### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 19-1904

A L B E R T K I RK MAN , Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

S C OTT T HOMP S O N

, Respondent-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, Ea stern Di v i s i o n. No . 1 4 C 0 2 3 9 8 — Thoma s M. Durkin , Judg e.

A RGU E D J ANUAR

Y 15, 2020

— D E C I D E D M A Y 7, 2 020

Befor e B A

UE R , E A S T E R

B R O O K , and H AMI L T O N

, Circuit Judges

. B AU E R , Cir cuit Judge. Alber t Ki r kman ( “Ki r kman”) w as
ar rested and char ged wi th the mur d e r s of tw o men and atte mp t e d m ur d er of a thi r d, Wi lli e Johnson (“Johnson”). At tr i al, Johnson testi fi ed that Ki r kman and hi s acco m p li ce w er e the shooter s. Ki r kman w as co n v icted and appealed hi s sentence. Fi fteen y ear s later , Johnson r ecanted hi s testi mony and2 No. 19-1904
Ki r kman agai n appealed hi s se n t ence. The Illi n oi s Ci r cui t Cour t (“ci r cui t cour t”) held an ev i denti ar y h ear ing and found Johnson’s r ecanted testi mony not cr edib le. Th e Illi noi s Appellate Cour t affi r med. Ki r kman then fi led an acti on wi th the Nor ther n Di str i ct of Illinoi s, whi ch deni ed hi s peti ti on for habeas cor pus reli ef and for the followi ng r easons, we affi r m.

I. BACKGROUND On Apr i l 21, 1992, a fi ght br oke out among v a r i ous indi v i duals inv olv ing Johnson, who w as soon assi s ted by Cedr i c Her r on and Sammi e W

alker , br eaki ng up the alter cati on. Later that ni ght, tw o shooter s shot Jo h n son, Her ron, and W alker , and only Johnson sur v i v ed. Whi le in the hospi tal, J ohnson descr ibed the ev ents to detecti v es including descr i bing the shooter s, i denti fyi ng one by the str eet name “Duke,” wher e Duke li v ed, and the car Duke dr ov e. Later that day , detecti v es pr esented Johnson wi th a photo ar r ay and Johnson i denti fi ed Duke and hi s accompli ce. P oli ce pull ed ov er a v ehi cle matching Johnson’s d e s c r ipti on and ar r ested the dr i v er , Ki r kman, and the passenger

, who matched the gener al d escr i p ti on of the second shooter

, Cedr ic Cal. Ki r kman d eni ed h av ing a str eet
name but stated he “had a tattoo of Du k e o n his left ar m.” P oli ce took addi ti onal photos and pr esented a second pho t o
ar ray to Johnson, who i denti fi ed them as the shooter s. At tr i al, Johnson i denti fi ed Ki r km a n a nd Cal as the s hooter s that had been par t of the ear li er alter cati on. On cr oss-examinati on, he deni ed that the alter cati on inv olv ed a dr ug di spute and maintai ned the fi ght star ted when he confr onted another man, Kei th For d, about hi s si ster , Latany a Johnson. Johnson’s gi r lfr i end, Latr ese Bufor d testi fi ed for the d efense. S he testi fi edNo. 19-1904 3
the alter c a ti on w as o v e r a dr u g s ale and that Her ron w as infr ingi ng on For d’s tur f

. S h e h ear d but di d not wi tness the gunshots later that ev ening. The j ur y found Ki r kman gui lty of
mur der and aggr av ated batter y wit h a fi rear m. Ki r kman w as sentenced to li fe in pr i s on wi thout par ole. Johnson had a change of hear t and s ubmi tted an a ffi dav i t i denti fyi ng Kei th For d and an unknown man as the shooter s. He stated that Ki r kman and Cal sold dr ugs in fr o n t o f h is house the d ay befor e the shooti n g a n d he confr onted and

r obbed them. He indi cated Ki r kman and Cal wer e hi s enemi es and he had falsely i denti fi ed them because he w as afr a i d of For d

. Johnson testi fi ed that he and hi s fami ly r ecei v ed thr eatenin g calls. At Ki r kman’s post-conv ic ti on hear ing, Johnson testi fi ed that h is a f f i dav i t w as tr ue and the ci r cui t cour t questi oned hi m about hi s change of hear t. Bufor d als o t e s t i fi ed at the hear ing, but her testi mony w a s inconsi stent wi th Johnson’ s
. For example, J ohnson told her the shooter s w er e Ki r kman and C a l in the emer gency r oom, she d i d not see Johnson r ecei v e any telephone c a l ls in the emer gency r oom and testi fi ed no telephones wer e in the emer gency r oom, only in the admi tted hospi tal room. The S tate’s Attor ney Inv esti gator also testi fi ed that when she i n t e r v i ewed Johnson in 2010, hi s infor m ati on matched that of hi s a f f id av i t but di d not exclude Ki r kman
or Cal as the unknown second shooter

. The ci r cui t cour t d eni ed the p e t it i on for p ost-conv i cti on
r eli ef, finding that Johnson’s r ecantati on lacked cr edibi l i ty

. Not only d i d h i s testi mony pr esent confli c ti ng acco u n t s of that4 No. 19-1904
ni ght, but also the e m e r g ency r oom wher e he testi fi ed to
r ecei v ing calls lacked a telephone. On appeal, the Illi noi s Appellate Cour t affi r med on all gr ounds, finding the r ecantati on un r eli able because i t contai ned inconsi stenci es and w as i mplausi ble. Johnson later pleaded gui lty for per

j u r y , b u t fai led to speci fy whi ch statement w as false. Ki r kman br ought a feder a l due pr ocess clai m, clai ming hi s conv i cti on w as based solely on Johnson’s unr eli able testi m ony , hi s r ecantatio n w a s cr edible, that the state cour t made an
unr easonable deter minati on of fact, and the clear and compellin g ev i dence of Ki r kman’s innocence a ffor ds h im habeas
cor p us r eli ef. II. DISCUSSION W e r ev i ew the d i str i ct cour t’s deni al of a habeas peti ti on de novo
. B erry v
. Knight, 770 Fed. Appx. 265, 266 (7th Ci r
. 2019). Habeas r eli ef m a y o nly be gr anted i f the s tate cour t’s d e c isi on w as “ contr ar y to, or inv olv ed an u nr easonab l e appli cati on of, clear ly establi shed Feder al Law , as deter mined by the Supr eme Cour t of the Uni ted S tates; or ... based on an
unr easonable deter minati on of the facts in l i ght of the ev i dence pr esented in t h e S tate cour t pr oceedi n g.” 2 8 U.S .C. § 2254(d);
see a lso Shoop v
. Hill , 139 S

. C t

. 5 0 4 , 5 06 (2019). A deci si on i s
r easonable i f “‘fai r minded j ur i s ts c ould di sagr ee’ on the
cor rectness of the state cour t’s deci si on.” Harrington v
. Richter, 562 U.S

. 86, 101 ( 2011) (quoti ng Y arbor ough v
. Alvarado, 541 U.S

. 652, 6 64 (2004 ) )

. A state cour t’s factual deter minati on i sNo. 19-1904 5
pr esumed cor r ect and the peti ti oner must r ebut the pr esumpti on by clear and conv incing ev i dence. 28 U.S .C. § 2254(e)(1). In li ght of the ev i dence p r esented in the c ir c ui t cour t’s
ev i denti ar y h ear ing, th e c i r cui t cour t made a r easonable deter minati on of fact in finding Johnson’s recanted testi m ony not cr edibl e. Thi s factual deter m inati on i s pr esumed cor r ect unless r ebutted by clear and conv incin g e v id e nce. Her e, Ki r kman fai ls to s how clear and conv incin g ev i d ence that the

r ecantati on fi fteen y ear s after the tr i al i s tr ue. Fu r t h er , he concedes that n o e v idence exi sts to show that the S tate w as
aw ar e of the clai med per j ur y
. Fur ther mor e, the Illinoi s Appe l l a t e Cour t held that the ci r cui t cour t pr ope r ly consi der ed s i x factor s in assessing the
cr edib i li ty of Johnson’s r ecantati on: “ (1) the recant a t i ons’ inter n a l consi stency and inher ent plausi b i li ty; (2) the plausi

b i li ty of the r ecanter ’s moti v e for per j ur ing hi m self a t tr i al; (3) the plausi bi l i ty of the r ecanter ’s moti v e f or stepping f or w ar d now; (4) whether the r ecantati on i s agai nst hi s in ter e s t ; (5) the i mpor tance of the r ecanted tes ti m ony to the or i gi nal gui lty

v er di c t; a n d ( 6) whether other ev i dence suppor ts or contr adi cts the r ecantati on.” People v
. Kirkman , 2013 IL App (1st) 112362-U, ¶13 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (unpubli s hed deci si on) (inter nal ci tati ons omi tted). The Illi noi s Appellate Cou r t also found that, along w i th these factor s, the c i r cui t c our t obser v ed Johnson’s demeanor and “concluded that the n ew ev i dence w as not mater i al and w ould pr obably not change the r esult on tr i al.” Id. at ¶14. Th e Illi noi s Appellate Cour t affi r med the c i r cui t cour t’s finding that “Johnson’s r ecan t a ti on w as not cr edible because: (1) Johns on’s r ecantati on w as inter nally inconsi stent and i mplausi ble; (2) Johnson h a d n o m o ti v ati on to li e a t tr i al; and6 No. 19-1904 (3) J ohnson recanted out of allegi a nce to the Vi ce Lor ds and not out of r easons r e la t e d to j usti ce.” Id. at 17. The ci r cui t cour t’s deter minati on w as not unr easonable in li g h t of the ev i d ence. See M or gan v
. Hardy, 663 F .3d 790, 798 (7th Ci r
. 2011) (affi rming deni al of habeas r eli ef wher e s tate c our ts r easonably fo u n d th a t key pr osecuti on wi tness’s r e cantati on of tr i a l testi m ony w as not cr edible). Ki r kman also clai ms c lear and compelling ev i dence of hi s actual innocence exi sts. Our s ystem begi ns wi th a pr esumpti on of inn o c e nc e that conti nues unti l a defendant “has b een affor ded a fa ir t r i al and c onv i cted of the offense f or whi ch he

w as char ged, [ then] the pr esump ti o n o f inn o c e n c e d i sappear s.” Herrera v
. Collins , 506 U.S

. 390, 399 ( 1993). Th e pr osecuti on met i ts bur den bey ond a r easonable doubt and Ki rkman comes to
us “as one who has been conv i cted by due pr ocess of law .” Id. at 400. Whi le Illi noi s allow moti ons for a new tr i a l, the ci r cui t
c o u r t i s the pr oper v enue to deci de thi s clai m. In 20 1 1 , t he ci r cui t c our t conducted the ev i denti a r y hear ing a n d concluded the r ecantati on w as not c r e dib l e and a new tr i al w as not
w ar r a n ted. The appellate cour t affi r med thi s deci si on. That
cr eates a non-cogni za b l e i ssue of state law , so w e mov e on to consi der Ki rkman’s due pr ocess clai ms. Ki r kman ar gues hi s due pr ocess r i ghts w er e v i o la ted because h i s conv i cti on w as b a s ed on r ecanted and per jur ed tr i al testi mony

. Ki r kman clai ms that hi s conv i cti on r ests solely
on Johnson’s testi moni al ev i denc e , w h i ch has been “ cr edibly and consi stently” r ecanted. Whi le Johnson m ay ad h e r e to hi s
r ecantati on, hi s cr edibi li ty and consi stency r emain in di spute. When tr yi ng the c a s e, the p rosecuti on h ad no r eason to know
or su s p ect Johnson’s testi mony w as anythi ng other thanNo. 19-1904 7

tr uthful. Nap u e v
. Illinois , 360 U.S

. 264, 269 (1959). Ev en i f the

r ecantati on passed muster wi th the state cour ts, pe rj u r ed testi mony u nknowingly pr esented does not v i olate due pr ocess. The ci r cui t c our t, as affi r me d by the Illinoi s Appellate Cour t, fo u nd Johnson’s r ecantati on lacked cr edibi li ty

. Its
ev i denti ar y hear ing sati sf i e d Ki r kman’s due pr ocess r i ghts. Ki r kman fai ls to ov er come thi s finding wi th clear and conv incing ev i dence. W

e agr ee w i th the di str i ct cour t that the cir c u it
cour t’s deter min a ti on, as affi rmed in appellate r ev i ew , defeats Ki r kman’s innocence and per j ur ed testi mony clai ms. III. CONCLUSION Fo r t he for egoi ng r easons, we AFFIRM the di str i ct c our t's deci si on to deny habeas cor pus r eli ef.