911 N.W.2d 77
Wis.2018Background
- In 2007 a jury convicted David McAlister of attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon based primarily on testimony from accomplices Nathan Jefferson and Alphonso Waters. Both witnesses had plea agreements and their credibility was aggressively impeached at trial.
- Police obtained statements from Jefferson and Waters implicating McAlister; officers found a .22 handgun at McAlister's residence. Jury instructions cautioned the jury to scrutinize accomplice testimony and consider plea-related bias.
- In 2014 McAlister filed a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion asserting newly discovered evidence: affidavits from three inmates (McPherson, Prince, Shannon) who claim Jefferson or Waters admitted they planned to lie and frame McAlister to secure plea benefits. The affidavits were executed 5½–7 years after the alleged jailhouse conversations.
- The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; the court of appeals affirmed. McAlister sought Supreme Court review.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the affidavits qualified as newly discovered evidence sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing, focusing on whether the affidavits were merely cumulative and whether recantation-type corroboration was required and satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McAlister's new affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence entitling him to an evidentiary hearing | Affidavits from three inmates show Jefferson and Waters admitted they planned to lie and frame McAlister, which if true creates a reasonable probability of a different result | Affidavits are only cumulative impeachment of witnesses whose bias and plea deals were already aired at trial; they lack new corroboration and are unreliable | Held: Affidavits are cumulative and insufficient; no hearing required |
| Whether recantation‑type proof requires corroboration and whether it is present here | McAlister contends the affidavits (though not formal sworn recantations by the testifying witnesses) are new evidence that corroborate each other and show a conspiracy to frame him | State argues and court finds that recantation‑style allegations demand corroboration: motive and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, which are absent here | Held: Corroboration required; neither newly discovered motive nor circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness are shown |
| Whether the delay between trial and the affidavits undermines their trustworthiness | McAlister argues delay does not defeat the affidavits; they are still probative of a conspiracy to lie | State and court note 5½–7 year delay, inmates’ jailhouse context, and incentives (e.g., life‑sentenced affiants) make statements suspicious | Held: Delay and context weigh against trustworthiness; affidavits not sufficiently corroborated |
| Standard for granting evidentiary hearing on § 974.06 newly discovered evidence claim | McAlister urges acceptance of alleged facts as true for hearing threshold (cites Love) | State contends cumulativeness and lack of corroboration permit denial without hearing; court applies legal test and discretion | Held: Court applies Avery/McCallum standards and affirms denial; factual assertions not enough when evidence is cumulative/untrustworthy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Avery, 345 Wis. 2d 407 (2013) (sets the four‑part test for newly discovered evidence and the reasonable‑probability standard)
- State v. Allen, 274 Wis. 2d 568 (2004) (procedural rule on facial sufficiency of postconviction motions and hearing threshold)
- State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463 (1997) (recantation evidence is inherently unreliable; requires corroboration: motive plus circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness)
- State v. Love, 284 Wis. 2d 111 (2005) (accept alleged facts as true at hearing‑threshold stage; remand for evidentiary hearing where reasonable probability exists)
- Zillmer v. State, 39 Wis. 2d 607 (1968) (new trial on perjury/recantation requires corroboration)
- State v. Thiel, 264 Wis. 2d 571 (2003) (discussion of cumulative evidence principle)
- United States v. Walker, 25 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 1994) (jailhouse recantations/statements are highly suspicious)
- United States v. Champion, 813 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1987) (new evidence that merely attacks credibility already tested at trial is cumulative)