2023 IL App (1st) 220148
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Late night April 9–10, 1986: Wayne Millighan and others entered a south Chicago liquor/grocery store; during the robbery one employee was fatally shot.
- Three surviving employees, speaking through the best English-speaker, described the shooter as a Black male ~5'9", wore an earring; the defendant matched that description and was arrested the following day across the street from the store wearing a left-ear earring.
- At trial (1989) the State relied primarily on the store employees’ photo-array and lineup identifications and a presumptive blood test on the defendant’s shoe; no conclusive physical evidence linked the defendant and a shoeprint at the scene did not match his shoes. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to life.
- The defendant repeatedly pursued postconviction relief over decades; after leave to file a successive petition, he filed in 2019 alleging (1) actual innocence based on a new affidavit from codefendant Millighan saying Howard Reed was the shooter and the defendant was not involved, plus other claims the defendant later abandoned.
- The circuit court dismissed the successive petition at second stage, reasoning Millighan’s affidavit was contradicted by Millighan’s own trial testimony; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the postconviction court erred by consulting another proceeding’s record and that Millighan’s affidavit otherwise satisfies the newly discovered evidence standard and must advance to a third-stage evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Millighan’s post-trial affidavit is newly discovered evidence of actual innocence sufficient to advance the petition | The affidavit is insufficient and, in any event, is rebutted by Millighan’s prior sworn trial testimony | The affidavit is newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and sufficiently conclusive to probably change the result on retrial | The affidavit qualifies as newly discovered, material, noncumulative, and of conclusive character at this stage; petition must proceed to third-stage evidentiary hearing |
| Whether a postconviction court may use the record of another proceeding (Millighan’s trial) to positively rebut new evidence | The circuit court relied on Millighan’s trial record to reject the affidavit | The court may not rely on another defendant’s trial record to rebut the affidavit in the postconviction proceeding | The appellate court held a postconviction court may not consider records of proceedings not involving the petitioner; it may only consult the petitioner’s own trial record |
| Whether the identification evidence at trial positively rebuts Millighan’s affidavit | State argued identifications and trial evidence undermine affidavit’s conclusiveness | Defendant argued identifications are weak/tainted and, given limited forensic proof, Millighan’s affidavit would likely change the result | The identifications do not positively rebut the affidavit at second stage; given the limited trial evidence, the affidavit undermines confidence in the verdict |
| Whether the court should decide admissibility/role of other evidence (serology, expert ID testimony) at this stage | State asked the court to rule those items aren’t newly discovered or admissible | Defendant relied on Millighan’s affidavit as the basis for actual-innocence claim | Appellate court declined to rule on admissibility of additional evidence and remanded for third-stage proceedings to address evidentiary questions below |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (Clarifies second-stage standard; courts may only consult the petitioner’s own trial record to positively rebut postconviction allegations)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (Defines newly discovered evidence standard for actual-innocence claims)
- People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128 (Holds self-inculpatory affidavits from codefendants can be newly discovered evidence)
- People v. Robinson, 2020 IL 123849 (Explains that new evidence must place trial evidence in a different light and undermine confidence in the verdict)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (Government duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; referenced in petition context)