People v. Jones
2016 IL App (1st) 123371
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In January 2000 Jerry Green was shot to death; Anteleto Jones (age 19) was convicted at jury trial in 2003 based solely on his videotaped confession and sentenced to 44 years (24 + 20). No eyewitnesses at trial and no physical evidence directly tied Jones to the shooting.
- Jones consistently maintained his confession was coerced (pretrial suppression motion, trial, posttrial motions). Two witnesses (Darryl and Anthony Thomas) told the prosecutor after trial that Jones was with them at the time of the murder; the trial court denied a new-trial motion because those statements were unsworn.
- Postconviction proceedings: Jones’s first postconviction petition (2005) was summarily dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed. In 2011 Jones sought leave to file a successive petition, attaching (a) an affidavit from Telvin Shaw, an eyewitness who says he saw only Melvin Jones shoot the victim, and (b) press material about other cases alleging police fabrication of confessions by the same officers.
- The trial court denied leave to file the successive petition, concluding Shaw’s affidavit, while newly discovered, was not so conclusive as to probably change the result on retrial; the court also rejected some documentary material as inadmissible.
- The appellate court (majority) reversed: applying Edwards/Smith framework and de novo review, it held Shaw’s affidavit is newly discovered, material, noncumulative and, together with other documentation (codefendant affidavit, alibi statements discovered posttrial, and reporting of prior misconduct by the same officers), raises the probability that no reasonable juror would convict on retrial. The case is remanded for appointment of postconviction counsel and second-stage proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones made a colorable claim of actual innocence sufficient for leave to file a successive postconviction petition | Shaw’s eyewitness affidavit (newly discovered) plus other documentation (codefendant affidavit, posttrial alibi statements, press about officers) is material, noncumulative, and likely to change the result on retrial | Shaw’s affidavit is not conclusive; physical evidence and trial testimony support multiple shooters and do not exonerate Jones; press material is inadmissible or insufficient to show a pattern of misconduct | Reversed: court held Shaw’s affidavit is newly discovered, material and, with other documentation, raises the probability that a retrial would lead to acquittal — remand for second-stage proceedings and appointment of counsel |
| Whether Jones established cause and prejudice to file a successive petition under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) | Press article and APD letter about other cases involving the same officers constituted new evidence of police misconduct that could not reasonably have been discovered earlier and therefore establish cause; prejudice follows because confession was the only evidence tying Jones to the crime | The McGee civil verdict and press coverage do not establish a pattern of misconduct close in time or sufficiently similar; even if available, they do not show prejudice because Jones’s confession was corroborated by trial evidence | Court found cause satisfied (lack of earlier proof of officer misconduct impeded earlier presentation) and prejudice discussed in context of cumulative documentation; remanded for second-stage proceedings |
| Standard and scope of review for leave to file successive petition | N/A (argument concerns legal standard) | Trial court applied a credibility/weight analysis improperly at the leave stage | Appellate court applies de novo review to both actual innocence and cause-and-prejudice claims when resolution depends on documentary record; consideration limited primarily to petition and supporting documentation, with judicial notice of prior opinions |
| Admissibility of media and collateral civil judgments at leave stage | Such materials need not meet rules of evidence at the leave stage; they may support a prima facie showing and lead to appointed counsel and further inquiry | Newspaper articles and civil verdicts are hearsay or unreliable and cannot substitute for admissible proof | Appellate majority: admissibility rules do not govern leave; documentary materials may be considered to decide whether to advance the petition to second-stage proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 2009) (newly discovered eyewitness testimony standard and materiality analysis)
- People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93 (Ill. 2000) (relevance of coerced-confession claims and when they warrant further proceedings)
- People v. Savory, 309 Ill. App. 3d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999) (actual innocence requires evidence that totally vindicates defendant to be conclusive)
- People v. Hattery, 183 Ill. App. 3d 785 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (polygraph-related confessions have been suppressed where appropriate)