People v. English
2014 IL App (1st) 102732-B
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Anthony English was convicted of first-degree murder (the “Black” murder) based largely on testimony from three gang-member witnesses (Lawrence, Sanders, Cole) who recanted parts of their prior statements at trial. He was sentenced to 40 years.
- English previously pursued postconviction relief in a separate murder (Lewis) conviction; that proceeding produced affidavits and an evidentiary hearing where some witnesses (e.g., Cole, Brown) testified and were found not credible.
- English filed a successive postconviction petition alleging actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence that the witnesses’ pretrial accusations were products of police coercion (pointing to two newspaper articles naming Detective McWeeny in Area 2 abuse investigations and affidavits previously filed in the Lewis proceedings).
- The trial court denied leave to file the successive petition and relied in part on results from the Lewis postconviction evidentiary hearing. The appellate court initially affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of People v. Edwards.
- On remand this court held that, even under the Edwards “colorable claim of actual innocence” standard, English’s supporting documentation did not constitute newly discovered evidence of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial, and there was insufficient corroboration linking the Area 2 misconduct to his witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether English pled a colorable claim of actual innocence to allow a successive petition | State: English’s documentation is insufficient and not newly discovered; claims are speculative | English: Newspaper articles + affidavits show police coercion explaining witnesses’ recantations and merit an evidentiary hearing | Denied — as a matter of law the materials do not raise a probability that no reasonable juror would convict; not newly discovered or conclusive |
| Whether English’s supporting materials qualify as newly discovered evidence under the Post‑Conviction Hearing Act | State: Affidavits and articles were available or known earlier and do not directly link misconduct to his case | English: Evidence shows motive for witnesses’ earlier accusations and could not have been discovered sooner | Denied — affidavits were previously available; articles do not establish a direct link to coercion in his case |
| Whether trial court erred by considering evidence from the Lewis postconviction evidentiary hearing | State: Court may consider facts outside record; Lewis hearing is relevant | English: Using the Lewis hearing improperly weighed evidence at stage one and precluded an evidentiary hearing here | Court erred in relying on Lewis hearing results, but error was harmless because English’s documentation fails Edwards’ standard anyway |
| Whether generalized allegations of Area 2 misconduct suffice to corroborate coercion claims | State: Generalized abuse without case‑specific link is insufficient | English: Area 2 revelations about officers (including McWeeny) render witnesses’ recantations credible | Denied — court requires a specific, corroborated link or similarity of abuses; English did not provide it |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (clarifies that successive petitions asserting actual innocence require a "colorable claim" supported by evidence that makes it more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
- People v. Wrice, 2012 IL 111860 (successive petition granted where newly discovered evidence corroborated claims that confession resulted from police torture)
- People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148 (Post‑Conviction Hearing Act contemplates only one petition; discusses cause-and-prejudice framework and newly discovered evidence standard)
- People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475 (newly discovered evidence must be material, noncumulative, and likely to change result on retrial)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (federal standard: colorable actual-innocence gateway requires new, reliable evidence making it more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (discusses standard that evidence must be of such conclusive character it would probably change result on retrial)
- People v. Wright, 189 Ill. 2d 1 (recognizes successive postconviction actions are disfavored)