply insufficient the state's conviction here rested really the bedrock is Trotter's identification and without that identification without without that identification being reliable. There's simply cannot be enough confidence in this conviction to let it stand and I think the trial courts find it to the contrary in this case we're unreasonable and that's why this court should reverse watch this conviction. If they know further questions I'll reserve a remainder for a bottle. All right thank you you may Mr Malcolm. Thank you may I please the court council. The evidence that trial was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This court's questions have already largely teased out the meat of my arguments so I will endeavor to keep my comments short and concise and to the point. On appeal the standard is whether any rational trial effect viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the role of this court to retry the defendant and the credibility determinations of the trial fact below receive great deference because the trial fact below is better positions to make those credibility determinations here. The trial court found James trotter to be credible because when James trotter answered the apartment door he stood approximately two feet away from the defendant. The defendant was the defendant. He knew the defendant from their prior interactions he knew him as LC and when the defendant entered into the apartment he brushed past the trotter and trotter had another opportunity to see him during that instance they remain relatively cross proximity for the next approximately 15 minutes before trotter before the defendant pulled out a gun and shot trotter. This identification is it was clear it is credible and the trial courts credibility determination specifically finding that the defend that trotter had ample opportunity to observe the defendant was reasonable and accordingly should not be reversed on appeal. In his brief the defendant argues that his alibi was not undercut by the state's evidence the state respectfully disagrees the surveillance video of the defendant's apartment complex shows that defendant left his apartment at approximately 630 and did not return until approximately 930. Generally we make of that surveillance video just in terms of the individuals that were depicted the officer wasn't able to make an identification based on seeing someone's face in the video but commented about how they were the individuals carrying himself as mannerisms. Is that worthy of, is that of evidentiary quality to where the officer can then say that was the defendant? Yes, Your Honor. If an individual either has particularly notable or is identified by their physicality, their stature, their shape, their mannerisms, also based on their prior interactions where an officer or detective can identify an individual based on those particular characteristics that is sufficient and appropriate for a testimony identifying an individual. So the defendant didn't have a limb or some obvious disability that then would have been apparent in this surveillance video. What did the officers say was of such a, what's such a distinguishing characteristic about the way this person moved in the video that he knew that it was defended? If I recall the exact testimony correctly, I don't believe that there was any one particular thing that the officer highlighted, however, the officer did list stature, physicality and mannerisms

. The trial court found James trotter to be credible because when James trotter answered the apartment door he stood approximately two feet away from the defendant. The defendant was the defendant. He knew the defendant from their prior interactions he knew him as LC and when the defendant entered into the apartment he brushed past the trotter and trotter had another opportunity to see him during that instance they remain relatively cross proximity for the next approximately 15 minutes before trotter before the defendant pulled out a gun and shot trotter. This identification is it was clear it is credible and the trial courts credibility determination specifically finding that the defend that trotter had ample opportunity to observe the defendant was reasonable and accordingly should not be reversed on appeal. In his brief the defendant argues that his alibi was not undercut by the state's evidence the state respectfully disagrees the surveillance video of the defendant's apartment complex shows that defendant left his apartment at approximately 630 and did not return until approximately 930. Generally we make of that surveillance video just in terms of the individuals that were depicted the officer wasn't able to make an identification based on seeing someone's face in the video but commented about how they were the individuals carrying himself as mannerisms. Is that worthy of, is that of evidentiary quality to where the officer can then say that was the defendant? Yes, Your Honor. If an individual either has particularly notable or is identified by their physicality, their stature, their shape, their mannerisms, also based on their prior interactions where an officer or detective can identify an individual based on those particular characteristics that is sufficient and appropriate for a testimony identifying an individual. So the defendant didn't have a limb or some obvious disability that then would have been apparent in this surveillance video. What did the officers say was of such a, what's such a distinguishing characteristic about the way this person moved in the video that he knew that it was defended? If I recall the exact testimony correctly, I don't believe that there was any one particular thing that the officer highlighted, however, the officer did list stature, physicality and mannerisms. So it was a, to the best of my understanding, reading the cold record, a matter of the way the defendant appeared, the way the defendant moved, was familiar to detective Dudley based on their prior interactions. And to be fair, it wasn't just the individual's mannerisms there, but it was also what the individual was wearing, where he came from and went and returned to and then also the vehicle in which the individual got into. Yes, Your Honor. The individual appeared to leave apartment three and then returned to apartment three, which was known to be the defendant's apartment also he got into a vehicle that was connected with the defendant. All of all of this evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable debt. That quickly on a, on issue number, number two, the trial court did not use the discretion during sentencing, the record shows the trial court considered all the appropriate factors and aggravation and mitigation and regarding the particular factors that the defendant includes in his opening brief. Those were considered included in the present as a investigation report, which the trial court explicitly stated that it considered the trial court is presumed to know the law and apply properly and the record does not rebut that presumption and accordingly the defendant sentence was an appropriate use of the trial court's discretion, not an abuse thereof. If there are no further questions from this panel, the state's respectfully passes on the remainder of its time. All right, thank you, Mr. Malcolm, Mr

. So it was a, to the best of my understanding, reading the cold record, a matter of the way the defendant appeared, the way the defendant moved, was familiar to detective Dudley based on their prior interactions. And to be fair, it wasn't just the individual's mannerisms there, but it was also what the individual was wearing, where he came from and went and returned to and then also the vehicle in which the individual got into. Yes, Your Honor. The individual appeared to leave apartment three and then returned to apartment three, which was known to be the defendant's apartment also he got into a vehicle that was connected with the defendant. All of all of this evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable debt. That quickly on a, on issue number, number two, the trial court did not use the discretion during sentencing, the record shows the trial court considered all the appropriate factors and aggravation and mitigation and regarding the particular factors that the defendant includes in his opening brief. Those were considered included in the present as a investigation report, which the trial court explicitly stated that it considered the trial court is presumed to know the law and apply properly and the record does not rebut that presumption and accordingly the defendant sentence was an appropriate use of the trial court's discretion, not an abuse thereof. If there are no further questions from this panel, the state's respectfully passes on the remainder of its time. All right, thank you, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Lums, a rebuttal large. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I'll rest on the brief as for the sentencing on the surveillance video and the alibi defense. I think, Justice Harris, the question was getting to the key point about detective doubly's ability. The state certainly could have asked detective doubly how he knew Mr. Watts. What his basis of familiarity was, but he just said he just kind of had a general familiarity with him and based on that, he was able to identify his stature and walking style in the video. I just think that's simply not enough to render and that's the only identification made of the person in the video on this record. So it's just simply not enough to show that that was Mr. Watts in the video

. Lums, a rebuttal large. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I'll rest on the brief as for the sentencing on the surveillance video and the alibi defense. I think, Justice Harris, the question was getting to the key point about detective doubly's ability. The state certainly could have asked detective doubly how he knew Mr. Watts. What his basis of familiarity was, but he just said he just kind of had a general familiarity with him and based on that, he was able to identify his stature and walking style in the video. I just think that's simply not enough to render and that's the only identification made of the person in the video on this record. So it's just simply not enough to show that that was Mr. Watts in the video. And does not outweigh his alibi, which is corroborated by his girlfriend who testified that he was there most of the day only left for the store. One final point on Trotter's identification. Again, there's no question that Trotter a few few hours after the shooting told detective doubly that he apologize, but I don't want you to get off of the surveillance video because there was a key part for the trial court. What about the fact that as the trial court considered here that the two individuals, let's assume for purpose of your argument that he cannot make the adequate identification that it is the defendant, but he's later arrested in the same car. It leaves the house about the same time and returns. There was other factors that supported the officers position that it involved Watts that Watts was the one leaving that apartment. Could you address that before you move on to your next item? Yeah, no question, Justice Bridges, that there was some circumstantial evidence indicating that one of the people could have been Watts. I would note first that the video shows him the car that he left in or the two people left in was not the same car. He was later arrested in that car was apparently the car that one of the people returned to the apartment in. So there were two different cars involved here on the outgoing and incoming trips, but setting that aside your honor, there's no question that the video has offered some circumstantial evidence, given, especially given that it was Watts's apartment, but in other hand, it's not that that evidence is not worthy of a great deal of weight given, given its vagueness and given the unreliability of delves identification of the person in the city

. And does not outweigh his alibi, which is corroborated by his girlfriend who testified that he was there most of the day only left for the store. One final point on Trotter's identification. Again, there's no question that Trotter a few few hours after the shooting told detective doubly that he apologize, but I don't want you to get off of the surveillance video because there was a key part for the trial court. What about the fact that as the trial court considered here that the two individuals, let's assume for purpose of your argument that he cannot make the adequate identification that it is the defendant, but he's later arrested in the same car. It leaves the house about the same time and returns. There was other factors that supported the officers position that it involved Watts that Watts was the one leaving that apartment. Could you address that before you move on to your next item? Yeah, no question, Justice Bridges, that there was some circumstantial evidence indicating that one of the people could have been Watts. I would note first that the video shows him the car that he left in or the two people left in was not the same car. He was later arrested in that car was apparently the car that one of the people returned to the apartment in. So there were two different cars involved here on the outgoing and incoming trips, but setting that aside your honor, there's no question that the video has offered some circumstantial evidence, given, especially given that it was Watts's apartment, but in other hand, it's not that that evidence is not worthy of a great deal of weight given, given its vagueness and given the unreliability of delves identification of the person in the city. But council, it does attack the alibi. I mean, you said doesn't have much weight, but if the trial court is weighing all of this evidence, it clearly addresses the alibi presented by the witness. And it was the state's burden to disprovenly so what offered an alibi in the statement to the police and it was corroborated by trial testimony. It was a state's burden to disprove that alibi and I just don't think that the circumstantial evidence of the video and doubly is unreliable identification testimony about the video met that burden. And just to conclude on really the crucial factor in this case, which was Trotter's identification. Again, Trotter did not, we know Trotter wasn't, wasn't very familiar with the person at the door because he would have been able to identify the person right away to officer Cleveland if he was very familiar with him. Instead, it took him some time to come up with what he believed to be the nickname of the person at the door. The police did not at that moment then try to figure out who Trotter meant to be LC by showing him an array or a lineup photo. The police told him that the shooter was Charles and they never asked him again until trial who the shooter was. When Charles Watts was the only person in the courtroom wearing black and white stripes, it just

. But council, it does attack the alibi. I mean, you said doesn't have much weight, but if the trial court is weighing all of this evidence, it clearly addresses the alibi presented by the witness. And it was the state's burden to disprovenly so what offered an alibi in the statement to the police and it was corroborated by trial testimony. It was a state's burden to disprove that alibi and I just don't think that the circumstantial evidence of the video and doubly is unreliable identification testimony about the video met that burden. And just to conclude on really the crucial factor in this case, which was Trotter's identification. Again, Trotter did not, we know Trotter wasn't, wasn't very familiar with the person at the door because he would have been able to identify the person right away to officer Cleveland if he was very familiar with him. Instead, it took him some time to come up with what he believed to be the nickname of the person at the door. The police did not at that moment then try to figure out who Trotter meant to be LC by showing him an array or a lineup photo. The police told him that the shooter was Charles and they never asked him again until trial who the shooter was. When Charles Watts was the only person in the courtroom wearing black and white stripes, it just. There's certainly a differential standard review, but the Trotter's testimony in this case simply was not sufficient to provide a reliable identification and this court should reverse Mr Watts's conviction. All right, thank you, council. Thank you both. The case will be taken under advisement and the court will issue a written decision.

The fourth district of the state of Illinois has now convened the Honorable Thomas M. Harris. Providing. All right. Good afternoon, Council. This is case number four dash 21 dash 0 6 2 0. People versus Charles Watts. Council, could you identify yourself for the record first for the appellate? Yes. How many of you Gilbert Lens from the DePaul legal clinic for Charles Watts. Thank you. And for the appellate. My name is Douglas Malcolm for the state. Thank you. Mr. Lens, you may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor, and good afternoon to the court and to council again Gilbert Lens for Charles Watts. There are two issues before the court, but I'd like to focus this afternoon on the first issue regarding the sufficiency of the state's evidence. Although I'll be happy to ask the answer any questions that the court has about the sentencing argument. This court should reverse Charles Watts's conviction because it rests upon a single unreliable eyewitness identification made in court more than 16 months after the incidents. That identification was already unreliable because it was merely an in court identification so long after the incident, but it was also from a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the incident. And whose testimony about the incident had so many inconsistencies that it so affected his general credibility that his ultimate identification was liable. Because Mr. Trotter's testimony was not credible in general. This court should already find that evidence was insufficient, but largely because of that lack of credibility. His testimony about the identification also fails the bigger factors. And for both of those reasons, this court should reverse Watts's conviction. So, yeah, what specific factor do you believe is missing here or I should be underscored for our review? Well, there are five separate figures factors. I've sort of for today, I sort of grouped them into two different categories in combination with the other factors that the court should consider in the bigger analysis. The first is that the time and opportunity that Trotter had to observe the offender. The court found after the trial that Trotter had an ample opportunity to view the offender, but I think that finding was contradicted by the record and by the court's own pretrial finding. Trotter himself testified that when the offender knocked on the door, he looked at him only for a moment before letting him in. And then by Trotter's own words, he stopped paying attention to the man after he entered. Mr. Rosickey was in the chart. Council, can I stop you there just for one moment? I know you take issue with that that there wasn't sufficient opportunity, but when you think about someone answering the door. And opening the door and someone is outside. The two people are in very close proximity. There was no indication here that the lighting was insufficient or that there was some other impairment to Trotter's view. He answered the door and looked at the person standing outside the door. Why is that insufficient? It's insufficient because his while he was able to see the person who's at the door, his testimony about the rest of the incident. Is so incredible that it's hard to lay to get lend way to his later tentative identification of the person at the door as having the nickname LC. Mr. Rosickey was in the apartment the entire time as well as the offender and the court found that Mr. Rosickey only had a brief opportunity to look at the offender. So while the record indicates Trotter was closer to the offender at the door. I don't think that the court's finding after the trial that he had an ample opportunity to observe. Was accurate given the court's own pre trial finding and the fact that Trotter himself acknowledged that once the person entered the apartment, he stopped paying attention to him. Well, at this is the thing I'm having trouble with. Are you saying that requires a substantial period of time for one person to look at another person in order to be able to later make an identification. I mean, what if it's just two seconds at the door and Trotter has a clear view of the individual on the other side, who's at the doorway. Why isn't that sufficient? You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the claim that Trotter was in proximity to this person when it seems like identification of an individual can be based on something. Very time period that's very short. Why am I wrong? And before you answer this, let me add to just the Harris comment because he's in the apartment is Trotter testified for about 15 to 20 minutes. And they're looking at each other. He testified that he bumped in brush past and walking in. So in answering to that question, let's also address the issue that they're in the apartment, they're in close proximity to each other for 15 to 20 minutes. Well, I think Trotter's testimony about the 15 to 20 minutes is not completely credible. Given that Riziki said he was, you know, if it was only there briefly in the court said the person was only there briefly before the trial, but more importantly, your honors. The amount of time here has to be balanced with the other factors that were present Trotter was the record in the case that Trotter was intoxicated at the time the person knocked on the door. He's a, he's a Rosiki both testified that they had been drinking. Rosiki said they've been drinking a lot before the shooting. Trotter actually told the detective that he had been drinking before the shooting. And yet a trial, he denied that he had been drinking. And that's important here in two ways. First, the record shows he wasn't toxicated, which affects his ability to observe. And second, his denial of trial of his intoxication. Calls into question his general credibility. And that's crucial here is general credibility. Because what is there in the record that evidence is Trotter's intoxication. You say the record establishes his intoxication. What are you referring to? Well, he told the detective hours after the incident that he had been drinking with with he's in Rosiki prior to the shooting. He's in Rosiki both corroborated that and and Rosiki added that they had been drinking quite a bit of alcohol prior to the shooting. So, I think, I think the only reason why reason why reading other record is that he had been drinking alcohol at least. And was to some degree then intoxicated. And then his again, going back to his denial of that at trial, that's key here because it calls into question his general credibility, which was even more called into question by his. His clearly faulty recollection of the incident subsequent to the first shot without any support from other evidence. Trotter said that as he fled the scene, the offend or fired two more shots at him and that that just. I think there's no other way to say it. That's just completely wrong based on this record and his record his mis recollection of such a remarkable fact. I think really raises doubt about what about how much weight you can lend Trotter's other testimony. And you say that because there was no cooperation by finding more shell casings and the witness that was what a block away she was a block away. Is that the basis for saying that it was an incredible statement by Trotter. And those two facts and Rosicie who was standing in the apartment when the first shot was fired, he also testified there was only one shot fired so. Specifically on that are you saying he was questioned about the number of shots and said there was only one. I don't know if he was asked if there were more than one shot, but he only testified to seeing or hearing one shot. He's are only testified to seeing or hearing one shot and the police. The police were questioned about the thoroughness of their search and they said they searched in the apartment in front of the apartment, the parking lots, the area and they found no other evidence of any other shots being fired. So I think that this record indicates that Trotter's testimony about the first shot was simply incredible. And again, that such a remarkable fact to be misremembered is raises a lot of doubt about his general credibility. And I think that was the defendant's nickname wasn't that. According to both he's are in detective deadly they knew Mr. Watts as LC. Yes, they go ahead. And but but the degree so the key here is the degree of Trotter's familiarity now Trotter may know someone is LC. And he may recognize the shooter. The state proved that Mr. Watts was LC and LC was the shooter. And I think Trotter's testimony indicates a lack some lack of familiarity with the person. He may have had a vague record a vague recognition of him. But if it was someone he knew very well, he would have told the police right away who that person. How well do you have to know someone before the description of previously acquainted of bloods? Well, you can certainly rely on well, it was very it's an unspecified previous acqua. He actually testified or the officer Cleveland testified that Trotter told him the person that had tried and tried to rob him on a prior occasion reason I emphasize this is because. I've been on this court a long time dealing with criminal cases and it's not in the common that we have an issue raised about the claim of misidentification typically as you know that's because of the crime of let's say I'm robbery being committed over a counter and some liquor store where the. Victim clerk doesn't know it has never seen the person before and subsequently or so line up or. A person is identified as the guy who committed the crime by the victim and what I am out of you seconds sometimes no more in a few minutes of most of up during the sea. But no prior acquaintance of any kind reason I mentioned this is I'm not aware of any case and I don't think you cited the case where any court of review has ever deemed a identification by a victim in a crime is in this case to the Matt sufficient Matt credible Matt's vision to carry the states burden of poop the other reason we'll doubt. Where is here there's a prior acquaintance between the victim and the assailant are you aware of any. I believe the Smith case that the real I most on in our brief is one of those cases your honor in the Smith case the eyewitness the the sole eyewitness who identified the defendant as the shooter had known the defendant for I believe more than two years. And much much closer I think in fact then then Mr. Trotter knew this LC. In Smith despite the fact that that witness knew the defendant the Supreme Court reverse that conviction and it's it's key here because what the Smith court said was the reason that witness was so incredible was because of her mis recollection. The defendant based on of the incident based on the other evidence in the record you know they seem like minor points but what the Supreme Court emphasized was that this witness said the defendant was alone in the parking lot every other witness said there was a group. This witness said the defendant came out of one door every other witness said the defendant came out of a different door and based on those two facts the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that that was those were the two main reasons why that witnesses testimony was not credible despite her familiarity with the defendant. So I think this case it doesn't share every fact with Smith but it's factually analogous on those crucial points Mr. Trotter's testimony his recollection of the incident was similarly non credible to the Smith witness. Well the other aspect of this case is that this is a bench trial we have an experienced trial court was hearing all this and weighing all this and before we were blessed with these jobs we were all trial court judges ourselves and education to make this kind of a determination and trial judges have a lot better opportunity to see and evaluate the moment we do from a cold record. This court heard this defendant heard and heard Trotter I should say and notwithstanding called the deficiencies you pointed out concluded that the state based primarily upon his testimony and proved the defendant going down the street without why shouldn't we refer to that determination under the circumstances in this case. Well I think the court I think one reason is that is the court the trial courts own treetrial rulings when the court suppressed Rosicke's coerced identification one of it cited several factors in suppressing his identification one of the key factors the court cited in suppressing that was the suggestive nature of the police identification procedures because just like with Trotter I mean just like with Rosicke detective Dudley when when Trotter told Detective Dudley that he thought the shooter was someone he knew as LC detective Dudley his immediate reaction was to tell Trotter oh that's Charles and Trotter acknowledged a trial that from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. Well why does that make any difference was there any dispute that defendant didn't go by the nickname LC. No there was evidence that he goes by the nickname LC he never acknowledged that himself but there was evidence that he did but the key here is Trotter's familiarity with the person he said was LC. Yeah but the detectives attachment of a name to the nickname LC how did that somehow nullify Trotter's identification of defend. Well it didn't nothing nullifies the identification but yeah or in parrot nullifies too strong a word. The reason it raises further doubts about the identification is because when when detective Dudley. He heard detective Dudley believed that this LC person was Charles Watts what detective Dudley did not do just as he did with Rosicke I'm sorry not unlike as he did with Rosicke he did not show Trotter a photo array he did not show Trotter a lineup photo in the hospital or anything he just told Trotter the shooter was Charles and Trotter admitted a trial from that moment on he knew the shooter was Charles. The next time he was asked about who the shooter was on the record at least was at trial 16 months later when he's in a courtroom in the case of people be Charles Watts and Charles Watts is the only person in black and white stripes so courts have have cited like the ash court and and other courts they've cited the fact that police procedures were suggestive as one of the one of several factors that might render. It's a crucial fact in this case because they had ample opportunity to to get Trotter to identify a pretrial identification of the shooter and they just did not do so and actually that raises questions about their confidence in Trotter's ability like if they believed 100% certain that he would be able to identify the shooter in an array. I think they probably would have done that and here we're left wondering why they didn't do that. So there after the motion and suppress was denied then the court heard further testimony at trial that's when Trotter testified at some length. I'm sorry can you repeat that you're under? Yes after the motion and suppress was denied a vent trial was conducted at which Trotter testified at some length. The motion of suppress was granted as to Rosicie there was no motion of suppress as to Trotter. But yes yes Trotter right Trotter the principal witness of trial. Yeah I misspoke so Trotter's principal witness and now with standing the evidence presented the motion is suppressed the trial court is now hearing this testimony from Trotter so. And this is what the court heard immediately before the court's decision why shouldn't we give weight to the court's assessment of Trotter's credibility? Well this court definitely under the standard review must give weight to the the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations. But this court cannot simply rubber stamp of finding that that that the record shows is unreasonable and I think Trotter's testimony was so unreasonable on so many crucial points that it rendered the state's evidence in this case simply insufficient the state's conviction here rested really the bedrock is Trotter's identification and without that identification without without that identification being reliable. There's simply cannot be enough confidence in this conviction to let it stand and I think the trial courts find it to the contrary in this case we're unreasonable and that's why this court should reverse watch this conviction. If they know further questions I'll reserve a remainder for a bottle. All right thank you you may Mr Malcolm. Thank you may I please the court council. The evidence that trial was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This court's questions have already largely teased out the meat of my arguments so I will endeavor to keep my comments short and concise and to the point. On appeal the standard is whether any rational trial effect viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it is not the role of this court to retry the defendant and the credibility determinations of the trial fact below receive great deference because the trial fact below is better positions to make those credibility determinations here. The trial court found James trotter to be credible because when James trotter answered the apartment door he stood approximately two feet away from the defendant. The defendant was the defendant. He knew the defendant from their prior interactions he knew him as LC and when the defendant entered into the apartment he brushed past the trotter and trotter had another opportunity to see him during that instance they remain relatively cross proximity for the next approximately 15 minutes before trotter before the defendant pulled out a gun and shot trotter. This identification is it was clear it is credible and the trial courts credibility determination specifically finding that the defend that trotter had ample opportunity to observe the defendant was reasonable and accordingly should not be reversed on appeal. In his brief the defendant argues that his alibi was not undercut by the state's evidence the state respectfully disagrees the surveillance video of the defendant's apartment complex shows that defendant left his apartment at approximately 630 and did not return until approximately 930. Generally we make of that surveillance video just in terms of the individuals that were depicted the officer wasn't able to make an identification based on seeing someone's face in the video but commented about how they were the individuals carrying himself as mannerisms. Is that worthy of, is that of evidentiary quality to where the officer can then say that was the defendant? Yes, Your Honor. If an individual either has particularly notable or is identified by their physicality, their stature, their shape, their mannerisms, also based on their prior interactions where an officer or detective can identify an individual based on those particular characteristics that is sufficient and appropriate for a testimony identifying an individual. So the defendant didn't have a limb or some obvious disability that then would have been apparent in this surveillance video. What did the officers say was of such a, what's such a distinguishing characteristic about the way this person moved in the video that he knew that it was defended? If I recall the exact testimony correctly, I don't believe that there was any one particular thing that the officer highlighted, however, the officer did list stature, physicality and mannerisms. So it was a, to the best of my understanding, reading the cold record, a matter of the way the defendant appeared, the way the defendant moved, was familiar to detective Dudley based on their prior interactions. And to be fair, it wasn't just the individual's mannerisms there, but it was also what the individual was wearing, where he came from and went and returned to and then also the vehicle in which the individual got into. Yes, Your Honor. The individual appeared to leave apartment three and then returned to apartment three, which was known to be the defendant's apartment also he got into a vehicle that was connected with the defendant. All of all of this evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable debt. That quickly on a, on issue number, number two, the trial court did not use the discretion during sentencing, the record shows the trial court considered all the appropriate factors and aggravation and mitigation and regarding the particular factors that the defendant includes in his opening brief. Those were considered included in the present as a investigation report, which the trial court explicitly stated that it considered the trial court is presumed to know the law and apply properly and the record does not rebut that presumption and accordingly the defendant sentence was an appropriate use of the trial court's discretion, not an abuse thereof. If there are no further questions from this panel, the state's respectfully passes on the remainder of its time. All right, thank you, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Lums, a rebuttal large. Yes, thank you, Your Honor. I'll rest on the brief as for the sentencing on the surveillance video and the alibi defense. I think, Justice Harris, the question was getting to the key point about detective doubly's ability. The state certainly could have asked detective doubly how he knew Mr. Watts. What his basis of familiarity was, but he just said he just kind of had a general familiarity with him and based on that, he was able to identify his stature and walking style in the video. I just think that's simply not enough to render and that's the only identification made of the person in the video on this record. So it's just simply not enough to show that that was Mr. Watts in the video. And does not outweigh his alibi, which is corroborated by his girlfriend who testified that he was there most of the day only left for the store. One final point on Trotter's identification. Again, there's no question that Trotter a few few hours after the shooting told detective doubly that he apologize, but I don't want you to get off of the surveillance video because there was a key part for the trial court. What about the fact that as the trial court considered here that the two individuals, let's assume for purpose of your argument that he cannot make the adequate identification that it is the defendant, but he's later arrested in the same car. It leaves the house about the same time and returns. There was other factors that supported the officers position that it involved Watts that Watts was the one leaving that apartment. Could you address that before you move on to your next item? Yeah, no question, Justice Bridges, that there was some circumstantial evidence indicating that one of the people could have been Watts. I would note first that the video shows him the car that he left in or the two people left in was not the same car. He was later arrested in that car was apparently the car that one of the people returned to the apartment in. So there were two different cars involved here on the outgoing and incoming trips, but setting that aside your honor, there's no question that the video has offered some circumstantial evidence, given, especially given that it was Watts's apartment, but in other hand, it's not that that evidence is not worthy of a great deal of weight given, given its vagueness and given the unreliability of delves identification of the person in the city. But council, it does attack the alibi. I mean, you said doesn't have much weight, but if the trial court is weighing all of this evidence, it clearly addresses the alibi presented by the witness. And it was the state's burden to disprovenly so what offered an alibi in the statement to the police and it was corroborated by trial testimony. It was a state's burden to disprove that alibi and I just don't think that the circumstantial evidence of the video and doubly is unreliable identification testimony about the video met that burden. And just to conclude on really the crucial factor in this case, which was Trotter's identification. Again, Trotter did not, we know Trotter wasn't, wasn't very familiar with the person at the door because he would have been able to identify the person right away to officer Cleveland if he was very familiar with him. Instead, it took him some time to come up with what he believed to be the nickname of the person at the door. The police did not at that moment then try to figure out who Trotter meant to be LC by showing him an array or a lineup photo. The police told him that the shooter was Charles and they never asked him again until trial who the shooter was. When Charles Watts was the only person in the courtroom wearing black and white stripes, it just. There's certainly a differential standard review, but the Trotter's testimony in this case simply was not sufficient to provide a reliable identification and this court should reverse Mr Watts's conviction. All right, thank you, council. Thank you both. The case will be taken under advisement and the court will issue a written decision