Opinion ID: 719368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jennifer Miller's Recantation

Text: 29 Next, Hamilton claims that he is entitled to a new trial based on the January 17, 1995 letter from Jennifer Miller in which she recants her trial testimony inculpating Hamilton. Jennifer Miller testified at trial that Robert Miller confided that he and Hamilton had robbed a bank, and that Hamilton had been armed during the robbery. (R. 127, at 125; R. 128, at 21.) Jennifer also testified that Monica Hamilton, John's wife, threatened to kill her and her daughter if she testified against John Hamilton. (R. 128, at 18-19.) Jennifer further testified that Monica Hamilton and John Hamilton, Sr. had forced her to give a tape recorded statement accusing Special Agent Stanley of making sexual advances toward her. Id. at 17-18. Jennifer also testified that John Hamilton, Sr. had promised her that she would not have to worry about having a place to live if she would not testify. Id. at 21. Jennifer also testified that neither Special Agent Stanley, id. at 106-108, nor any member of the prosecution, id. at 141, had coached her about what to say. 30 Nearly two years after trial, however, in a letter to Robert Miller dated January 17, 1995, Jennifer Miller wrote that she was finally able to freely tell [him] the truth. (R. 152, ex. 2.) She stated in the letter that (1) her trial testimony about the bank robbery was based upon information provided to her by Special Agents Jack Schulte and Jeff Stanley of the FBI; (2) the agents and the United States Attorney had threatened her with prosecution and imprisonment if she did not testify as directed; (3) she had made the tape for John Hamilton, Sr. of her own free will; and (4) she had lied about John Hamilton, Sr.'s offer to reward her if she did not testify; and (5) Monica Hamilton never had threatened to kill her or her daughter. 31 To win a new trial based on recanted testimony, a defendant must show (1) that the recantation is true; (2) that the jury might have reached a different result had the witness not testified falsely; and (3) that the witness's false testimony took the defendant by surprise. United States v. Walker, 25 F.3d 540, 549 (7th Cir.) (citing United States v. Olson, 989 F.2d 229, 231 (7th Cir.1993)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 371, and cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 531 (1994). We view recantations skeptically. Olson, 989 F.2d at 231. 32 Initially, we note that Hamilton has not demonstrated that Jennifer Miller's recantation is trustworthy. As the district court observed, Hamilton cannot show that Jennifer Miller's recantation is any more truthful than her previous statements, which have see-sawed from one story to another. (R. 163, at 11-12.) After reviewing the record, we also share the government's view that Jennifer Miller's testimony at trial, which was subject to extensive cross-examination, was corroborated in many respects by several other witnesses. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Jennifer Miller's testimony at trial took Hamilton by surprise. Miller's testimony was foreshadowed by her prior interview statements with FBI agents and by her prior grand jury testimony that was available to Hamilton. The district court properly denied the motion for a new trial.