Morales v. Johnson, 659 F.3d 588

Background

Morales was convicted in Illinois state court of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, receiving 60 years for murder and two 30-year terms concurrent for attempted murder.
He filed multiple state post-conviction petitions, which were denied, and a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance and perjured testimony.
A key claim was that trial counsel failed to impeach Katrina Scimone and failed to call Thomas Scimone as an alibi witness.
An evidentiary hearing in district court questioned Katrina’s and Thomas’s credibility and the credibility of other alibi witnesses.
The district court denied the habeas petition, but granted a certificate of appealability on the claims of ineffective assistance and perjured testimony, which Morales appealed.
The Seventh Circuit reviews the district court’s resolution of these habeas claims de novo with factual findings reviewed for clear error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morales’ trial counsel was prejudicially deficient under Strickland.	Morales argues Callahan’s handling of Katrina and Thomas caused prejudice.	Morales contends no prejudice from counsel’s failures given strong eyewitness evidence.	No prejudice established; eyewitnesses were substantial independent support.
Whether Morales proved per se “knowing use of perjured testimony” to obtain relief.	Morales asserts Katrina testified falsely with prosecution knowledge.	Prosecution did not knowingly present false testimony; Katrina’s credence remains uncertain.	Morales failed to show the perjury claim would alter the outcome.
Standard of review for AEDPA/federal habeas in Strickland context.	Pre-AEDPA prejudice standard applies due to lack of full state review.	AEDPA governs review; defer to state court’s findings.	Pre-AEDPA prejudice standard applies; nonetheless claim fails on prejudice.
Whether the district court’s credibility determinations about Katrina and Thomas were clearly erroneous.	Thomas and Katrina’s alibi credibility undermines trial evidence.	District court properly weighed demeanor and corroboration against alibi.	No clear error; credibility determinations supported by record.
Whether new evidence would likely lead to acquittal under Schlup/House standards.	New evidence could create reasonable doubt and overcome gateway.	New evidence does not meet Schlup gateway; strong eyewitnesses remain persuasive.	Gateway not satisfied; no reasonable probability of acquittal.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes framework for ineffective assistance claim)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (prosecution knowingly using false testimony violates due process)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference standard for examining state-court decision)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (pre-AEDPA prejudice review when state courts did not address prejudice in Strickland analysis)
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (U.S. 2006) (gateway innocence standard for actual innocence claims)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1995) (actual innocence gateway requires new reliable evidence showing probable innocence)