Opinion ID: 2981094
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Philip Joplin’s “Recantation”

Text: The most important new item relied on by Freeman is jailhouse informant Philip Joplin’s “recantation” of his trial testimony. Before considering the recantation, we review Joplin’s role in the trial. Joplin had been detained with Freeman in a jail cell for a short period of time on April 20, 1987, days before Freeman’s trial commenced. Joplin had pleaded guilty to, and was about to be sentenced for, receiving and concealing stolen property in the Port Huron area and being a second felony offender. During their brief time together, Freeman talked to Joplin about the murder charge he was facing. Later that day, Joplin was sentenced, receiving a sentence with an anticipated release date just three months later, in July 1987. Two days later, Joplin wrote a letter to the St. Clair County Prosecutor, reporting his conversation with Freeman. Joplin was then returned to the Michigan Department of Corrections Reception & Guidance Center in Jackson, where Joplin was incarcerated, before being transported back to St. Clair County the following week to testify in the Freeman case. - 16 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley Joplin testified in Freeman’s trial that during their time together, Freeman told him that he was charged with murder, that he had an airtight alibi, and that “when he shot this guy he screamed.” R. 19-15, Trial Tr. at 1348-49. This is the sole incriminating statement related by Joplin. Joplin said that Freeman smiled as he spoke, that Freeman “wasn’t worried at all,” and that Freeman’s attitude “scared” him. Id. at 1350. He testified that Freeman described his alibi defense in detail. Joplin testified that he had neither been promised anything nor threatened in any way to induce him to testify in the Freeman trial. His letter to the prosecutor was motivated, he said, by a desire to change what had been characterized in his own presentence report as his “jail attitude and mentality.” Id. at 1353-54.4 During vigorous cross-examination, Joplin did not waver. Joplin denied that he was testifying in order to obtain an early release, saying he did not need one. Defense counsel Dean attempted to impeach Joplin’s credibility based on his history of offenses involving dishonesty. Joplin acknowledged that Freeman, in explaining his alibi, said he was in Escanaba on the day of the murder and there were other people who saw him there. He did not retreat, however, from his account of Freeman’s description of the victim’s reaction when shot. Joplin resisted Dean’s characterization that he was implicating Freeman in murder, saying “I’m not implicating anybody in anything.” Id. at 1371. Dean persisted, asking, “And now you’re over here trying to say that this 4 Joplin was thirty-eight years old at the time he testified, and said he had spent thirteen or fourteen years in prison. R. 19-15, Trial Tr. at 1360. - 17 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley man, who’s denied ever being involved, confesses to you?” Joplin’s answer: “If you can call that one sentence he made a confession, yes.” Id. at 1373. Joplin testified on re-direct that Freeman’s incriminating statement stood out in his mind because “it shocked me that somebody could scream being shot with a shotgun. . . . I thought you instantly died when you got shot with a shotgun.” Id. at 1375-76. Joplin denied that he had been coached on how to testify, saying the prosecutor had instructed him “to say what I remembered and that was it.” Id. at 1377. On re-cross, Joplin reiterated that everything he testified to was the “entire truth.” Id. at 1382. Joplin’s testimony thus became, at the eleventh hour, part of the prosecution’s case against Freeman. It was controverted by the testimony of a second detainee, Booker Brown. Brown was in the same holding cell for part of the time when Freeman and Joplin were together. He testified that he only heard Freeman denying any involvement in the murder. The truthfulness of Joplin’s testimony was addressed again in a September 4, 1990 hearing on Freeman’s motion for new trial. At that time, Joplin confirmed that he had not been offered a deal by the prosecutor in exchange for his trial testimony. When he was transported back to St. Clair County from Jackson to testify, however, he said he had been told by his parole officer and a police detective that he would not be returned to prison to serve his remaining three months. Rather, the parole officer suggested Joplin would probably be sent to a corrections center in Port Huron. And in fact, Joplin did not return to prison in Jackson after he testified in the Freeman trial, but was given a community corrections placement. On cross-examination, Joplin confirmed the truthfulness of - 18 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley his trial testimony that he had not been promised anything as an inducement to testify. He further explained that a prosecuting attorney told him after he testified that he “would benefit from this and make some friends along the way.” R. 19-21, Hearing Tr. at 53-54. Joplin thus essentially confirmed in sworn testimony in 1990 the truthfulness of his trial testimony three years earlier. The motion for new trial was denied. In 1993, new questions emerged. In a series of three interviews witnessed by private investigator Allen Woodside in 1993 and 1994, Joplin explained that his trial testimony against Freeman had been false. The contents of these interviews are detailed in an affidavit signed by Woodside on July 15, 1994, attesting to the accuracy of his account of Joplin’s statements. R. 1-6 at 37.5 According to Woodside’s affidavit, Joplin admitted: that he had falsified his trial testimony; that Freeman had actually denied involvement in the Macklem murder when they were briefly detained together in April 1987; and that he had volunteered to testify against Freeman because he thought his cooperation might result in a shortened stay in prison. When he came to have second thoughts about testifying, Joplin reportedly said that he was pressured by his parole officer and coached by the prosecution team. Woodside said Joplin admitted that he never disclosed the falsity of his testimony to anyone. By way of explanation for now admitting his perjury, Joplin explained: that he was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver, hepatitis C, and pneumonia; that he had been told his condition was terminal and that he might have less than a year to live; and that he wanted to 5 Joplin’s statements were never incorporated into an affidavit signed by Joplin, however. Nor did Joplin ever verify or adopt Woodside’s account of his statements. - 19 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley “clear his conscience by confessing and recanting the false statements he gave in testimony that led to Freeman’s conviction.” Id. at ¶¶ T, V, X.6 Joplin’s recantation would appear to be significant. Yet, it is presented only in the form of unsworn hearsay and was not effectively raised to the attention of the courts until 2004, ten years later and long after Joplin had died in 1998. Freeman offers no explanation for the delay and no explanation for his failure to preserve Joplin’s changed story in a sworn affidavit or deposition, even though Joplin said his condition was terminal and even though he continued to live for several years. Woodside’s account of Joplin’s unsworn recantation is inherently unreliable.7 As an unsworn statement by a convicted felon purporting to recant sworn testimony originally given in trial and substantially confirmed under oath three years later, its reliability is inherently suspect. See McCray v. Vasbinder, 499 F.3d 568, 574 (6th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that even sworn affidavits recanting trial testimony are viewed with “extreme suspicion”); Matthews v. Ishee, 486 F.3d 883, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2007) (same); Carter v. Mitchell, 443 F.3d 517, 539 (6th Cir. 2006) (same); Welsh v. Lafler, 444 F. App’x 844, 850 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of habeas relief notwithstanding sworn recantation of trial testimony). Freeman maintains that Joplin’s changed version, as recorded in Woodside’s affidavit, is attended by various indicia of reliability. First, he contends Joplin’s recantation is corroborated in 6 It appears Joplin died four years later, in 1998. 7 In addition, the contents of Joplin’s statement as recorded in the Woodside affidavit are directly refuted in several respects by the affidavits of then-prosecuting attorneys Robert Cleland and Ken Lord. See R. 49-2, R. 49-3, respectively. - 20 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley part by Joplin’s sworn testimony in 1990 to the effect that he did receive consideration for his testimony against Freeman in the form of an early release from prison. This argument deserves little weight. As explained above, Joplin’s 1990 testimony substantially confirmed his trial testimony that Freeman had incriminated himself in Macklem’s murder and that he, Joplin, was not promised anything or threatened in any way to induce his trial testimony. Even though Joplin reported in 1990 that his parole officer and a police officer had advised him that he would not be returning to prison, this came after he had received a sentence the week before that yielded an anticipated release date just three months later. In his 1990 testimony, Joplin did not characterize or view his corrections center placement following Freeman’s trial as “consideration” for his testimony. Instead, it appears likely that Joplin was not returned to prison in Jackson but was assigned to a community corrections placement in the Port Huron area, not because of his willingness to testify, but as a function of the short sentence he had received before he even sent the letter offering the prosecutor his assistance. Second, Freeman contends Joplin’s recantation was made in contemplation of his mortality for the purpose of clearing his conscience. Freeman concedes the statements do not amount to a “dying declaration,” made admissible as a hearsay exception under Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(2). He argues, however, that they represent statements against penal interest, because they exposed Joplin to the possibility of prosecution for perjury and are therefore reliable and admissible under Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Yet, Michigan law recognizes that a statement against interest by an unavailable declarant that tends to exculpate the accused is admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) only if the trustworthiness of the statement is sufficiently corroborated under all the circumstances. See People - 21 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley v. Barrera, 547 N.W.2d 280, 287-88 (Mich. 1996); see also, United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 320, 327 (6th Cir. 2009) (accord, applying Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3)). Joplin’s purported recantation is not verified by his own signature and oath. Nor did Joplin ever adopt Woodside’s account of his statement. Considering the potential significance of Joplin’s statement to Freeman’s pursuit of post-conviction relief, the unexplained failure to obtain Joplin’s verification looms large. This failure is particularly troubling, considering that Joplin’s statement was witnessed by a private investigator and a television news reporter. That is, although the need for verification would seem to have been obvious, it was not obtained. Moreover, Joplin’s unsworn statement is not only directly contrary to his trial testimony; it is also contrary to his testimony in the 1990 evidentiary hearing. In both prior court proceedings, Joplin’s accounts of his holding-cell conversation with Freeman did not vary, despite crossexamination. Granted, Joplin’s changed version of the conversation is arguably corroborated by the trial testimony of Booker Brown, the only other witness who was privy to at least part of the conversation between Freeman and Joplin. However, it is undisputed that Brown was not in the holding cell for the entire time that Joplin and Freeman were together. Joplin’s asserted motivation for recanting, to clear his conscience as he contemplated his impending death, lends credence to his unsworn statement, but it also undermines the “against interest” element of the Rule 804(b)(3) exception. That is, considering that Joplin remained incarcerated in 1993-94, when he gave the unsworn statement, and said he had little hope of recovering from the condition that was expected to take his life within six to twelve months, the fact - 22 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley that he made the statement in the face of possible prosecution for perjury hardly represents a strong indicator of truthfulness—because the possibility of prosecution and punishment was necessarily remote. Accordingly, Joplin’s unsworn statement can hardly be deemed sufficiently corroborated under all the circumstances to be adjudged trustworthy under Rule 804(b)(3). Furthermore, the Warden argues that even if Joplin’s recantation were accepted and the trial jury were deemed not to have heard Joplin’s testimony that Freeman admitted shooting Macklem, this would not create such a void in the prosecution’s case as to make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found Freeman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, the Warden points out that Joplin’s trial testimony incriminating Freeman was not even mentioned in the prosecutor’s closing argument. The Warden maintains that the jury’s verdict was adequately supported by: Crystal Merrill’s testimony about the abusive nature of her relationship with Freeman; witness testimony positively identifying Freeman leaving the scene right after the murder; evidence of telephonic statements Freeman made to Merrill after the murder corroborating the prosecution’s theory of his motive for killing Macklem and implying knowledge of the whereabouts of the instrumentalities of the murder (i.e., shotgun and car); and impeachment of Freeman’s alibi witnesses, whose testimony the jury appears to have rejected as either mistaken or the product of Freeman’s manipulation. We agree. Under all the circumstances, Joplin’s unsworn recantation hardly represents such clearly exculpatory evidence as would render it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found Freeman guilty of Macklem’s murder after all. - 23 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley