Opinion ID: 3149955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Napue Claim & The Ineffective Assistance of

Text: Appellate Counsel Claim Based on the Napue Claim 1. Prosecution’s Failure to Correct Perjured Testimony Long asserts that he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecution’s knowing use of perjured testimony. According to Butler, the perjured testimony claim is procedurally defaulted because, although Long’s post-conviction briefs argued appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present this argument, the failure to raise this issue separately from an ineffective assistance claim is not fair presentment to the state court, citing Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2004). Long argues that he presented the Illinois courts with the operative facts and controlling legal standards necessary to evaluate this claim and therefore it is not defaulted, citing Malone v. Walls, 538 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2008). In Lewis, this Court found that petitioner had defaulted claims raised in his post-conviction petition only as examples of ineffective assistance of counsel, explaining, “[a] meritorious claim of attorney ineffectiveness might amount to cause for the failure to present an issue to a state court, but the fact that the ineffectiveness claim was raised at some point in state court does not mean that the state court was given the opportunity to address the underlying issue that the attorney in question neglected to raise.” 390 F.3d at 1026. We went on to find that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were themselves defaulted because they were not presented in the correct appellate proceeding. Id. at 1026, 1029–30. Although we found procedural default in Lewis, that case did not announce a broad rule that a constitutional claim embedded in an ineffective assistance claim has never been fairly presented to the state courts. 10 No. 13-3327 On the contrary, in Malone, we reviewed Lewis and another ineffective assistance of counsel/embedded constitutional claim fair presentment challenge, finding for the petitioner. The State argued the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim was procedurally defaulted because it had not been presented as independent from the claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that claim. 538 F.3d at 753–54. However, we found that “a fair reading of the record” revealed the state courts had been given a full opportunity to consider this issue because the petitioner made it clear that he was seeking redress of his trial counsel’s errors in failing to present certain witnesses by extensively detailing the factual basis of trial counsel’s errors, and by citing the appropriate federal case and standard for a trial counsel ineffective assistance finding. Id. at 754. We distinguished Lewis by explaining there the claims had been defaulted “because they had not been presented as independent claims for relief, but only as examples of counsel’s failures.” Id. at 755. Malone’s presentation of the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was “as a means for the court to reach the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, i.e., as the cause for failing to raise the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.” Id. Because Malone “makes clear that he is asking the court to redress the failure of his trial counsel, an issue the court can reach if it determines that his appellate counsel also was ineffective[,] [h]is presentation, therefore, does not suffer from the infirmities that we identified in the petitioner’s submissions in Lewis.” Id. As in Malone, Long has raised an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim as a means for the Court to reach the No. 13-3327 11 perjured testimony claim. See 538 F.3d at 75.1 Long’s operative petition is his self-drafted petition because appointed counsel never amended, therefore it should be given a “generous interpretation” in this Court. See Lewis, 390 F.3d at 1027. The ineffective assistance of Long’s appellate counsel, discussed below, gave him “cause” for failing to raise the Napue claim in the state courts. Although embedded in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Long fairly presented the factual and legal basis for the perjured testimony claim to the Illinois state court and, importantly, that court considered the issue on its merits. The Court examines four factors to determine whether a petitioner has fairly presented his federal claim to the state courts: “1) whether the petitioner relied on federal cases that engage in a constitutional analysis; 2) whether the petitioner relied on state cases which apply a constitutional analysis to similar facts; 3) whether the petitioner framed the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific constitutional right; and 4) whether the petitioner alleged a pattern of facts 1 Butler also argues that Malone should be considered an outlier because there the Illinois Appellate Court considered the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim only by relaxing its state procedural requirements because appellate counsel filed an affidavit admitting his error in not bringing the claim. However, this reasoning is not reflected in the Malone decision. And appellate counsel’s mea culpa would not have been the trigger for that review. Rather, any appellate ineffective assistance claim would spark a similar analysis of an allegedly waived issue, whether or not the claiming petitioner had such straightforward evidence of ineffectiveness. See Malone, 538 F.3d at 750 (explaining, “[g]enerally, defendant’s failure to raise this issue on direct appeal would result in waiver. However, the waiver rule is relaxed when a defendant alleges that failure to raise an issue on appeal constituted the ineffective assistance of counsel”). 12 No. 13-3327 that is well within the mainstream of constitutional litigation.” Ellsworth v. Levenhagen, 248 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2001). Long cited Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959), which examines a prosecutor’s knowing use of perjured testimony as a Fourteenth Amendment issue. Long used Illinois cases on the same issue. See, e.g., People v. Olinger, 680 N.E.2d 321, 331, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 223 Ill. Dec. 588 (1997) (citing Napue); People v. Jimerson, 652 N.E.2d 278, 284, 166 Ill. 2d 211, 209 Ill. Dec. 738 (1995) (same). Long explicitly framed this as a due process issue and his facts fit squarely within the Napue framework. Furthermore, when considering Long’s case, the appellate court engaged in the same kind of analysis as in Malone, discussing whether the perjured testimony issue was so prejudicial that the verdict should be overturned. SA.81–84. In so doing, the court reiterated the circumstances of Irby’s testimony at both trials, the State’s failure to correct that testimony, and Long’s rebuttal witness. SA.83–84. The court concluded petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Irby’s false testimony would have changed the verdict and declared, “[b]ecause this issue was not meritorious,” appellate counsel was not ineffective. SA.84. It is clear from the opinion that the Illinois Appellate Court squarely considered the factual and legal basis of this claim. We find, therefore, that Long’s due process claim is not procedurally defaulted and consider its merits. A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus on an issue adjudicated on the merits by the state court only if the adjudication of that claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the SuNo. 13-3327 13 preme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We review the state court’s legal conclusions de novo. Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir. 1997). In Hall, we explained: The statutory “unreasonableness” standard al- lows the state court’s conclusion to stand if it is one of several equally plausible outcomes. On the other hand, Congress would not have used the word “unreasonable” if it really meant that federal courts were to defer in all cases to the state court’s decision. Some decisions will be at such tension with governing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, or so inadequately support- ed by the record, or so arbitrary, that a writ must issue. Id. at 748–49. The Illinois Appellate Court’s finding that the Irby perjury issue was “not meritorious” was an unreasonable application of clear Supreme Court precedent holding that “a conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair, and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976). “[A] conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Napue, 360 U.S. at 269. A constitutional violation occurs if the State allows perjured testimony to go uncorrected, even if it did not solicit the 14 No. 13-3327 false evidence. Id. Either way, the perjured testimony prevents “a trial that could in any real sense be termed fair.” Id. at 270 (quoting People v. Savvides, 136 N.E.2d 853, 855, 1 N.Y.2d 554, 154 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. 1956)). During Long’s first trial, Irby identified Long as the shooter, but then testified that she told the State’s Attorneys and Investigator Walter that she lied about seeing Long shoot Sherman in the back. During the second trial, the same State’s Attorney put Irby on the stand, where Irby told her initial story about seeing Long shoot Sherman. The State’s Attorney did not ask Irby any questions about her recantation under oath at the first trial. Defense counsel crossexamined Irby on her prior assertion that her story was a lie, but Irby denied telling anyone from the State’s Attorney’s Office that she did not, in fact, see Long shoot the victim. Again, the State’s Attorney did not correct Irby’s testimony. Rather, in closing, the prosecutor referenced the defense’s cross-examination of Irby on her statements to Walter, without mentioning the prior trial testimony. SA.149–50. The prosecutor then argued that Irby was credible and affirmatively relied on Irby’s changing story to bolster her credibility, arguing: “Maybe [Irby] thought if she told the State’s Attorney’s Office she wasn’t telling the truth she wouldn’t have to testify. But when she came in here and was under oath, she told you what she saw[.]” SA.150. A government lawyer’s use of perjured evidence is a threat to the concept of ordered liberty. See Napue, 360 U.S. at 269. This threat is just as pernicious if the testimony goes only to the credibility of the witness, because “[t]he jury’s estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is No. 13-3327 15 upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely that a defendant’s life or liberty may depend.” Id. Illinois separately acknowledges the State’s obligation in this regard, see, e.g., People v. Steidl, 685 N.E.2d 1335, 1345, 177 Ill. 2d 239, 226 Ill. Dec. 592 (1997) (“If a prosecutor knowingly permits false testimony to be used, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.”), and has incorporated this concept into its rules of professional conduct, see Ill. Supreme Ct. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.8(a) (“The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”). That defense counsel later did what he could to minimize the damage of Irby’s perjured testimony does nothing to reduce the State’s duty to correct the perjured testimony. Just because the jury heard Walter explain during the defense case that Irby’s story had changed does not turn “what was otherwise a tainted trial into a fair one.” Napue, 360 U.S. at 270; see also United States v. Freeman, 650 F.3d 673, 680–81 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding reasonable possibility that perjured testimony affected jury decision, even though the government stipulated to facts contradicting that testimony at a later point in the case). Additionally, the fact that the jury heard from another witness who challenged Irby’s recollection merely set up the kind of credibility comparison that is the bread and butter of a trial—it does not address the problem that the jury should never have heard that testimony in the first place. Even if this evidence was only used by the jury to assess Irby’s credibility, the State’s failure to correct that evidence was a clear due process violation and the Illinois court’s decision to the contrary was unreasonable. Napue, 360 U.S. at 270. 16 No. 13-3327 But the import of this evidence goes beyond credibility. The case against Long was weak. The Illinois Appellate Court itself noted the evidence against Long was “not overwhelming.” SA.83. Without any physical evidence linking Long to the crime, the State had to rely on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Irby and Edwards. Edwards’ testimony about the scene—that she saw Long shoot Sherman, that she then cradled his head until officers arrived at the scene—was brought into question by the other witnesses’ stories and was also different from her testimony at the first trial. The State’s other two witnesses refused to name Long as the shooter at the second trial. So that left Irby as the only witness whose testimony was not directly contradicted or questioned. The Court considers the trial record as a whole when evaluating the effect of the perjured testimony on the jury’s verdict. See Napue, 360 U.S. at 266, 272 (eyewitness’s testimony “extremely important” to State’s case); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (perjured testimony was key to prosecution’s case). Irby’s testimony and credibility were vital to the State’s case. Furthermore, Irby’s recantation—had the State honestly presented it to the jury—would have corroborated the other two eyewitnesses who also changed their initial testimony naming Long as the shooter. The cumulative weight of Irby’s perjured testimony creates a reasonable likelihood that, with so little other evidence, the State’s failure to fairly present her shifting story influenced the jury’s verdict. Therefore, even though our review is deferential under AEDPA, the Illinois Appellate Court’s determination that the State’s failure to correct the perjured testimony did not influNo. 13-3327 17 ence the jury’s decision was an unreasonable application of Napue. Long is entitled to habeas relief on this claim. 2. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel Long also brings a separate ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim based on the perjured testimony claim. Butler does not argue that this claim is procedurally defaulted—indeed, the appellate court specifically considered and rejected it. SA.78. On habeas review, a federal court determines whether the state court’s application of the ineffective assistance standard was unreasonable, not whether defense counsel’s performance fell below Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), standards. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101, 131 S. Ct. 770, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011) (“Under AEDPA, though, it is a necessary premise that the two questions are different. For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The state court is granted “deference and latitude that are not in operation when the case involves review under the Strickland standard itself.” Id. To find a state court’s application of Strickland unreasonable is a high bar requiring “clear error.” See Allen v. Chandler, 555 F.3d 596, 600 (7th Cir. 2009). The unreasonable application of federal law will lie “well outside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion” and will be a clearly established Supreme Court precedent unreasonably extended to an unsuitable context or the unreasonable refusal to extend that rule somewhere it should have applied. Id. at 602. 18 No. 13-3327 Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are mixed questions of fact and law reviewed de novo, “with a strong presumption that the attorney performed effectively.” Allen, 555 F.3d at 600. When considering ineffective assistance claims, a court must determine whether counsel’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and that this performance prejudiced the petitioner, i.e. “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694. The Illinois Appellate Court held that appellate counsel was not ineffective because the issue of whether Irby’s uncorrected testimony prejudiced the trial was not meritorious. For the same reasons discussed supra, the Illinois Appellate Court’s finding that the prosecution’s actions did not prejudice the trial outcome, and therefore that this issue was not meritorious, was clear error and a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s holding in Napue. Furthermore, appellate counsel’s failure to bring this claim cannot be considered trial strategy or objectively reasonable performance. See Sanders v. Cotton, 398 F.3d 572, 585 (7th Cir. 2005) (failure to make “an obvious and clearly stronger argument” was deficient performance (citation omitted)). Appellate counsel is not required to raise every non-frivolous issue and her performance “is deficient under Strickland only if she fails to argue an issue that is both ‘obvious’ and ‘clearly stronger’ than the issues actually raised.” Makiel v. Butler, 782 F.3d 882, 898 (7th Cir. 2015). The Napue issue was obvious from the trial record itself. The question of whether the perjured testimony prejudiced Long’s defense was also clearly stronger than the claims that were raised. No. 13-3327 19 Appellate counsel brought only two issues on direct appeal: (1) challenging the “Gone With the Wind” and personal anecdote references in the prosecution’s closing statement and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call Long’s sister as a witness to corroborate Irby’s testimony that she did not see anyone cradling Sherman’s head at the scene. The appellate court rejected both arguments, although over a strongly worded dissent that described the prosecutor in closing as having “put her thumb on the scale and tip[ped] the balance in favor of the State with a wholly improper— and I submit grossly prejudicial—argument.” SA.69. A challenge to the prosecutor’s misconduct in allowing the perjured testimony would have been a powerful challenge to the conviction. Considering the dissenting justice’s reaction to the other comments, it is likely that this claim, especially when considering the weak case against Long, would have prompted a finding of prejudice. The second issue was not strong: the testimony of Long’s sister would have been used to corroborate Irby’s version of the scene and to undermine the prosecution’s only eyewitness who did not eventually recant. However, the detail of Edwards’ testimony that this evidence would attack—the cradling of the victim’s head—does not directly call into question her identification of Long as the shooter or significantly undercut her credibility. Long’s sister was a family member and therefore open to allegations of bias. In addition, trial counsel’s strategy would not have been to bolster Irby’s testimony: this witness would eventually name Long as the shooter and her changing story made her an unpredictable witness. This claim was weak at best. It was most likely that the appellate court would not have found preju20 No. 13-3327 dice even if this choice of witnesses could be considered ineffective assistance. Appellate counsel brought one claim on appeal that prompted a strong dissent, therefore this case does not rise to the level of Shaw v. Wilson, where counsel argued a frivolous claim rather than one that was “genuinely arguable under the governing law.” See 721 F.3d 908, 916 (7th Cir. 2013). However, the failure to bring the strong Napue due process claim on appeal cannot be characterized as strategic, rather it was deficient performance. We hold the State’s failure to correct Irby’s denial of her recantation prejudiced Long and the Illinois Appellate Court’s finding otherwise is not a reasonable application of the Strickland prejudice standard. Long is entitled to habeas relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the failure to challenge the State’s use of perjured testimony.