Sanders v. Miles
| Decision Date | 31 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-CV-07121,18-CV-07121 |
| Parties | MICHAEL SANDERS, Petitioner, v. SHERWIN MILES, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Michael Sanders's two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus per 22 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Sanders is currently serving a life sentence as a result of two convictions for first-degree murder under accountability for the deaths of Keary Gagnier and Mercedes Ares. Reply to Resp't's Answer to Pets. for Writs of Habeas Corpus 1, ECF No. 27. The two petitions, which are consolidated for purposes of this opinion, each state three grounds for relief. For the reasons detailed below, both of the petitions are denied.
With the notable exception of whether Mr. Sanders was present, the key details surrounding the gruesome deaths of Ms. Gagnier and Ms. Ares are uncontested. Ronald Hinton, a longtime friend of the petitioner, confessed to breaking into Ms. Gagnier's apartment in August 1998, raping her, murdering her by strangulation, and burglarizing her home. Answer to Pets. for Writs of Habeas Corpus 1, ECF No. 20. Police struggled to identify any suspects for the crime largely because Mr. Hinton did not know Ms. Gagnier; he had chosen her apartment because a backdoor had been left open and he needed money to purchase drugs and alcohol. Id. at 2. Six months later, Ms. Ares, another woman unknown to Mr. Hinton, was murdered in her apartment in a very similar fashion. Id. at 3-4.
In the week following Ms. Ares's murder, her stolen ATM card was used several times. Id. at 2. Chicago Police obtained video and photographic surveillance of two men using the card to make withdrawals. Id. After publishing the videos and photographs in the media, Mr. Hinton's daughter's mother, as well as his daughter's teacher, contacted the police to inform them that Mr. Hinton and Mr. Sanders were the two men pictured in the surveillance footage. Id. The two suspects were arrested together shortly thereafter and taken in for questioning, with Mr. Sanders wearing the same black jacket at the time of arrest that he was pictured wearing in the footage. Id. at 4. During his interrogation, Mr. Hinton admitted that he had raped and strangled both victims; DNA evidence taken from both women later corroborated his confession. Id. at 2. Mr. Hinton subsequently pleaded guilty to these murders, as well as to a third, and is currently serving three life sentences. Id. He has never wavered in his admission of guilt.
The chief point of disagreement throughout the entirety of these cases has been the role that the petitioner played in the two break-ins. After his arrest and a lengthy interrogation spanning more than 30 hours, Mr. Sanders confessed, in an oral statement transcribed by a court reporter, to helping Mr. Hinton break into both apartments and to searching for valuables while the rapes and murders were taking place. Id. Mr. Hinton's initial written confession also indicated that Mr. Sanders was present for both incidents. There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Sanders to either crime scene.
At the state court trial for Ms. Gagnier's murder, Mr. Hinton testified against the petitioner and, consistent with his written confession, indicated that Mr. Sanders was a participant in the burglary and was present at the apartment at the time of the rape and murder. Id. The only facts relating to Ms. Ares's murder, which was referred to during trial as an "unrelated incident," that were allowed to be presented were the details relating to Mr. Hinton and Mr. Sanders's arrestfollowing use of the stolen ATM card. The jury convicted Mr. Sanders of first-degree murder in the Gagnier case and he was sentenced to life in prison. Id. at 3.
At a suppression hearing held in the proceedings relating to Ms. Ares's murder, the trial court declined to quash Mr. Sanders's arrest for lack of probable cause and declined to suppress his confession, which Mr. Sanders alleged had been coerced through physical abuse. Id. at 7. The petitioner later unsuccessfully moved to reopen the suppression hearing so that (among other reasons) he could introduce evidence of misconduct committed in other cases by the interrogating officers. Id. at 6. At the state court trial for Ms. Ares's murder, a jury convicted Mr. Sanders of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to 60 years confinement. Id. at 4. Mr. Sanders appealed both convictions unsuccessfully and the Illinois Supreme Court denied both of his subsequent petitions for leave to appeal. Id. at 3-5.
Mr. Sanders also petitioned for post-conviction relief in both cases. The trial court conducted a consolidated evidentiary hearing. Although both of Mr. Sanders's post-conviction petitions contained a variety of allegations, all claims were dismissed before the hearing save for his two claims of actual innocence. Id. at 6. The petitioner largely based his actual innocence claims on Mr. Hinton's recantation of his confession and trial testimony implicating Sanders. Id. at 6. Mr. Sanders submitted an affidavit from Hinton stating that he had falsely testified at trial against his friend because his defense attorney had told him that his plea agreement could be revoked if he did not implicate Mr. Sanders. In truth, Mr. Hinton claimed, Mr. Sanders was not present at either crime and was entirely innocent of the murder charges.
At the hearing, Mr. Hinton testified that he had indeed lied on the stand during the trial but provided a different reason for his deception and claimed that it was an act of vengeance against Mr. Sanders, who had broken his trust by revealing details of the crimes to others. Id. at 22. Mr.Hinton admitted that his previous explanation in his affidavit for his false trial testimony was a fabrication, as he had neither an attorney nor a plea agreement. Id. His testimony at the hearing was, however, consistent with his affidavit in that he claimed that Mr. Sanders was not at either apartment. Id. at 21. Both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hinton also testified that their confessions had been coerced. Id. The court also heard testimony from Dana Stevens, a minister who recounted that Mr. Hinton had told him around the time of his arrest that Mr. Sanders was innocent. Reply to Resp't's Answer to Pets. for Writs of Habeas Corpus 6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court declined to find Hinton's recantation credible and rejected the petitioner's claims that his written confessions had been coerced. Answer to Pets. for Writs of Habeas Corpus 22.
Before the Court now are Mr. Sanders's petitions for a writ of habeas corpus as to each of his convictions. With respect to the Gagnier murder conviction, the petitioner brings three claims: (1) "the cumulative effe[c]t of highly prejudicial non-probative other crimes evidence"; (2) "numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct"; and (3) "newly discovered evidence of innocence" based on Mr. Hinton's affidavit. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 5-6, ECF No. 1 ("Gagnier Pet."). Regarding the Ares murder conviction, Mr. Sanders claims: (1) "[t]he appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence"; (2) "[t]he appellate court erred in affirming the trial[] court's exclusion of evidence of an investigator's bad [a]cts"; and (3) "newly discovered evidence of innocence" based on Mr. Hinton's affidavit. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 5-6, ECF No. 8 ("Ares Pet.").
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2), a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner incarcerated due to a state court judgment only under certain circumstances. The decision must have been either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or "based onan unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). This standard is a deferential one, and habeas corpus petitioners face a difficult burden in showing that a state court judgment was unreasonable. For the reasons detailed below, the petitioner has failed to meet that burden.
The petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas relief in the Gagnier case because of the other crimes evidence introduced at trial, multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered evidence as to his actual innocence. The Court addresses each of these claims in turn.
The petitioner first claims that Gagnier Pet. 5. Because that is the full extent of the claim in the petition, the government argues that Mr. Sanders's claim should be dismissed for factual insufficiency per Habeas Rule 2(c). Because the Court can, by assuming the claim raises the same issues brought forth in the petitioner's state court appeals, adequately assess the claim's merits, it declines to dismiss the other crimes evidence claim based on Rule 2(c).1
In his state court direct appeal, Mr. Sanders argued that his conviction was tainted by the inclusion of three forms of other crimes evidence: (1) the investigation of his use of a stolen ATM card; (2) the circumstances of his arrest; and (3) his involvement in an "unrelated incident," which was never identified during the Gagnier trial as the murder of Ms. Ares. The state appellate courtnoted that while Mr. Sanders's attorney initially objected to the government's pretrial motion in limine to allow these three forms of evidence, counsel subsequently withdrew his objection pursuant to an agreement that limited the scope and use of that evidence. Answer to Pets. for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ex. D at 6. Moreover, defense counsel did not object to the introduction of that evidence at...
To continue reading
Request your trial