Berry Case Delayed Again After Three Subpoenas Go Unserved
August 13, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Sarah Collins
CRIME & PUNISHMENT | F4F NEWS
Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication
Joshua T. Atkinson
Chairman | Fighting4Freeport
More than eleven years after Traveontaye M. Berry was convicted of first-degree murder, his ongoing effort to challenge that conviction has been delayed again — and the latest court record raises several questions.
Why weren't three subpoenaed witnesses served?
And after Fighting4Freeport's previous reporting raised questions about inconsistencies in an official police report connected to the original investigation, there is another question:
Why isn't the former officer who wrote that report among the witnesses currently being subpoenaed?
Another Continuance
Berry appeared in Stephenson County Circuit Court on Wednesday, August 12, in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections for another hearing involving his post-conviction case.
According to the court docket, Berry appeared with attorney Glenn Jazwiec. Stephenson County State's Attorney Carl Larson appeared for the State. But instead of moving forward with the scheduled hearing, the defense requested another continuance.
The State strongly objected.
The judge nevertheless granted the defense request, continuing the matter until November. Berry was remanded to the Illinois Department of Corrections. A status hearing is now scheduled for November 4, followed by another post-judgment hearing on November 18.
Three Subpoenas — Three Unserved Witnesses
Perhaps the most interesting development appeared elsewhere in the August 12 docket.
Court records show subpoenas for three individuals were returned NOT SERVED:
Acadia Ishmon
Myleka Avery
Jena Thomas
Those subpoenas had been issued on July 15 ahead of Wednesday's hearing. And this wasn't the first attempt.
Court records show subpoenas for the same three individuals were also issued in May.
The publicly available docket does not explain why the subpoenas weren't successfully served, and it would be irresponsible to pretend that it does. But the failure is notable — particularly in a case that has already spent years moving through post-conviction proceedings.
And at least in the case of Myleka Avery, there is another interesting piece of context.
Just days before the August 12 hearing, Avery was posting on social media about being at Friends Forever Humane Society adopting a puppy. That doesn't establish where Avery lives. However, adopting an animal through the organization requires an application process. And that raises another question.
In a community as small as Freeport, why is it that Fighting4Freeport can confirm, in a matter of minutes, basic information about individuals — such as where they live, where they work and places they routinely frequent — yet law enforcement and our justice system apparently haven't been able to locate the same people they are attempting to serve?
Now, the docket doesn't tell us what attempts were made to serve Avery. And it certainly doesn't establish that she was deliberately avoiding service.
There is currently nothing in the court docket establishing either of those things.
But it does make the obvious question worth asking:
What happened?
Freeport is a relatively small community. These days, people routinely share where they're eating, shopping and spending their weekends on social media. When someone appears to be publicly going about their life in the community, an unsuccessful attempt at service naturally raises questions.
And anyone who has ever brought home a puppy knows something else: those first few days generally involve spending quite a bit of time at home.
Again, none of that proves Avery intentionally avoided a subpoena.
It doesn't. But the circumstances surrounding the unsuccessful service are certainly something worth examining.
Avery's History in the Original Case
Avery isn't a name appearing in the Berry case for the first time. She was involved extensively in the proceedings leading up to Berry's 2015 trial.
Court records show Avery was subpoenaed repeatedly between 2013 and 2015. On numerous occasions, those subpoenas were successfully served. The original case also contains an especially significant February 6, 2015 entry involving Avery.
According to the docket, the defense sought to impeach Avery's anticipated trial testimony using a purported statement to her father, Richard Kraft, that she did not see the suspect, contrary to her anticipated testimony in which she would positively identify Berry as the shooter.
That history makes her appearance on the current subpoena list particularly noteworthy.
However, the publicly available docket alone does not tell us precisely what testimony Berry's current attorneys are seeking from Avery, Ishmon or Thomas — or exactly how their expected testimony relates to Berry's current post-conviction claims.
Another Name Missing From the List
There is also a name not appearing on the latest subpoena list that Fighting4Freeport expected might eventually surface as Berry's post-conviction case moved forward:
Former Freeport Police Officer Bryan Politsch.
Fighting4Freeport previously investigated Politsch's role in the Berry case and exposed what we believe are significant inconsistencies within his official police report connected to the investigation.
That reporting was published just two days before Politsch abruptly retired from the Freeport Police Department.
Given the issues Fighting4Freeport uncovered surrounding that report — and the questions those inconsistencies raise about portions of the original investigation — it is somewhat surprising that Politsch does not appear among the witnesses currently being subpoenaed by Berry's defense.
To be clear, his absence from the current subpoena list does not establish anything improper.
It doesn't mean Politsch will never be called.
But it does raise broader concerns about how seriously the unanswered questions surrounding this case are being pursued.
Berry's defense team may have strategic or legal reasons for not subpoenaing him at this stage. His testimony may not be necessary for the specific claims presently before the court. Attorneys could intend to address his role through documents, other witnesses or at another point in the proceedings.
The publicly available docket simply doesn't tell us. But his absence is worth noting.
Berry's attorneys are challenging a murder conviction that resulted in a 52-year prison sentence.
And for those following this case closely, a larger question is beginning to emerge:
How much of what we're watching is a serious effort to answer the questions surrounding this conviction — and how much of it is simply courtroom theatrics?
More and more information continues to emerge from recordings of the original police interviews. With that information have come more questions about what happened during the original investigation.
Yet, so far, nobody seems particularly eager to have those questions answered publicly and under oath.
If the inconsistencies Fighting4Freeport uncovered within an official police report ultimately have relevance to Berry's post-conviction claims, whether the officer responsible for that report is eventually asked to explain those discrepancies under oath could become an important part of this case.
For now, he isn't on the list.
And Fighting4Freeport will be watching to see if that changes.
A Murder Conviction More Than a Decade Old
Berry was convicted by a Stephenson County jury on February 10, 2015, of first-degree murder.
The jury also found that Berry personally discharged the firearm that caused the death, and he was found guilty of aggravated discharge of a firearm.
On April 2, 2015, Berry was sentenced to 52 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
His efforts shortly afterward to reduce his sentence, overturn the verdict and obtain a new trial were denied. The appellate record later reflects that the judgment of the Stephenson County Circuit Court was affirmed.
But the case didn't end there. Berry began pursuing post-conviction relief, and those proceedings have continued for years.
An amended petition for post-conviction relief was filed by attorney Glenn Jazwiec on July 24, 2025.
A hearing was eventually held December 10, 2025, after which the court took the matter under advisement and continued proceedings toward a third-stage hearing.
Since then, the case has continued to move slowly.
On March 25, 2026, the defense requested another continuance.
On May 13, the defense requested another continuance.
On June 17, the defense requested another continuance — this time over the State's objection.
And on August 12, the defense requested yet another continuance, which the court granted over the State's strong objection.
The Question Now
There is an important distinction that needs to be maintained.
An unserved subpoena does not mean someone refused to cooperate. It does not mean someone intentionally hid from authorities. And it certainly does not establish wrongdoing.
It means exactly what the court record says: The subpoena was returned not served.
But journalism doesn't require us to ignore an unusual circumstance simply because the public record doesn't yet provide its explanation.
Three witnesses were subpoenaed. Three subpoenas came back unserved.
At least one of those witnesses has a documented and significant history in the original prosecution, and court records show she had successfully been served with subpoenas numerous times during the original proceedings.
Meanwhile, an officer whose official report has been the subject of previous Fighting4Freeport reporting does not appear among those currently subpoenaed. And now the hearing has been delayed again.
So there are two questions we'll continue following:
Why couldn't these witnesses be served?
And:
Who will ultimately be called to testify as Berry continues challenging the conviction that has kept him behind bars for more than a decade?
Fighting4Freeport will continue following People v. Traveontaye M. Berry, Case No. 2013CF238, as the post-conviction proceedings continue.
The next scheduled court appearance is a status hearing on November 4, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., with the post-judgment motion currently scheduled for November 18 at 1:30 p.m.