People v. Robinson
2020 IL 123849
| Ill. | 2020Background
- Robinson was convicted (natural life + additional terms) of Nicole Giles’s 1997 murder largely based on a 70‑page court‑reported confession and testimony from three state witnesses; no physical evidence directly tied him to the killing.
- Years later Robinson sought leave to file a successive postconviction petition asserting actual innocence based on newly discovered affidavits from three uninvolved witnesses (Mamon, Shaw, Hunt‑Bey) and his own affidavit/alibi.
- Lower courts denied leave: they found Robinson’s own affidavit not newly discovered and concluded the three third‑party affidavits merely conflicted with trial evidence and were not sufficiently conclusive to probably change the result.
- Robinson appealed; the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether the leave‑to‑file standard had been properly applied and whether the supporting affidavits met the conclusive‑character element for actual innocence.
- The Supreme Court reversed: it rejected a requirement of total vindication, clarified how to treat new evidence that conflicts with trial evidence (accept well‑pleaded allegations as true unless positively rebutted by the record), held hearsay may be considered at postconviction stages under the evidentiary‑rules exemption, and remanded for second‑stage proceedings because the affidavits could probably lead to a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for denial of leave to file successive petition | De novo review is appropriate for legal sufficiency. | Opposed to de novo? (urged courts to apply Edwards as controlling) | Court holds denial of leave to file such petitions is reviewed de novo. |
| Standard to obtain leave to file a successive petition alleging actual innocence | New evidence need not totally exonerate; at leave stage accept well‑pleaded allegations unless affirmatively impossible and ask whether, if believed and not positively rebutted by the record, they could lead to acquittal. | Urged application of Edwards/Schlup “more likely than not no reasonable juror” framing and treated contradictory trial evidence as fatal. | Majority: clarify standard — well‑pleaded new evidence is accepted as true unless positively rebutted by the record; if such evidence, when credited, could probably change the result, leave should be granted. (Court granted leave.) |
| Whether hearsay affidavits may be considered at postconviction leave stage | Affidavits containing hearsay (e.g., third‑party confession statements) may be considered because Illinois evidence rules were amended to exclude postconviction hearings. | Argued such hearsay would be inadmissible at retrial and thus cannot support actual‑innocence claim. | Court: Rule 1101(b)(3) makes rules of evidence inapplicable to postconviction hearings; hearsay in affidavits may be considered at leave stage (admissibility/trustworthiness assessed later). |
| Whether the three new affidavits meet conclusive‑character element | Affiants place Tucker (not Robinson) at the scene, describe disposal of the rifle, and report Tucker’s confession — together they could exculpate Robinson. | Affidavits merely conflict with the confession and other trial testimony, are incomplete, and not conclusive. | Court: accepting affidavits as true and not positively rebutted by record, they are sufficiently conclusive to probably change the result on retrial; leave to file successive petition granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Edwards, 2012 IL 111711 (adopted standard for leave to file successive postconviction petition alleging actual innocence)
- People v. Sanders, 2016 IL 118123 (explained higher substantial‑showing burden at second stage; credibility determinations reserved for evidentiary hearing)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (federal standard describing probability threshold for actual‑innocence gateway)
- People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366 (take well‑pleaded allegations as true at pleadings stage; limit credibility findings)
- People v. Ortiz, 235 Ill. 2d 319 (conclusive‑character inquiry: evidence identifying different offender significant)
- People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475 (conclusive‑character is the most important element for actual‑innocence claims)
- People v. Savory, 197 Ill. 2d 203 (rejects total‑vindication requirement; material evidence need only significantly advance innocence claim)
- People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148 (discusses "conclusive character" requirement)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (confession is unusually probative and damaging evidence)