Brian Jones v. Kim Butler
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1691
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Brian Jones seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after Illinois convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder.
- Trial was a bench proceeding; Priest testified as the State’s primary witness identifying Jones as the shooter.
- Evidence tied Jones to the crime via clothing (blue and white checkered shirt) found near his arrest and a red car observed at the scene.
- Other witnesses corroborated Priest’s account (Pritchett and Jackson), while Lasandra Mathies provided alibi testimony.
- Jones challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and later pursued ineffective-assistance claims; the district court denied relief.
- The Illinois appellate and supreme courts had rejected his state post-conviction and related due-process arguments prior to federal review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Jones argues Priest’s identification was unreliable and insufficient alone. | State contends the combined, corroborated testimony supports guilt. | Sufficiency affirmed; credible, corroborated identification supports convictions. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (impeachment of Jackson) | Counsel failed to impeach Jackson with prior statements about Jones’s words. | Counsel acted within strategic discretion; impeachment was not prejudicial. | Trial counsel deficient in failing to prepare impeachment, but no prejudice established; no reversible error. |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Appellate counsel failed to raise issues of ineffective assistance and due-process concerns. | No error shown because underlying trial counsel claims fail on Strickland prongs. | Appellate counsel not ineffective; no basis for relief. |
| Denial of post-conviction petition and Priest recantation evidence | State courts’ refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on Priest’s recantation violated due process. | Recantation credibility issues and state-law post-conviction procedures do not implicate federal due process. | No due-process violation; state court decisions on evidentiary hearing were reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (rigorous standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
- Hayes v. Battaglia, 403 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2005) (single eyewitness can sustain a conviction with corroboration)
- Trejo v. Hulick, 380 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary-review standards under AEDPA)
- Robertson v. Hanks, 140 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 1998) (appellate counsel standards in ineffective-assistance claims)