Ex-Northwestern professor’s murder conviction thrown out by Illinois Appellate Court
CHICAGO - The Illinois Appellate Court has overturned the murder conviction of a former Northwestern University professor, citing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Wyndham Lathem was serving a 53-year sentence for the 2017 stabbing death of his boyfriend in Chicago.
The court’s decision, issued Friday, focused on a procedural error during Lathem’s trial.
After Lathem completed direct testimony, the trial judge barred him from consulting with his attorneys during an overnight recess. The appeals court ruled that this restriction violated Lathem's constitutional right to legal assistance, requiring reversal of the conviction without the need for proof of prejudice.
MORE: Former Northwestern professor Wyndham Lathem sentenced to 53 years for stabbing boyfriend to death
Case Background
Lathem was convicted of first-degree murder in 2021 after co-defendant Andrew Warren testified against him. Warren, who pleaded guilty to the crime, claimed that Lathem had orchestrated the killing.
Lathem denied involvement and said that Warren acted independently.
The trial court’s ruling to admit certain electronic messages—allegedly discussing recruiting someone to kill—played a critical role in the case.
The decision to bar Lathem from conferring with his attorneys during a 17-hour recess occurred amid discussions over the admissibility of these messages.
Legal Analysis
Justice Oden Johnson wrote that stopping a testifying defendant from talking to their lawyer during a long recess goes against established legal precedent.
"We do not find persuasive the State’s arguments (1) that the trial court did not completely restrict defendant’s access and that its restriction was reasonable and (2) that, further, defendant waived the issue. Instead, we find (1) that the court did completely restrict defendant’s access; (2) that the partial restriction, which the State claimed was imposed, would not have been reasonable; and (3) that defendant objected in a timely manner at trial, both when the overnight recess began and before it ended the next morning," the opinion stated.
Prosecutors claimed the restriction only applied to Lathem’s testimony, but the court saw it differently, calling the judge’s order too broad and absolute.
What’s Next?
The case is headed back for a retrial. The court emphasized that this decision highlights the importance of protecting constitutional rights, even in high-profile cases with serious charges.