People v. Clinton

2016 IL App (3d) 130737Opinion filed March 29, 2016
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2016
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
) Rock Island County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-13-0737
v. ) Circuit No. 97-CF-89
)
VICTOR CLINTON, ) Honorable
) F. Michael Meersman,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justice Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice McDade specially concurred, with opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION
¶1 A jury found defendant, Victor Clinton, guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-
1(a)(1) (West 1996)). After this court affirmed defendant's conviction on direct appeal (People
v. Clinton, No. 3-97-0902 (1999) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)), defendant
filed a pro se postconviction petition. The petition, which made several claims of perjury before
the grand jury, was advanced to the second stage of postconviction proceedings, and counsel was
appointed. The trial court dismissed the petition at the second stage. On appeal, defendant
argues that the dismissal was in error because his petition made a substantial showing of a
constitutional violation. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 The State charged defendant by indictment with first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-
1(a)(1) (West 1996)). The indictment alleged that on June 10, 1996, defendant hit and kicked
Pamela Strauss, and struck her with an automobile, knowing those acts would cause her death.
After an initial mistrial, the matter proceeded to a second jury trial on June 30, 1997.
¶4 The evidence adduced at trial indicated that Strauss was addicted to crack cocaine. On
the night of June 9, 1996, Tom Groyon—Strauss's boyfriend and the father of her children—
followed her to the Jolly Roger strip club. He saw Strauss leave the club with a black male, and
knew she was procuring drugs from him. Groyon waited for Strauss outside the club for 45
minutes, but she never came back. At approximately 6:30 the next morning, Rock Island police
discovered Strauss lying in the road near a liquor store. She was badly injured and unconscious.
A subsequent autopsy would reveal that Strauss had suffered multiple blunt force traumas,
including a skull fracture, hematoma, rib fractures, and a lacerated liver. The doctor who
performed the autopsy testified that the injuries were consistent with being punched, kicked, and
struck or run over by a car.
¶5 On June 11, 1996, at approximately 1:15 a.m., Davenport police officers observed a
brown Pontiac Phoenix run a stop sign. When the officers pulled the vehicle over, the driver fled
on foot to a nearby house. The officers approached the house and waited for backup. Defendant
then came from behind the house and yelled at the officers. The officers suspected defendant
was the driver of the Pontiac Phoenix; however, because they could not be sure, they impounded
the vehicle. Defendant visited the Davenport police department 11 days later, admitted that he
2
had been driving the Pontiac Phoenix on the morning of June 11, and was issued a ticket for
running the stop sign.
¶6 On June 26, 1996, a Rock Island crime scene investigator examined the brown Pontiac
Phoenix. She collected the front driver's side floor mat from the car. An Illinois State Police
(ISP) forensic biologist received the floor mat, which contained human blood stains. She cut out
some blood stained carpet fibers and also prepared a sample of Strauss's blood. She sent those
items to the DNA laboratory. An ISP forensic scientist in the DNA unit testified that she
compared the two samples and found that the blood on the floor mat matched the DNA in
Strauss's blood.
¶7 Among the State's witnesses was Charles Miceli, who was in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (DOC)—via home monitoring and electronic detention—at the time
of his testimony. Miceli testified that after being convicted of theft and deceptive practices he
was incarcerated at Sheridan Correctional Center, where he was assigned the job of library legal
aide. Miceli testified that defendant—who was serving time in Sheridan Correctional Center for
a separate offense—approached him seeking help with a problem.
¶8 Miceli testified that defendant told him that he met Strauss at the Jolly Roger strip club
and agreed to give her crack cocaine in exchange for sex. They drove to the area of a liquor
store in order to fulfill the deal, but an argument ensued when Strauss refused to escalate beyond
oral sex. A fight broke out when defendant tried to get his crack cocaine back. He kicked and
punched Strauss, and ran her over with his vehicle. Defendant told Miceli that he was inquiring
about DNA because he might have tracked her blood into his car.
¶9 Miceli had a friend contact the Rock Island police, and he contacted the internal affairs
department at Sheridan Correctional Center. He gave a tape-recorded statement to Rock Island
3
detectives Dan Wood and Dave Sullivan in which he related what defendant had told him. He
acknowledged that the State's Attorney had sent a letter to the DOC outlining his cooperation in
the case, but knew that his testimony would not affect his discharge date.
¶ 10 Defendant testified in his own defense. He acknowledged that he met Strauss at the Jolly
Roger strip club and that he agreed to give her crack cocaine in exchange for sex. He testified,
however, that he left before anything happened and that he never harmed Strauss. Defendant
admitted to fleeing from Davenport police and talking to Miceli about a DNA issue. He denied,
however, that he told Miceli he harmed Strauss.
¶ 11 The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to
life imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed defendant's conviction. Clinton, No. 3-97-
0902.
¶ 12 On February 11, 2004, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition. The trial court
subsequently appointed counsel to represent defendant. A series of delays and continuances not
relevant to the issues presented on this appeal caused defendant's petition to remain unresolved
for more than nine years.
¶ 13 On September 19, 2013, defendant's newly appointed attorney filed an amended
postconviction petition. The amended petition contained five claims for relief: that defendant's
due process rights were violated where (1) the State failed to disclose through discovery
promises that it had made to Miceli in exchange for his testimony; (2) perjured testimony given
by Miceli and Wood concerning those promises was used in the procurement of the grand jury's
indictment; (3) perjured testimony given by Wood and assistant State's Attorney David Osborn
concerning defendant's prior conviction in California was used in the procurement of the grand
jury's indictment; and that defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel was violated where
4
trial counsel failed to: (4) object to Miceli's testimony; and (5) move to dismiss the indictment on
the grounds that it was obtained through the use of perjured testimony.
¶ 14 In regard to the claim that Miceli and Wood committed perjury as to Miceli's benefits for
testifying, the amended petition alleged that "both Miceli and Detective Woods [sic] testified that
no promises were made to Miceli and that Miceli would have nothing to gain by testifying
against [defendant] before the grand jury." The amended petition then cited to exhibit D of
defendant's original postconviction petition. Exhibit D was one page of the transcript of Wood's
grand jury testimony. 1 In the transcript, a juror asks Wood if Miceli had anything to gain by
testifying. Wood replies: "No, he didn't and as a matter of fact we asked him what he was
expecting in return and he said nothing."
¶ 15 Defendant also attached to his original postconviction petition a transcript of Miceli's
interview with Wood and Sullivan. In the interview, Miceli was asked if anything was promised
to him in exchange for his statement. He replied: "I've been promised nothing and I ask nothing
other than my home address remains in confidence for purposes of protecting my family." Later,
one of the detectives references Miceli's desire to be placed on home detention, stating: "[T]hat is
evidently bogged down somewhere. I know that you had asked us to find out if there was
something that could be done to speed that up?" Miceli then reiterated that he wanted to be
moved from Sheridan Correctional Center for his own safety.
¶ 16 Defendant alleged in his petition that Miceli, during his interview with Wood and
Sullivan, asked the detectives if they could expedite his request to be released to home
1
Though that page of the grand jury transcript does not refer to the witness by name, the
substance of the testimony makes it clear that the witness must be either Wood or Sullivan. The
State did not contest that the witness speaking was Wood, and does not do so on appeal.
5
monitoring. Defendant further alleged that Miceli was transferred to minimum-security
protective custody the day after providing his statement to detectives, and released on home
monitoring the day after testifying before the grand jury. Defendant claimed in the amended
petition that there was at least an implicit agreement between Miceli and the State, and it was
clear that Miceli did, in fact, have something to gain by testifying. Thus, defendant concluded,
"the testimony of Miceli and Woods [sic] that [Miceli] had nothing to gain by testimony was
false and therefore amounted to perjury."
¶ 17 In regard to the claim that Wood and Osborn committed perjury by referring to a
previous California conviction, the amended petition referenced two exhibits originally attached
to defendant's initial petition. The first exhibit was a certificate of no record from San Bernadino
County, California, in which a custodian of record averred that the county had no criminal record
of defendant. The second exhibit was another excerpt from Wood's grand jury testimony.
During that testimony, Osborn stated:
"According to the computer printout I got in our '96 file he was convicted in 1994
and I think this related to a 1993 arrest for, see how they phrase it, tampering with
a witness, got two years probation.
***
*** He apparently had contact with somebody who was going to be a
witness against him for a prior incident and the two of them got in an argument
and [defendant] ended up following this guy around and then the police arrived
and took [defendant] and a couple other people to jail."
Wood then, apparently, looked at a report, and began reading it to the grand jury: "It indicates
[defendant] had been charged with assault, that he assaulted a person. Says, [defendant] saw the
6
complainant who is a person making this report at a bank and that [defendant], he was chasing
him." Wood, still apparently reading from the report, then described the San Bernadino incident
in more detail. In the amended petition, defendant concluded that the certificate of no record
proved that he had no criminal record in San Bernadino County, thus "showing the statements to
be falsely made and therefore perjured."
¶ 18 The trial court held a hearing on defendant's petition on September 27, 2013. The court
announced that the petition was at the second stage of postconviction proceedings. Following
arguments from the parties, the court dismissed the petition, finding that it did not make a
substantial showing of a constitutional violation.
¶ 19 ANALYSIS
¶ 20 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his amended
postconviction petition where three of the five claims for relief set forth a substantial showing of
a constitutional violation. Specifically, defendant contends that the petition made a substantial
showing (1) that his due process rights were violated where his indictment was procured through
the use of perjured testimony—relating both to Miceli's motivation for testifying and to
defendant's criminal record in California. Relatedly, defendant also contends (2) that the petition
made a substantial showing that his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was
violated where trial counsel failed to move to dismiss the indictment based upon said perjury and
appellate counsel failed to raise that issue on appeal. We find that defendant's amended
postconviction petition did not make a substantial showing of any constitutional violation and
that the trial court, therefore, did not err in dismissing the petition.
¶ 21 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2012)) provides
a method by which a defendant may challenge his conviction or sentence for violations of federal
7
or state constitutional rights. People v. Jones, 211 Ill. 2d 140, 143 (2004). Adjudication of a
petition under the Act follows a three-stage process. Id. At the second stage of postconviction
proceedings, the trial court "must determine whether the petition and any accompanying
documentation make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation." People v. Edwards,
197 Ill. 2d 239, 246 (2001). If the petition does make such a showing, it is advanced to a third-
stage evidentiary hearing; if it does not, the petition is dismissed. Id.¶ 22 At the second stage of proceedings, all well-pleaded facts not positively rebutted by the
trial record are taken as true. People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473 (2006).
"[T]he question is whether those allegations establish or 'show' a constitutional
violation. In other words, the 'substantial showing' of a constitutional violation
that must be made at the second stage [citation] is a measure of the legal
sufficiency of the petition's well-pled allegations of a constitutional violation,
which if proven at an evidentiary hearing, would entitle petitioner to relief."
(Emphasis in original.) People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 35 (quoting
Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d at 246).
Because the question is one of legal sufficiency, we review a trial court's second-stage dismissal
of a postconviction petition de novo. See Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d at 473.
¶ 23 I. Use of Perjured Testimony in Grand Jury Proceedings
¶ 24 An individual commits perjury where, under oath or affirmation, he or she makes a false
statement, material to the issue in question, that he or she does not believe to be true. People v.
Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill. 2d 177, 193-94 (2000). The act of perjury is only committed where the
witness or affiant knows his or her testimony to be false. See 720 ILCS 5/32-2(a) (West 1996)
("A person commits perjury when *** he makes a false statement *** which he does not believe
8
to be true."); see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (1994) ("[Whomever] *** having taken an oath
before a competent tribunal, *** willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any
material matter which he does not believe to be true *** is guilty of perjury ***."). A
defendant's due process rights may be violated where the State presents known perjured
testimony to the grand jury. People v. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d 239, 257 (1998); see also United
States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757, 759 (2d Cir. 1983) ("Due process considerations prohibit the
government from obtaining an indictment based on known perjured testimony.").
¶ 25 "It is well settled that a charge that the State obtained a conviction by knowing use of
perjured testimony is a constitutional question within the purview of the Act." People v.
Graham, 48 Ill. App. 3d 689, 691 (1977) (citing People v. Gendron, 41 Ill. 2d 518 (1969)).
Because a charge that the State obtained an indictment through the use of perjury at the grand
jury stage also triggers due process concerns (see DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d at 257), it follows that
such a claim is also within the purview of the Act. Our supreme court has held that absent an
allegation that the State knowingly used perjured testimony, a mere claim that witnesses
committed perjury is not sufficient to warrant relief under the Act. People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d
94, 106-07 (1995).
"In the absence of an allegation of the knowing use of false testimony, or at least
some lack of diligence on the part of the State, there has been no involvement by
the State in the false testimony to establish a violation of due process. [Citation.]
Without such involvement, the action of a witness falsely testifying is an action of
a private individual for which there is no remedy under the due process clause."
Id. at 106.
9
With these principles in mind, we examine defendant's individual claims of deprivation of his
due process rights.
¶ 26 A. Perjury Regarding Miceli's Arrangement with the State
¶ 27 Defendant alleged in his petition that both Miceli and Wood testified before the grand
jury that Miceli did not have anything to gain from his testimony in the case. Defendant further
alleged that Miceli did, in fact, have something to gain from his testimony. Thus, defendant
concludes, Miceli and Wood perjured themselves in violation of his due process rights. We
disagree.
¶ 28 At the outset, we note that defendant attached an excerpt from the transcript of Wood's
grand jury testimony, but not of Miceli's grand jury testimony. Thus, defendant has alleged that
Miceli committed perjury, but has provided no record of what Miceli actually testified to.
Though we appreciate the likely difficulties in obtaining grand jury transcripts, defendant's
failure is particularly perplexing given that his other exhibits show that he did have access to at
least some grand jury transcripts. Under the Act, a postconviction petition "shall have attached
thereto affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its allegations or shall state why the
same are not attached." 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2012). Not only did defendant fail to attach
any support for his allegation that Miceli committed perjury, but he failed to provide any
explanation for that failure.
¶ 29 Defendant's petition suffers from a number of other fatal flaws as well. For example,
defendant failed to allege that the State knew Miceli's and Wood's testimony to be false. Our
supreme court has held that the failure to make this allegation renders a postconviction petition
insufficient. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d at 106. Moreover, defendant failed to allege that Wood knew his
testimony to be false. In other words, Wood may have been unaware of any machinations
10
between the State and the DOC, and may have believed that Miceli truly had nothing to gain.
Without an allegation that Wood knew his testimony to be false, defendant failed to allege
perjury. See Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill. 2d at 193-94.
¶ 30 It is possible, of course, to infer or assume a number of facts that defendant failed to
allege. We could infer that Wood had found out about the State's dealings with the DOC, and
thus knew his testimony to be false. We might also assume that the assistant State's Attorney
who questioned Wood 2 and Miceli in the grand jury proceedings was also aware of an
arrangement, and thus aware that they were committing perjury. However, were we to begin
piling inference upon assumption, the second stage of postconviction proceedings would become
indistinguishable from the first stage, at which a defendant must only plead the "gist" of a
constitutional deprivation. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Edwards, 197 Ill. 2d at 244.
¶ 31 A postconviction petition is dismissed at the first stage of proceedings "only if the
allegations in the petition, taken as true and liberally construed, fail to present the 'gist of a
constitutional claim.' " Id. (quoting People v. Gaultney, 174 Ill. 2d 410, 418 (1996)). The "gist"
standard is a low threshold, in part because the initial petition is filed without the assistance of
counsel. See id.; see also People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 8-11 (2009). Though the second stage
must logically present a higher hurdle for a defendant to clear, the threshold remains relatively
low: with the assistance of counsel, the defendant must allege facts which, if proven to be true,
would substantially show that he suffered a constitutional deprivation. Domagala, 2013 IL
2
Though other exhibits showed that Osborn questioned Wood at some point during the
grand jury proceedings regarding defendant's prior criminal record, the excerpt of Wood's
testimony regarding Miceli's motivation for testifying does not indicate who was questioning
him.
11
113688, ¶ 35. Especially in light of the fact that a defendant is provided with the assistance of
counsel at the second stage, we find that it is not the duty of the the court—either circuit or
appellate—to infer necessary facts that the defendant has failed to allege.
¶ 32 Our task at hand is not to determine whether an arrangement actually existed between
Miceli and the State, or to otherwise decide if defendant's allegations have merit. Instead, our
task is simply to determine whether the allegations in defendant's amended postconviction
petition were legally sufficient to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. Even
when all of the facts alleged in defendant's petition are taken as true, the petition fails to make a
showing that defendant's due process rights were violated by the State's knowing use of perjured
testimony.
¶ 33 B. Perjury Regarding Defendant's Prior Criminal Record
¶ 34 Defendant alleged in his petition that Wood and Osborn "instructed the grand jury" that
defendant had a prior conviction for witness tampering in San Bernadino County, California.
Defendant attached to his petition a certificate of no record, which indicated that he had no prior
convictions in that county. Thus, defendant contends, his indictment was obtained through the
perjured testimony of Wood and Osborn 3, in violation of his due process rights. For reasons
similar to those set forth above, we find that defendant failed to make a substantial showing of a
constitutional violation.
3
With respect to Osborn—the assistant State's Attorney questioning Wood in the portion
of the grand jury proceedings excerpted by defendant—defendant did not allege that Osborn was
under oath when discussing the San Bernadino conviction. See Pawlaczyk, 189 Ill. 2d at 193(holding "oath or affirmation" to be an element of perjury (internal quotation marks omitted)).
12
¶ 35 It is clear from the transcript attached by defendant that Wood and Osborn were reading
from and referencing a report or computer printout when discussing defendant's purported
conviction for witness tampering. While the certificate of no record shows that the information
contained in that report—and thus Wood's testimony—was incorrect, it does not show that Wood
committed perjury. Defendant has not alleged Wood knew the report to be incorrect when he
read from it and referenced it before the grand jury. Likewise, defendant has not alleged that the
State knew the report to be incorrect, or knew that Wood was testifying falsely. Absent such
allegations, defendant's petition is legally insufficient in making a showing that his constitutional
rights were violated.
¶ 36 We would take this opportunity to note, however, that our decision here does not close all
avenues of potential relief for defendant with respect to the present claims. Section 2-1401 of
the Code of Civil Procedure provides a basis for obtaining relief from judgments based on false
testimony. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2012); see also Brown, 169 Ill. 2d at 107-08. In Brown,
our supreme court pointed out that a remedy under section 2-1401 does not require a defendant
"to establish a constitutional violation or, in the case of false testimony, that the false testimony
was knowingly used by the prosecution." Brown, 169 Ill. 2d at 107. Defendant here has failed
to allege that the testimony of Wood, Miceli, and Osborn was knowingly false and that the
prosecution knowingly used that false testimony—two necessary elements for a showing of a
constitutional violation. However, a defendant is not required to plead those elements under
section 2-1401.
¶ 37 II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶ 38 Defendant furthers contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective
assistance of counsel, with respect to both trial and appellate counsel. Specifically, defendant
13
argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the indictment based upon
the perjured testimony discussed earlier. Similarly, he contends that appellate counsel was
ineffective for failure to raise that issue on direct appeal. Because the facts alleged in defendant's
postconviction petition show that any perjury-based argument would have been fruitless, we find
that the petition was legally insufficient in making a substantial showing of ineffective assistance
of counsel.
¶ 39 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that
counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-87 (1984). In so doing, a
defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction of
counsel was the product of sound trial strategy and not of incompetence. People v. Coleman,
183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998). It is not constitutionally deficient for trial counsel to decline to bring
a fruitless motion. People v. Armstrong, 244 Ill. App. 3d 545, 554 (1993); People v. Bosek, 210
Ill. App. 3d 573, 600-01 (1991). Similarly, "[a]ppellate counsel is not obligated to raise 'every
conceivable issue on appeal,' but rather is expected to 'exercise professional judgment to select
from the many potential claims of error that might be asserted on appeal.' " People v. English,
2013 IL 112890, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Williams, 209 Ill. 2d 227, 243 (2004)).
¶ 40 On appeal, defendant agrees that his claim of ineffectiveness of trial and appellate
counsel are necessarily tied to the merits of his substantive claims. That is, defendant insists that
"if [he] were able to prove the above-outlined factual allegations at an evidentiary hearing, it
would be apparent that his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a
motion to dismiss the indictment." However, we have already found defendant's factual
allegations failed to make a showing of perjury. If each of defendant's factual allegations were
14
proven true, a motion to dismiss the indictment based on perjury would still have been denied.
Likewise, such an argument on appeal would fail. Because it is not constitutionally deficient for
trial or appellate counsel to put fruitless arguments before the court, defendant's postconviction
petition is legally insufficient in making a showing that defendant was deprived of his
constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
¶ 41 CONCLUSION
¶ 42 The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.
¶ 43 Affirmed.
¶ 44 JUSTICE McDADE, specially concurring.
¶ 45 The majority has affirmed the second stage dismissal of defendant Victor Clinton’s
postconviction petition on a finding that the petition failed to make a substantial showing of a
constitutional violation. Because I believe the decision to be consistent with existing case law, I
concur in the judgment.
¶ 46 I write separately to express my concern that, despite the legal correctness of our
decision, there appear to be omissions in the testimony that create significant doubt, at least in
my mind, about the objectivity and truthfulness of a key witness for the State and about the
justification for allowing him to testify.
¶ 47 At trial, the strongest evidence against the defendant was the testimony of Charles Miceli,
who was a fellow inmate at Sheridan Correctional Center at the time of Clinton’s alleged
admissions to him. His damning testimony has been recounted in the opinion. As also recited in
the majority opinion, Miceli “acknowledged that the State’s Attorney had sent a letter to the
Department of Corrections outlining his cooperation in the case, but knew that his testimony
would not affect his discharge date.” (Emphases added.) Supra, ¶ 10. I could find nothing in
15
the record to show that Miceli’s actual testimony was affirmatively untruthful--his cooperation
did not, in fact, affect his discharge date.
¶ 48 But Miceli’s fear, as shown by his testimony (Supra ¶ 15), did not require a change in his
discharge date for relief. He was afraid for his safety at Sheridan. Assuaging that fear could be
achieved simply by a change in placement—a change he requested and was granted
incrementally in intriguing juxtaposition with the steps of his cooperation with the police and
prosecution.
¶ 49 In his postconviction petition, Clinton has made the following assertions pertinent to
Miceli’s incentive to testify, allegedly falsely, against him:
1. Miceli had made a written request to the DOC reporting his fear
for his continued safety and seeking to be placed on home
detention.
2. In the transcript of Miceli’s interview with Detectives Wood
and Sullivan, one of the detectives indicates they are aware that the
request exists, is pending and is “evidently bogged down
somewhere.”
3. That same detective confirms in the transcript that Miceli has
asked them “to find out if there was something that could be done
to speed that up.”
4. Miceli then confirmed, again in that same transcript, that he
wanted to be moved from Sheridan for his own safety.
16
5. In Miceli’s sworn testimony at Clinton’s trial he testified that
the State’s Attorney documented his cooperation in the prosecution
of Clinton in a letter to the DOC.
6. Clinton alleged that the day after the interview with Wood and
Sullivan, Miceli was transferred to minimum security protective
custody and the day after his grand jury testimony, Miceli was
placed on home monitoring. Because this is a second-stage
proceeding, absent positive rebuttal in the record, these allegations
must be taken as true. People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 473
(2006).
7. In his sworn testimony at trial, Miceli confirmed that at the time
he was testifying he was in the custody of the DOC by way of
home monitoring and electronic detection.
8. As shown by the transcript page submitted by the defendant,
Wood testified to the grand jury—in response to a direct question
from a juror—that Miceli had nothing to gain and that Miceli had
assured the detectives that he was expecting nothing in return—
testimony that certainly appears to be belied by the interview
transcript.
9. As the Opinion correctly observes, Clinton did not provide any
documentation from the transcript of the grand jury proceedings or
elsewhere to show that Miceli made similar representations in his
grand jury testimony.
17
10. Miceli did, however, testify at Clinton’s trial that his testimony
would have no impact on his discharge date despite knowing full
well that he had, in fact, requested and received expedited
placement to home monitoring, removing him from the DOC
facility even though he was not actually discharged from DOC
custody.
¶ 50 Clinton has presented enough documented and deemed facts to support a very reasonable
inference that witnesses lied, actively or by omission of critical information, in securing both his
indictment and his conviction. Moreover, the perjury deprived the jurors in both venues of
information critical to an assessment of what weight, if any, to give Miceli’s testimony. At least
one grand juror indicated by a direct question that whether or not Miceli benefited from
testifying was relevant. I believe there are sufficient facts for a reasonable conclusion that
witnesses lied before the grand jury and at trial to lend greater credence to Miceli’s testimony.
¶ 51 The supreme court has, however, held that, in a postconviction proceeding, securing a
conviction, and presumably an indictment, on perjured testimony only rises to a constitutional
violation if the petitioner can show that the prosecutor actually knew the testimony he was
presenting was false. People v. Brown, 169 Ill. 2d 94, 106-07 (1995). The only fact available in
the record even suggesting the requisite knowledge is Miceli’s sworn acknowledgement at trial
that the state’s attorney sent a letter to the DOC documenting his cooperation in Clinton’s
prosecution.
¶ 52 This case demonstrates how easily a defendant's ability to make the requisite showing can
be hindered or thwarted—by artful formulation of questions and answers, by requiring proof of
the prosecutor's knowledge where communication between him/her and the police is unfettered
18
and frequently undocumented. Given enough time and resources, a defendant might be able to
craft an argument based on a statistical incidence of the release from a DOC facility to home
detention for prisoners who only fear physical harm as opposed to the number who sustain actual
and serious harm and are denied release. But even that would likely be rejected as mere
speculative extrapolation from general data to support a claim of wrong-doing in a specific case.
¶ 53 There is no way to know what the jurors in either venue would have done had they
known Miceli's testimony had essentially been purchased. Although the State evidently did not
believe so, the jurors may have decided there was sufficient evidence of Clinton's guilt without
Miceli; they may have given credence to Miceli's testimony but accorded it reduced weight; or
they might have discounted it and also found the other evidence insufficient to prove guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt..
¶ 54 Because it appears to me that both Wood (before the grand jury) and Miceli (at trial) were
untruthful in their sworn testimony as set out above, but because Clinton has failed to prove the
prosecutor had knowledge of any perjury when presenting the testimony to the grand jury and at
trial, any such perjury cannot serve as the foundation for Clinton's postconviction petition.
¶ 55 I find no basis for substantive disagreement with the majority on the remaining two issues
raised by Clinton in this appeal. I, therefore, concur with the decision of the majority to affirm
the second stage dismissal of Clinton's postconviction petition.
19