People v. Beaman
Illinois Supreme Court
890 N.E.2d 500 (2008)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Jennifer Lockmiller was discovered murdered in her Normal, Illinois apartment. Police believed the murder occurred between 12:00 and 2:00 p.m. Police found fingerprints belonging to Lockmiller’s former boyfriend, Alan Beaman (defendant); her current boyfriend, Michael Swaine; and an unidentified person. Police ruled out Swaine and another former boyfriend, Stacey Gates, both of whom presented alibis. Beaman had argued with Lockmiller about other men she had been seeing and recently broke off the relationship. Beaman stated that the night before the murder, he worked third shift at his uncle’s store, stopping at a bank before returning to his Rockford, Illinois home shortly after 10:00 a.m. Beaman’s mother stated that she saw Beaman’s car in the driveway when she arrived home at 2:15 p.m. The state (plaintiff) argued that Beaman could have made the four-hour round trip to Normal to murder Lockmiller if he drove 10 mph over the speed limit both ways. Beaman was convicted and moved for postconviction relief, arguing that the state withheld exculpatory evidence of another suspect, John Doe, whom the police had considered a viable suspect. Doe informed police that he and Lockmiller had been renewing their relationship. Doe lived 1.5 miles from Lockmiller’s apartment. Swaine and Lockmiller had visited Doe’s apartment days before the murder. Doe sold Lockmiller drugs, and she owed him money. Doe had a violent history with his girlfriend, who was with Doe between 1:00 and 4:00 p.m. the day of the murder. Doe failed to cooperate and complete a polygraph. The trial court denied Beaman’s motion. Beaman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kilbride, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.