People v. Simon
82 N.E.3d 90
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 1999 Alstory Simon pleaded guilty to a 1982 murder and voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms; his convictions were vacated in 2014 and the charges dismissed.
- The convictions arose after Northwestern journalist David Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino conducted an investigation to exonerate Anthony Porter and, according to Simon, fabricated evidence and coerced witnesses to implicate Simon.
- Ciolino allegedly impersonated a police officer, threatened Simon (who was impaired), and obtained a videotaped confession after promising legal help and money; the tape was broadcast and Simon was arrested.
- Key witnesses later recanted their statements, Ciolino admitted coercive tactics, and the State’s Attorney moved to vacate Simon’s convictions in 2014.
- Simon filed a verified petition for a certificate of innocence under 735 ILCS 5/2-702; the trial court found Simon innocent on the first three statutory elements but denied relief, concluding Simon voluntarily caused his conviction and noting no State misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simon) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Ct) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simon voluntarily caused his conviction under 735 ILCS 5/2-702(g)(4) | Simon: he was coerced; court relied on inadmissible/out-of-record materials and he lacked chance to rebut | Trial court: Simon was a willing participant in Protess’s plan; allocution and other statements showed voluntariness | Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing so Simon can confront and rebut the evidence used to find voluntariness |
| Whether absence of State misconduct bars a certificate of innocence or court of claims relief | Simon: State misconduct is not an element of §2-702; lack of State wrongdoing does not preclude certificate | Trial court: suggested certificate (and consequences) require State involvement in wrongful conviction | Court: Trial court erred; State misconduct is not a statutory element for a certificate of innocence; court of claims jurisdiction is a separate issue |
| Proper procedure when State intervenes but does not oppose petition | Simon: court should not rely on evidence not submitted or allow surprise evidence without adversarial testing | Trial court: exercised discretion, weighing evidence and denying petition | Court: Where State does not present evidence, petitioner must be given notice and opportunity to object; remand for hearing |
| Standard of review for statutory interpretation and certificate denial | Simon: statutory elements are controlling; procedural fairness required | State: discretion of trial court to weigh admissibility and probative weight | Court: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; whether to grant certificate is discretionary, but petitioner must be allowed to contest evidence on voluntariness |
Key Cases Cited
- Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 2001) (adversarial proceedings require parties ability to present and contest evidence)
- People v. Hawkins, 181 Ill. 2d 41 (Ill. 1998) (parties must have opportunity to object to evidence and its probative value)