Illinois Court Reverses Murder Conviction, Finding Defense Counsel Became an Interrogator of His Own Client During Police Interview

Pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a defendant can establish ineffective assistance of counsel by establishing that (1) his attorney rendered deficient performance; and (2) this deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the deficient performance. The recent opinion of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in People v. Parks, 2025 WL 586259 (Ill. App. 4th 2025), provides a pretty textbook example of ineffective assistance.

In Parks, “the State charged defendant, Nickles T. Parks, with first degree murder…, armed robbery…, and concealment of a homicidal death…in connection with the fatal shooting of Jaime Stephens.” While represented by attorney, Elder Granger, Parks was questioned by police:

The interrogation began, and Granger told defendant to “start with what was inaccurate that you told the deputy the first time.” Defendant admitted his statement about his car being in California on January 6, 2019, was inaccurate. Defendant explained he said this at the time because he “was scared.” Granger told defendant, “Let’s get into it. Exactly what you told me what happened. All of it. Let’s get it out. I’ve already talked to the state’s attorney’s office. The only way you can help yourself is by proffering everything you know right now.”

Defendant said he contacted Stephens about some missing jewelry that belonged to his friend, Amber Brewer, but did not threaten him. Defendant said he drove with Whittie to Walgreens, where they met Stephens. Whittie was in the front passenger seat, and Stephens got in the back seat behind defendant. Defendant said Whittie came along for “safety reasons” because he thought it was better to have someone there “in case of a strong-arm situation.” Defendant told Stephens he did not want any trouble and only wanted him to return the jewelry. Defendant turned around to talk to Stephens about who took the jewelry. Defendant then began driving, and suddenly, “there was gunfire, and [Stephens] was in the front, and that’s all I know.” Defendant said:

“Where the gunfire came from, I don’t know. Right before we were gonna turn, I hear some shuffling. I think I was a target in that situation. I ducked down. And then whatever happened after that was kinda like, if you experience something like that, you shut down. You shut the f*** down.”

Defendant thought Stephens had a gun and said he “tried to shoot me first” and then said he thought Stephens was trying to shoot Whittie. Defendant said Stephens and Whittie were fighting for the gun and he heard shuffling, one shot, and then several subsequent shots. Defendant inferred Stephens had the gun and Whittie tried to grab it because Whittie was shot twice in the arm. Defendant said he did not remember much after that and explained, “All I know is I didn’t do anything. It wasn’t intentional. It wasn’t premeditated. I didn’t want anybody to get hurt. I’m not that kind of person.” Defendant claimed Whittie moved to the back seat during this incident and was able to do so because “he is smaller than I am. It’s almost like he jumped up. He just jumped in the back.” Defendant explained Stephens ended up slumped over in the front seat. Defendant then drove off wondering “what do we do.”

Defendant then said to Granger, “I didn’t do anything.” Granger responded:

“I understand that you did not do anything, but, technically, under the law, is that a criminal offense? Yes. But like I said before, you’re gonna get charged with murder. You’re charged with murder. It can’t get any worse. We’re trying to make things better right now. Tell them where you drove.”

Defendant said he “panicked” and wanted to “get as far away as possible.” Granger interjected, telling defendant he previously told him he was “just driving and driving and driving.” Defendant later dropped Whittie off near Rockford Memorial Hospital and went to work. Eventually, defendant took his car to Brewer’s garage (not Davis-Puckett’s grandmother’s) and left the gun in the back seat. Defendant said, “I don’t know if it got thrown—” Granger interjected, “You said the gun was not there when you went to work.” Detective David Witt tried to learn what happened to the gun through further questioning but was not successful.

After he was convicted, Parks appealed, claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Parks, “Rather than advise [defendant] during the interrogation, Granger conceded that [defendant] had committed crimes, encouraged him to make incriminating statements, and advised detectives when [his] statement contradicted the one he previously made to counsel.”

The court agreed, concluding that

Granger performed deficiently in actively eliciting highly incriminating information in violation of the attorney-client privilege and with no agreement with the State secured in advance. Granger effectively became an interrogator of his own client, who was charged with one of the most serious crimes, during his recorded police interview. Granger prodded defendant at the beginning of the interview to “get into it” and tell the detectives “exactly what you told me what happened.” Granger admonished defendant he needed to share “all of it” and “everything you know right now” in order to “help yourself.” Granger also told defendant in the presence of detectives that he “technically” committed a “criminal offense.” Perhaps even worse, Granger confronted defendant in the presence of detectives about his apparently inaccurate accounts of where he drove after the murder and what happened to the murder weapon.

-CM