Court Opinion

ID: 9718751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:33:00.180455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:02.340820
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: The opinion of the court holds that Hamer’s testimony was false and that the prosecution knew that it was false. And the opinion also holds, in accord with People v. Savvides, 1 N.Y.2d 554, 136 N.E.2d 853, that due process can be violated by knowingly false testimony that goes to the credibility of a key witness as well as by that which goes directly to guilt or innocence. With these holdings I agree. But the opinion goes further and says: “Subsequent testimony by Hamer revealed, however, that he had been reluctant to testify unless he received consideration for it, and that prior to the trial he was assured that efforts would be made in his behalf. Such disclosure was sufficient to apprise the jurors that he had some interest or motive in testifying, and enabled them to judge his other testimony in the light thereof.” What is overlooked here is that Hamer clearly testified that no one had offered to help him except an unidentified lawyer from the public defender’s office. The fact was, however, that the offer was not made by an unidentified assistant public defender, but by the assistant State’s Attorney in charge of prosecuting the case. The relevant parts of Hamer’s cross-examination are these: “Q. Did anybody give you a reward or promise you a reward for testifying? A. There ain’t nobody promised me anything. >jí íjí Q. Directing your attention to that time and place in Statesville, did you tell Mr. Steinberg [one of Napue’s attorneys] that you were drunk that day ? A. No, I didn’t. Q. And didn’t you tell him that you wouldn’t testify in this case unless you got some consideration for it? A. I would have told him anything to get him away. I didn’t want to talk to him. Q. Did you tell him what I told you? A. Yes. Q. You said you wouldn’t testify unless you got some consideration ? A. Yes, I did; I told him that. íjí Q. What are you sentenced for? A. One hundred ninety-nine years. Q. You hope to have that reduced, don’t you? A. Well, if anybody would help me or do anything for me, why certainly I would. Q. Weren’t you expecting that when you came here today ? A. There haven’t no one told me anything, no more than the lawyer. The lawyer come in and talked to me a while ago and said he was going to do what he could. Q. Which lawyer was that? A. I don’t know; it was a Public Defender. I don’t see-him in here. Q. You mean he was from the Public Defender’s office? A. I imagine that is where he was from, I don’t know. Q. And he was the one who told you that ? A. Yes, he told me he was trying to get something did for me. % * % Q. Now, George, while you were at Statesville here, serving your term, about two months ago were you visited by some police officers? A. Yes, some police officers came to see me. Q. They came and asked you about this trial, didn’t they, of Henry Napue? A. Yes, they said something about it. Q. They came to ask you if you would be willing to testify, didn’t they? A. Yes. Q. And, of course, at that time you told them you would ? A. Yes. Q. And you told them you would but you expected some consideration for it? A. I asked them was there any chance of me getting any. The man told me he didn’t know, that he couldn’t promise me anything. Q. Then you spoke to a lawyer today who said he would try to get your time cut? A. That was this Public Defender. I don’t even know his name. I could point him out, if I saw him. Q. How do you know he is from the Public Defender’s office? A. I seen him once before when I was being tried. Q. But you don’t know he is from the Public Defender’s office? A. No, I don’t know where he is from.” The opening questions and answers on Hamer’s redirect examination were these: “Q. Mr. Hamer, has Judge Prystalski [the trial judge] promised you any reduction of sentence ? A. No, sir. Q. Have I promised that I would recommend any reduction of sentence to anybody? A. You did not. Q. Has any representative of the Parole Board been to see you and promised you a reduction of sentence? A. No, Sir. Q. Has any representative of the Governor of the State of Illinois promised you a reduction of sentence? A. No, sir.” There is here an unmistakable effort to exclude all suggestion of a promise by anyone in a position to make the promise effective. Thereafter, the prosecutor who had asked these questions and elicited these answers filed a coram nobis petition on behalf of Hamer which alleged: “Your petitioner * * *, well knowing that identifications of Poe, Napue and Webb if and when apprehended would be of an unsatisfactory character and not the kind of evidence upon which a jury could be asked to inflict a proper, severe penalty, and being unable to determine in advance whether Poe, Napue and Webb would make confessions of their participation in the crime represented to Plamer that if he would be willing to cooperate with law enforcing officials upon the trial or trials of Poe, Napue and Webb when they were apprehended, that a recommendation for a reduction of his sentence would be made and, if possible, effectuated. Hamer at that time unhesitatingly expressed a complete willingness to cooperate at any time he would be called upon. * * * “Before testifying on behalf of the State and against Napue, Hamer expressed to your petitioner a reluctance to cooperate any further unless he were given definite assurance that a recommendation for reduction of his sentence would be made. Your petitioner * * * feeling that the interest of justice required Hamer’s testimony, again assured Hamer that every possible effort would be made to conform to the promise previously made to him. Hamer took the witness stand and without equivocation proceeded to supply, in detail, under oath, all the testimony which corroborated completely the confession made by Napue. Without Hamer’s testimony a conviction of Napue upon his own uncorroborated confession may have been extremely doubtful.” The record shows that perjured testimony was knowingly used to bring about the judgment of conviction. I think that we should not affirm the judgment so obtained upon a speculation that the effort to mislead the jury might have failed. In my opinion both our own constitution and the Federal constitution require that this conviction be set aside. Mr. Chief Justice Davis joins in this dissenting opinion.