Court Opinion

ID: 9529324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:48.246614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.200672
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE COOK, dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would remand for a rehearing on the motion for a new trial. The trial court did not weigh any evidence in this case; it simply refused to allow evidence to be admitted. When defendant alleges that a witness against him admitted she lied at trial, a number of questions are raised. The first question is whether there was in fact such an admission. If there was such an admission, what were the details? Did the admission go to a crucial part of the case or only some minor issue? Finally, what was the motivation for the admission? WTiat ties did the witness have to defendant? Did defendant exert some sort of influence to obtain the admission? Does the witness stand by her admission or by her testimony at trial? Of course, a witness’s admission that her testimony was perjured does not provide defendant with an automatic pass. There are many reasons to be suspicious of such admissions. However, a truthful admission by the complaining witness that her testimony was perjured may completely destroy the prosecution’s case. “Recantation by a witness of his testimony on a trial does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Recanting testimony is regarded as very unreliable, and a court will usually deny a new trial based on that ground where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true.” (Emphases added.) People v. Marquis, 344 Ill. 261, 265, 176 N.E. 314, 315 (1931). Because of the importance of the issue, the trial court should carefully consider defendant’s evidence and arguments and not simply reject them out of hand. Sometimes a defendant’s motion may be summarily rejected because it is apparent the witness never even spoke to the defendant or anyone on his behalf. That is not this case. There is no dispute that Heather came to the McLean County jail, under an assumed name, and spoke to defendant. (Why did she use an assumed name?) The question before the trial court was not whether Heather spoke to defendant but what she said. The prosecution’s strategy in this case was not to address or attempt to rebut what Heather said but to prevent defendant from offering evidence of what was said. I do not understand how defendant’s testimony of what Heather had said could be excluded as hearsay (and the unsworn statements of the two inmates admitted). Defense testimony of what the witness had said out of court was admitted in Steidl. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d at 250-51, 568 N.E.2d at 857. The hearsay rule does not prevent introduction of a witness’s prior inconsistent statements. The unrebutted testimonies of defendant and the two inmates indicate Heather admitted her testimony was a lie. What is Heather’s response? In Steidl, witness Rienbolt testified at the post-trial hearing and denied recanting her testimony. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d at 251, 568 N.E.2d at 857. The same occurred in other cases. See, e.g., People v. Ellison, 89 Ill. App. 3d 1, 6-7, 411 N.E.2d 350, 353-54 (1980). Why did Heather not testify in this case? What did Heather tell the prosecution about her alleged admission? Heather was a prosecution witness, and it appears it was the prosecution who called the witness in the cited cases. Defendant here may have called Heather himself if he could have anticipated that his testimony would be excluded as hearsay. The majority goes both ways on Heather’s testimony. The majority questions whether the “alleged statements” even exist and concludes no clear evidence shows Heather admitted lying. The majority then suggests that even if Heather admitted she was told what to say, her admission was contradicted by her reports to Dr. Wernsman, to the cab office, to the police, and her trial testimony. Again, I suggest that we are past the first stage in this case. Heather clearly said something to defendant. Defendant should have been allowed to say what it was. If Heather told defendant she had lied under oath, as defendant stated in his letter to the trial court, Heather should have been asked to confirm or deny that she had admitted false testimony. We should not be required to speculate on what Heather might or might not say, and it ill-becomes the prosecution to complain of defendant’s lack of evidence which the prosecution succeeded in improperly excluding. This is not a case where the testimony “merely serves to contradict, impeach, or discredit a witness.” 356 Ill. App. 3d at 243. The witness here was the complaining witness, not an eyewitness or a supporting witness. Heather’s testimony went to the heart of this case. If Heather was lying when she gave her core testimony, there was no case. This is not a situation where a third-party witness comes forward to contradict, impeach, or discredit the testimony of other witnesses. In Steidl, the witness’s current testimony was that she had testified truthfully at trial. The witness’s recantation was not her current testimony and was relevant only as impeachment. That is not the case here. The most recent report from Heather is that her testimony at trial was a lie. Steidl did not say that allegations of recantations may be summarily dismissed. Steidl recounted the factors that warranted the denial of the motion for new trial: defense counsel initiated the contact with witness Rienbolt, Rienbolt was a codefendant serving a five-year term, Rienbolt was an alcoholic and had various drug dependencies, witnesses to the Wells recantation were shown to have questionable reputations for truth and veracity, witness Herrington’s recorded statements were all made as answers to leading questions, and the recorded statement was replete with off-the-record conversations. Perhaps most important, all three witnesses stated, at the posttrial hearing, that they testified truthfully at the trial. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d at 250-55, 568 N.E.2d at 857-59. In the present case, the alleged recanting witness is not a codefendant, but the complaining witness, and the recanting witness did not take the stand to deny the recantation. The argument could be made that in Steidl there was a written affidavit signed by the witness admitting perjury. Does the scrutiny of Steidl come into play only when the witness signs an affidavit? I suggest not. It would be intolerable if a witness could brag about her peijured testimony but defendant would be without a remedy unless he could persuade her to sign an affidavit. In a particular case, testimony of an oral recantation could be very persuasive.