People v. Jones
87 N.E.3d 938
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2003 Anteleto Jones was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 44 years; his conviction relied largely on a videotaped confession in which he admitted firing two shots. Physical evidence at the scene included multiple .380 and 9mm casings and five gunshot wounds to the victim.
- Jones pursued postconviction relief in 2005, attaching a codefendant Melvin Jones affidavit claiming sole responsibility; that first petition was summarily dismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal.
- In 2011 Jones sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging actual innocence based on a newly discovered eyewitness affidavit from Telvin Shaw (who says he saw Melvin alone fire on the victim) and a 2010 newspaper article about a civil jury verdict against officers involved in eliciting confessions in an unrelated case.
- The circuit court held Shaw’s affidavit was newly discovered but not of such conclusive character that it would probably change the result on retrial (because it did not affirmatively exclude Jones’ presence and trial evidence indicated multiple shooters); the court also found the newspaper evidence conclusory.
- The appellate majority affirmed the denial of leave to file a successive petition, holding Shaw’s affidavit did not raise the probability that no reasonable juror would convict Jones and declining to consider a new cause-and-prejudice argument raised for the first time on appeal.
- A dissent would have granted leave to file, reasoning that (1) Shaw is a newly discovered eyewitness whose affidavit is material and noncumulative, (2) the only trial evidence tying Jones to the murder was his confession, and (3) other posttrial materials (Melvin’s affidavit, the Thomas alibi statements, and evidence of police misconduct in other cases) together raise a >50% probability of a different result at retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shaw affidavit supplies a colorable actual-innocence claim to obtain leave to file a successive postconviction petition | Shaw’s affidavit is not sufficiently exculpatory because it does not affirmatively exclude Jones from the scene and is cumulative of theories already rejected; trial record (confession, witness testimony, cartridge evidence) supports multiple shooters. | Shaw is a newly discovered, trustworthy eyewitness who states Melvin was the lone shooter and would, if credited, likely produce an acquittal on retrial. | Denied: affidavit fails to raise probability that no reasonable juror would convict (not of conclusive character to probably change result). |
| Whether Jones may rely on the 2010 newspaper/civil-verdict evidence to satisfy cause-and-prejudice to file successive petition | The newspaper article is conclusory and does not demonstrate cause or prejudice; Jones did not timely raise a cause-and-prejudice theory below. | The McGee civil verdict (and related materials) shows similar police misconduct by the officers who took Jones’s confession and constitutes newly available evidence establishing cause and prejudice. | Not considered on the merits: appellate court refused to consider the new cause-and-prejudice argument raised for first time on appeal; trial court had treated article as insufficient. |
| Standard for leave to file successive petition claiming actual innocence | Leave should be denied where, as a matter of law, petitioner cannot set forth a colorable claim of actual innocence (i.e., documentation fails to raise >50% probability of freedom). | Same standard; defendant emphasizes low threshold at leave stage and that credibility/fact-finding is premature. | Applied majority standard: defendant must show supporting documentation raises probability that it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict; here that threshold was not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway requires new, reliable evidence that was not presented at trial)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (2009) (newly discovered evidence for successive postconviction petition must be new, material, noncumulative, and of conclusive character to probably change result on retrial)
- People v. Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d 444 (2002) (describes exception to successive-petition bar for cause-and-prejudice and actual-innocence claims)