Evans v. Jones, 19-3466
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-3466,19-3466 |
| Parties | Julius EVANS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Alex JONES, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Mark E. Schneider, Attorney, Cole Carter, Attorney, Anne Salomon, Attorney, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner - Appellee.
Erin O'Connell, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Respondent - Appellant.
Before Ripple, Brennan, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
An Illinois jury convicted Julius Evans of the first-degree murder of Moatice Williams, who was killed in a drive-by shooting in Chicago. Only one eyewitness—Andrew Jeffers—connected Evans to the shooting. Jeffers's account of the shooting dramatically changed over time. Jeffers initially only provided a few general identifying details of the shooter, and did not specifically identify any of the shooters. Eleven months later, however, the police approached him while he was incarcerated and Jeffers then identified Evans as the shooter. Then, at trial, Jeffers recanted that identification: he testified that he did not see the identity of the shooter but had identified Evans because the police told him to.
During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that Jeffers's trial testimony—that he did not see Evans shoot Williams—was false and the jury should disbelieve it because Jeffers only changed his story after being paid a visit by a defense investigator working for Evans's co-defendant, Mario Young, who was a known gang member. Evans appealed his conviction, asserting that the prosecutor's statements during closing argument deprived him of his right to a fair trial. He contended that the prosecutor's statements were improper because there was insufficient evidence in the record to support them, and that they were prejudicial because Jeffers's credibility was of the utmost importance given the lack of other evidence against Evans. The state appellate court concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the prosecutor's statements during closing argument, and so they were not improper.
Evans unsuccessfully petitioned the state court for post-conviction relief. He then filed a habeas petition in federal court, which the district court granted. Upon a close examination of the record and giving deference to the state appellate court's findings, we find that the state appellate court's determination that the prosecutor's statements were proper was objectively unreasonable. While we "do not lightly grant petitions for a writ of habeas corpus brought by state prisoners," Cook v. Foster , 948 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2020), we agree with the district court that the facts of this case compel the conclusion that Evans was deprived of his right to a fair trial and he is entitled to relief. We therefore affirm.
On the evening of August 23, 1996, someone inside a vehicle opened fire on West Washington Street in Chicago. The bullets hit and instantly killed Moatice Williams, who had been sitting on his bicycle on the sidewalk. After arriving on the scene, Chicago Police Officer James Cianella interviewed two individuals who had witnessed the crime: Margaret Winton and Andrew Jeffers. Police did not identify any additional witnesses.
Winton told Officer Cianella that she had been selling goods across the street from Williams. Right before the shooting, she had observed Jeffers and a man named John "pitching quarters"—trying to see who could get the quarters closest to the line on the sidewalk—two or three feet from Williams. She then saw a gray car with tinted windows drive down the street, turn around the block, then proceed for a second time down West Washington Street. Someone then fired seventeen or eighteen gunshots from the front passenger-side window. Winton saw three men in the car (including the shooter) but did not see their faces and could not identify them.
Jeffers told Officer Cianella that he saw the vehicle stop and fire shots, and then drive east. There were three black men in the car, one of whom was wearing a white t-shirt. He did not provide any other identifying information.
Eleven months later—in July 1997—two Chicago Police Department "Cold Case Squad" detectives visited Jeffers in prison to get his recollection of the shooting. Jeffers was serving a prison sentence for an unrelated drug offense at the time. At trial, the detectives testified that during this visit they showed Jeffers a six-person photo array and asked whether he recognized any of the individuals from the night of the shooting. By that stage of the investigation, the detectives had identified three primary suspects: Evans, Mario Young, and Royce Grant. Their photographs made up three of the six photos in the array. The detectives testified that Jeffers identified Evans and Young—Evans as the shooter and Young as the front seat passenger in the vehicle. Jeffers initialed the backs of the photographs of Evans and Young to certify having identified them.
Three months later, the detectives paid Jeffers another visit—this time, to a boot camp where Jeffers was serving the remainder of his prison sentence. Assistant State's Attorney Lorraine Scaduto accompanied. At trial, Scaduto testified that she showed Jeffers two photographs, one of Evans and one of Young. According to Scaduto, Jeffers again identified Evans as the shooter and Young as the vehicle's front passenger. Scaduto asked Jeffers to describe the events of the shooting and requested permission to transcribe his recollection into a written statement. Jeffers agreed.
According to Jeffers's written statement, on the night of the shooting he was pitching quarters with John across the street from where he lived on West Washington Street. The victim sat on his bicycle watching the game. Jeffers "bent down to pick up some quarters" and heard "four or five gunshots." He looked up and "saw a gray Oldsmobile Cutlass, two-door" driving slowly down the street. Jeffers saw three men in the car: one man was driving, another was leaning forward in the front passenger seat, so that the third man could reach over him and shoot toward the street from the front passenger window. The next day, Jeffers was pitching quarters with John again in the same location. Evans and Young—whom he recognized from the Oldsmobile Cutlass the day before—drove up in a different car. Evans apologized to John for having shot at him the day before, explaining that they mistakenly thought they were shooting at members of a rival gang. Jeffers signed the statement to certify that he had given the statement "freely and voluntarily and that no threats or promises were made to him in exchange for his statement."
The police arrested Evans, Young, and Grant on November 14, 1997. A few weeks later, the detectives called upon Jeffers to identify Evans and Young from an in-person lineup. Jeffers had been released from boot camp and was serving the remainder of his sentence on house arrest. At trial, a detective testified that Jeffers was shown a six-person lineup consisting of Evans, Grant, Young, and three non-suspects. The detective testified that Jeffers again identified Evans as the shooter and Young as the man sitting in the front seat.
Jeffers met with Assistant State's Attorney Ann Lorenz later that day. Lorenz asked Jeffers to tell her what he had witnessed in relation to the shooting. According to Lorenz, Jeffers recounted a version of events consistent with his written statement. Lorenz testified that she showed Jeffers two photographs, one of Evans and one of Young. Jeffers confirmed to Lorenz that those were the men he saw in the Oldsmobile the night Williams was murdered. Jeffers then testified before a grand jury that same day. His testimony was consistent with his handwritten statement.
At Evans's trial in June 2000, Jeffers recounted a much different version of what had happened. Despite the accounts he gave during the investigation nearly three years prior, Jeffers testified at trial that although he was pitching quarters on West Washington Street at the time of the murder, he did not actually see the shooting. Instead, as soon as he heard gun shots, he ducked and did not look up again until after the firing stopped. He testified that he did not know the shots had been fired from a passing car, he did not see the car, and he certainly did not see who shot and killed Williams.
The prosecutor pressed Jeffers about the statements he gave the detectives and identifications he made of Evans and Young. Jeffers testified initially that he never identified photographs of Evans and Young, never signed a handwritten statement of his account of the shooting, and never met with Assistant State's Attorney Lorenz. Jeffers testified that he had never seen Evans before the trial.
Eventually, Jeffers admitted identifying Evans and Young from the lineup, but only because the detectives told him to, not because he recognized them from the night of the shooting. According to Jeffers, the detectives told him to "stick with the story, tell the story," but Jeffers did not elaborate further on the "story" he was told to "stick with." Jeffers testified that the story of what he saw was simple, he: Jeffers testified that any other details attributed to his story were made up by the detectives—"[t]hey added all that stuff on."
On cross-examination, Jeffers testified that he was not being given anything in exchange for his trial testimony, nor had anyone threatened him to testify a certain way. Jeffers testified again on redirect examination that no one threatened or intimidated him with respect to his trial testimony:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Aker v. Fletcher
- Aker v. Fletcher
- United States v. Owens
-
Griffin v. Truitt
... ... the evidence. See Evans v. Jones , 996 F.3d 766, 775 ... (7th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Waldemer , ... ...
-
Review Proceedings
...defendant’s Confrontation Clause argument because confrontation right violated by admittance of redacted testimony); Evans v. Jones, 996 F.3d 766, 779 (7th Cir. 2021) (state court unreasonable in determining defendant’s due process rights not violated by prosecutor misstating evidence durin......
-
Trials
...Cir. 2009) (prosecutor’s closing statement suggesting defendant left-handed improper because not supported by evidence); Evans v. Jones, 996 F.3d 766, 775, 777 (7th Cir. 2021) (prosecutor’s closing statement referencing prosecution witness intimidated by co-defendant improper because not su......