IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ‘ Case No. 11 CR 13172 a Plaintiff, ) ~ ) Judge Dennis Porter ee v ) aS ) 2 WILLIE JOHNSON, ) ) Defendant. ) NOTICE OF MOTION TO: See Attached Certificate of Service PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned shall appear before the Honorable Judge Dennis Porter in Courtroom 606 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois - Criminal Division, located at 2600 South California Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, and shall then and there present the attached Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Instanter in Support of Defendant, a copy of which is served upon you. James I. Kaplan Lauren Beslow Daniel B. Lewin Quares & BRADY LLP (Firm ID 36566) 300 North LaSalle Street Suite 4000 Chicago, Illinois 60654 (312) 715-5000 (312) 715-5155 (fax)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James I. Kaplan, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused the foregoing Notice of Motion, Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Instanter in Support of Defendant, and Brief of Persons Concerned About the Integrity of the Cook County Criminal Justice System as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant, to be served upon: Cook County State's Attorney Criminal Prosecutions Bureau 2650 South California Avenue, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60608 Gabriel Fuentes Andrew Vail Justin Steffer JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Attorneys for Defendant Hon, Judge Dennis Porter Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Criminal Court Division 2600 South California Avenue, Room 606 Chicago, IL 60608 via U.S. Mail, proper first-class postage prepaid, sent on this 15th day of July, 2014, at or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. By: James I. Kaplan Lauren Beslow Daniel B. Lewin Quaries & BRADY LLP (Firm ID 36566) 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, Illinois 60654 (312) 715-5000 (312) 715-5155 (fax)IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Case No. 11 CR 13172 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Dennis Porter v. ) ) WILLIE JOHNSON, ) ) “ Defendant. ) Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae Instanter in Support of Defendant Persons Concerned About the Integrity of the Cook County Criminal Justice System,! Amici Curiae supporting the Defendant, Willie Johnson ("Mr. Johnson"), in the above-captioned matter, by and through their pro bono attorneys, Quarles & Brady LLP, respectfully move this Court for leave to file instanter the attached brief Amicus Curiae on the issue of why perjury charges should not be pursued against recanting witnesses, and in support states: 1. Inorder to file an amicus brief, a party should demonstrate that it has an interest in the matters at issue and explain how an amicus brief will assist the court, Ilinois Supreme Court Rule 345. Amici satisfy these requirements. 2. In this matter, the perjury charges against Mr. Johnson stem from eyewitness testimony Mr. Johnson provided at a 1994 trial and his recantation of that testimony in a 2011 post-conviction proceeding in the same case. Amici firmly believe that the prosecution of Mr. Johnson is contrary to the interests of justice, In the interest of encouraging truthful recantations, a witness who recants allegedly false testimony and offers the truth should not be prosecuted for perjury The individuals that comprise this group are listed on Exhibits A and B to the brief filed herewith,3. There are two groups of Amici. ‘The first group of Amici are well-respected legal professionals involved in various aspects of the criminal justice, government, law, education, social justice and other civil service with an interest in preserving the integrity of the Cook County Criminal Justice System. The second group of Amici are Cook County defendants who were falsely convicted of serious crimes based, in whole or in part, on trial testimony that was eventually recanted. 4, Amici have an interest in this case because the prosecution of this case and any conviction would chill future witness recantations, thereby depriving those who stand convicted of crimes they may not have committed of a fair opportunity to obtain post-conviction relief. Further, Amici have an interest in ensuring that perjury prosecution is applied equally to witne: -s that support the state and witnesses that support the defense, which does not appear to be the case; it appears in certain recent cases that the State is charging witnesses whose recantation is unfavorable to the prosecution more often than pro-State witnesses. 5. Amici’s arguments in support of Mr. Johnson are relevant and will assist the Court because they highlight recent cases that show that truthful recantations are much more common than previously assumed and, therefore, in the interest of Court's goal of truth gathering, the Court should encourage, rather than punish recantations. The brief also provides examples of the state’s uneven application of the perjury statute solely against witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution. 6. Amici will not duplicate documents filed by Mr. Johnson. Amici have a unique perspective that can assist this Court beyond what the parties have done.WHEREFORE, Amici respectfully request that this Court enter an order granting leave to file instanter the attached Brief Amicus Curiae, James I. Kaplan Lauren Beslow Daniel B. Lewin QUARLES & BRADY LLP (Firm ID 36566) 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, Ilinois 60654 (312) 715-5000 (312) 715-5155 (fax) Counsel for Amici CuriaeIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Case No. 11 CR 13172 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Dennis Porter v. ) ) WILLIE JOHNSON, ) ) Defendant, ) Brief of Persons Concerned About the Integrity of the Cook County Criminal Justice System as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant James I. Kaplan Lauren Beslow Daniel B. Lewin Quar.es & Braby LLP (Firm ID 36566) 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, Illinois 60654 (312) 715-5000 (312) 715-5155 (fax) Counsel for Amici CuriaePOINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1, STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE svtntnnntnstnesne 1 IL INTRODUCTION... Frank Main, Former Judges, Bx-Prosecutrs Urge vars to Drop Perjury Case, Chi. Sun-Times, May 5, 2014 «convene send ‘True Bill, People v. Johnson, G-H. No. 230, General No. 11CR-13172, August 18, 2011. sono : : 2 Editorial, Law Shouldn't Discourage the Truth, Chi. Sun-Times, May 6, 2014 . = = Ill. ARGUMENT. A. Recantations Often Are Truthful and, in the Interest of Justice, Should be Encouraged, Rather Than Punished .... hitp:/Awww law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx. Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, Witness Recantation Study: Preliminary Findings (May 2013), available at https:!/www law.umich.edwspecial/exoneration! Documents/RecantationUpdate_5_2013-pdF...... . Shawn Armbrust, Reevaluating Recanting Witnesses: Why the Red-Headed Stepchild of New Evidence Deserves Another Look, 28 B.C. Third World LJ. 75 (2008) Adam Heder & Michael Goldsmith, Recantations Reconsidered: A New Framework For Righting Wrongful Convictions, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 99 .. Sharon Cobb, Comment: Gary Dotson as Victim: The Legal Response to Recanting Testimony, 35 Emory L.J. 969 (1986) GARY DOTSON.. People v. Dotson, 99 Ill, App. 34 117 (Ist Dist. 1981 Rape Conviction Stands: Judge Sends Dotson Back to Prison, Chi. Trib., Apr. 12, 1985.... Editorial, Theater of the Absurd, Chi, Lawyer, June 1985 Can DNA Save Dotson?, Chi. Lawyer, Feb. 1988 |2-Year Legal Nighimare aan End: Recanted Testo, Hg: Tech chp to Clear Gary Dotson, L.A. Times, Aug. 15, 1989. XAVIER CATRON... People v. Catron, 183 Ill. 24 575 (1999)... Man Leaves Prison, Forgives Accuser Who Recanted Story Chi. Trib., Feb. 4, 2000 cts . JAMES KLUPPELBERG. eo 5People v. Kluppelberg, 257 Ill. App. 34 516 (Ist Dist. 1993)... Maurice Possley, James Kluppelberg, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, bp: awamich eulspecilxoneraton Pageslcasedctal aspx? caseid=3908 People v. Kluppelberg, 327 Ill. App. 3d 939 (Ist Dist. 2002)... Freed Prisoner Greets a Changed World: Man Released after Prosecutors Dismiss Deadly 1984 Arson Case, Chi. Trib., June 1, 2012... Man Imprisoned for Nearly 25 Years Certified Innocent: Defendant Says} He Was Coerced into Confession, Will Seek Compensation, Chi. Trib., Aug. 6, 2013 = a DANA HOLLAND... Rob Warden, Dana Holland, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, http://www. law. umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail. aspx ?easeid=3302... Holland v. City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 2011)... ROLANDO CRUZ AND ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ... The DuPage Cover-Up: The Authorities Know Brian Dugan Killed Jeanine Nicarico. They Know They Have Put the Wrong Men on Death Row. They Don’t Care, Chi. Lawyer, May 1986 ‘Thomas Frisbie & Randy Garrett, Victims of Justice Revisited 124 (2008) B. Perjury Charges Are Not Applied Uniformly to Pro-State Witnesses. Frank Main, Former Judges, Ex-Prosecutors Urge Alvarez to Drop Perjury Case, Chi. Sun-Times, May 5, 2014 Complaint, Dkt, No. 1, Sperling v. Village of Glenview No. 14-02787 (N.D. II Filed Apr. 17, 2014).. Klyzek v, City of Chicago, No. 14-cv-03547 (N.D. Ill. Filed May 14, 2014). TV. CONCLUSION. Editorial, Law Shouldn't Discourage the Truth, Chi. Sun-Times, May 6, 2014... 10L ‘ATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE There are two groups of Amici to this Brief. One group is former prosecutors and former judges (Appendix A). ‘The other group is exonerated Ilinois defendants? who were falsely convicted of serious crimes based, in whole or in part, on testimony that eventually was recanted (Appendix B). Both groups of Amici are troubled that the prosecution of Mr. Johnson for perjury stemming from recantation of eyewitness testimony he provided seventeen years earlier will chill future witness recantations, depriving wrongfully convicted defendants of a fair opportunity to obtain post-conviction relief. For the wrongfully convicted, it is already difficult to persuade witnesses to retum to ant their false testimony, as doing so may force witnesses to recall traumatic incidents, incur expenses from travel or absence from work or face retaliation from a person they were protecting with the false statements, If recanting witnesses are also subject to perjury charges, it will further dissuade them from coming forward to set the record straight. This is an important issue because numerous exonerations have shown that recantations are often truthful and can be relied upon by the Court to overturn wrongful convictions. Amici also want to ensure that the perjury statute is applied uniformly to all recanting witnesses. To the contrary, it appears that the State brings perjury charges against witnesses that are unfavorable to the prosecution more often than against pro-state witnesses. By dismissing the indictment of perjury against Mr. Johnson, the Court can send a clear message that the ultimate goal of all judicial proceedings is the pursuit of truth and equal application of the law. 2 We define an exonerated defendant as a convicted person who has been restored to legal innocence based in whole ‘or part on exculpatory evidence tat was not presented at his or her trial, or who has been deemed to be factually innocent by a governor, cour, or other entity with authority to make that determinationnL. INTRODUCTION In April 1992, Mr, Johnson and two of his closest friends were shot outside of Mr. Johns m’s mother’s home near the intersection of Harding Avenue and Augusta Boulevard on the west side of Chicago. Mr. Johnson was critically wounded, but survived. Both of his friends were killed, Mr. Johnson identified Cedric Cal and Albert Kirkman as the shooters. At their 1994 trial, Mr. Johnson’s eyewitness identification testimony was the only evidence linking Messrs. Cal and Kirkman to the crime. They were convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole. In January 2011, at a post-convietion proceeding, Mr. Johnson recanted his 1994 testimony, stating the shooters in fact had been a man named Keith Ford and another man who was neither Mr. Cal nor Mr. Kirkman. In August 2011, a Cook County grand jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Johnson with perjury. Frank Main, Former Judges, Ex-Proseeutors Urge Alvarez to Drop Perjury Case, Chi. Sun-Times, May 5, 2014. The indictment did not allege that Mr. Johnson’s recantation was false, but rather that his 1994 and 2011 testimony could not both be true, True Bill, People v. Johnson, G.H. No. 230, General No. 11CR-13172, August 18, 2011 Amici believe that the prosecution of Mr. Johnson for perjury will discourage other witnesses from recanting false statements and/or identifications. ‘The criminal justice system should send a message that the goal of all judicial proceedings is to encourage truth-telling, not punish it. As one editorial about Mr. Johnson’s prosecution stated: “[A] fair society wants people to come forward if they've caused an injustice by lying under oath. But if they fear going to prison for doing so, you can bet they'll keep their mouths shut.” Editorial, Law Shouldn't Discourage the Truth, Chi. Sun-Times, May 6, 2014, at 61Mi. ARGUMENT. A. — Recantations Often Are Truthful and, in the Interest of Justice, Should be Encouraged, Rather Than Punished Although the law traditionally has imposed a strong presumption against recanted testimony, numerous recent cases have revealed that truthful recantations are much more common than previously assumed. In the last 25 years, there have been 1,397 exonerations nationwide, of which 393, or 28% of all exonerations, involved at least one witness recantation. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx (last visited July 11, 2014); Nat'l’ Registry of Exonerations, Witness Recantation Study: Preliminary Findings (May 2013), available at _htps://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/RecantationUpdate_ 5_2013.pdf The interests of justice are best served when courts encourage, rather than punis recantations and assess the credibility of a recantation based on the surrounding facts. See Shawn Armbrust, Reevaluating Recanting Witnesses: Why the Red-Headed Stepchild of New Evidence Deserves Another Look, 28 B.C. Third World L.J. 75 (2008) (calling for changes to existing recantation jurisprudence); Adam Heder & Michael Goldsmith, Recantations Reconsidered: A New Framework For Righting Wrongful Convictions, 2012 Utah L. Rev. 99 (same); Sharon Cobb, Comment: Gary Dotson as Victim: The Legal Response to Recanting Testimony, 35 Emory L.J. 969, 1009 (1986) (“What is needed in the judicial approach to recantations is substantial inquiry into the circumstances and possible motives in each case without preconceived notions as to whether the recantation is true or false.”). However, prosecuting a recanting witness for perjury will have the opposite effect by discouraging recanting witnesses from coming forward.The following cases are powerful examples of why courts should, consistent with these ade future cases, more readily trust the reliability of recantations of eyewitnesses and not di recantations by permitting perjury charges against the recanting witn GARY DOTSON In 1979, Gary Dotson was convicted of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old high school girl based primarily on the testimony of the victim. People v. Dotson, 99 Ill. App. 34 117, 118- 19 (Ist Dist. 1981). The victim later recanted her testimony; the judge who had sentenced Dotson to prison promptly ordered his release on recognizance bond. But prosecutors insisted that the recantation was a lie and the judge revoked the bond, sending Dotson back to prison. Rape Conviction Stands: Judge Sends Dotson Back to Prison, Chi. Trib., Apr. 12, 1985, at Cl. Governor James R. Thompson led a clemency hearing brought on Dotson’s behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing on May 11, 1985, Thompson announced that he was absolutely convinced of Dotson’s guilt—indeed even more convinced by the clemency hearing evidence than the trial evidence—but nonetheless commuted Dotson’s sentence to time served. Editorial, Theater of the Absurd, Chi. Lawyer, June 1985, at 18. ‘Three years later, Thompson granted a defense request for DNA testing, just as the new forensic technology was coming into use in the criminal justice system. Can DNA Save Dotson?, cl Lawyer, Feb. 1988, at 1. Finally, in August 1989, DNA exonerated Dotson, establishing that the victim’s recantation—made four years earlier, almost to the day—had been the truth, /2-Year Legal Nightmare at an End; Recanted Testimony, High-Tech Help to Clear Gary Dotson, L.A. es, Aug. 15, 1989, at 5.XAVIER CATRON Xavier Catron was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in 1993 for the murder of 16- year-old Kendrick Thomas the previous year on the South Side of Chicago. Catron’s conviction rested on the testimony of three teenage eyewitnesses who recanted three years later, testifying that Chicago Police detectives had coached them to falsely identify Catron. After a lengthy appeal process, the case was remanded for a hearing at which the three recanting witnesses accused detectives involved in the case of encouraging them to identify Catron. People v. Catron, 183 Ill. 2d 575 (1999). The trial court granted a new tial and, thereafter, the Cook County State’s Attomney’s Office dismissed the charges and Catron was released from prison in February 2000. After Catron’s release, the judge told the Chicago Tribune, “The defense overcame that thesis about recantation and showed what I found to be credible and sincere new testimony by the witnesses.” Evan Osnos & Raoul V. Mowatt, Man Leaves Prison, Forgives Accuser Who Recanted Story, Chi. Trib., Feb. 4, 2000, at 2C. JAMES KLUPPELBERG James Kluppelberg was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Illinois for the 1984 murder by arson of a mother and her five children. His conviction rested primarily on testimony from a supposed eyewitness who in exchange for leniency testified that on the night of the fire, he had seen Kluppelberg pacing back and forth near the scene, and that he watched the fire together with Kluppelberg from a window. People v. Kluppelherg, 257 Ill. App. 3d 516, 522-23 (ist Dist. 1993). In 2008, the eyewitness provided an affidavit stating that he had lied and that he had been coached by the prosecution about what to say. According to the affidavit, he did not see Kluppelberg pacing near the fire scene—and could not have seen him from the attic window “because there was a building in the way.” Indeed, aerial photographs of the area—which the prosecution had before Kluppelberg’s trial, but allegedly failed to turn over to the defenseconfirmed that there was a building in the way. See Maurice Possley, James Kluppelberg, Nat'l Registry of Exonerations, http://www. law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx? caseid=3908 (last visited July 10, 2014). Finally, in 2012, the Cook County State’s Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Kluppelberg and he was released from prison afier nearly 25 years behind bars. People v. Kluppelberg, 327 Ill. App. 3d 939 (Ist Dist. 2002); see also Freed Prisoner Greets a Changed World: Man Released after Prosecutors Dismiss Deadly 1984 Arson Case, Chi, Trib., June 1, 2012, at C4. On August 4, 2013, Kluppelberg was granted a certificate of innocence. Man Imprisoned for Nearly 25 Years Certified Innocent: Defendant Says He Was Coerced into Confession, Will Seek Compensation, Chi. Trib., Aug. 6, 2013, at C5. DANA HOLLAND Dana Holland was convicted and later exonerated of two crimes that occurred in 1993 on the south side of Chicago—one a rape of which he was absolved by DNA, the other a robbery and attempted murder in which he became a suspect only as a result of the rape. The rape conviction rested on the testimony of the victim, 22-year-old Dionne Stanley, who identified Holland at his trial but recanted in 2003, during a hearing on a defense motion to suppress identification testimony of his accuser during the retrial of the robbery/attempted murder case. ‘The motion was denied. See Rob Warden, Dana Holland, Nat’l Registry of Exonerations, http://www. law umich.edwspecial/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?easeid=3302 (ast visited July 10, 2014). ‘Two police officers testified that Stanley identified Holland as her attacker at the scene, and Stanley so testified at Holland’s trial. Holland testified that Stanley repeatedly told the officers that he was not the man, Stanley recanted in a civil case brought against the City of Chicago by Holland after DNA exonerated him in 2003. She stated that she initially had told the 6officers they had the wrong man, but relented after one officer told her that she “was mistaken” and the other officer told her, “You just have to say it’s him and you'll be able to go home.” Holland v. City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 248, 250-52 (7th Cir. 2011). Before Holland's 1997 criminal trial, Stanley moved to Milwaukee. After she failed to respond to repeated subpoenas, the Cook County State’s Attorney's Office obtained an arrest warrant, pursuant to which she was arrested and jailed in Chicago. After 30 days in jail, according to Stanley, she told the lead prosecutor that Holland was the wrong man, She said that the prosecutor responded that “all the evidence, DNA, point{ed] to” him, that he had “a long record for assault,” and threatened her that unless she testified against him she “wasn’t going home” and “would be brought up on perjury charges.” Jd. at 253. ROLANDO CRUZ AND ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were tried jointly before a DuPage County jury, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1985 for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 10-year-old girl. The convictions rested in part on the testimony of informants who claimed that the men had admitted the crime, but mostly on the testimony of DuPage County Detectives Thomas Vosburgh and Dennis Kurzawa, who claimed that Cruz had told them about a so-called vision he had had that included facts of the crime that had not been made public. Nine months after the trial, Brian Dugan confessed that he alone had abducted, raped, and murdered the child. James Tuohy, The DuPage Cover-Up: The Authorities Know Brian Dugan Killed Jeanine Nicarico. They Know They Have Put the Wrong Men on Death Row. They Don't Care, Chi. Lawyer, May 1986, at 1. In 1990, after the [linois Supreme Court ordered a new trial, Cruz again was convicted and sentenced to death based substantially on the two detectives’ testimony regarding the vision statement. ‘This time Kurzawa added a detail not previously mentioned—that he and Vosburghhad called Sheriff's Sergeant James Montesano and told him about the vision statement right after Cruz had related it to them, Cruz’s second conviction, like his first, also rested in part on informant testimony, Thomas Frisbie & Randy Garrett, Victims of Justice Revisited 124, 226, 228-29 (2005). Before Heandez was retried, Jackie Estremera—who originally testified that Hernandez had admitted being present when the girl was slain—recanted his testimony. He said that he had lied because a police investigator threatened him. Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to 80 years in prison. His reconviction was based largely on the testimony of two deputy sheriffs, ‘Thomas Bentcliff and Howard Keltner, who belatedly claimed that they had heard Hernandez admit that he had gone to the home with Cruz and another man—not Dugan—to commit a burglary. Jd. at 209, 247-48, 256, 268-71, After another reversal, Cruz faced his third trial, and James Montesano, the sheriff's sergeant whom Kurzawa claimed he and Vosburgh had called to report Cruz’s vision statement, testified at a pretrial hearing that the detectives indeed had called him. Shortly thereafter, DNA testing conclusively linked Dugan to the crime and positively excluded Cruz as the source of semen recovered from the victim. But the prosecution also had come up with yet another jailhouse informant—Steven Schmidt, who was prepared to testify that Cruz had admitted committing the crime with Hernandez and Dugan, Soon, however, Schmidt recanted his allegation, as did an informant who testified at Cruz's second trial, Jd, at 308-15, 332-35, 338. Cruz’s third trial proceeded nonetheless. Less than two weeks into the trial, Montesano recanted his pretrial testimony that Detectives Kurzawa and Vosburgh had called him to report Cruz’s purported vision statement, Montesano admitted that he could not have received the call cn the date specified May 9, 1983—because he was on vacation in Florida. Based on thatrecantation, the judge presiding at the trial directed a verdict of not guilty—exonerating Cruz of the crime for which he had been behind bars since his arrest more than a decade earlier. A month later, the prosecution dropped all charges against Hemandez. as well, whose conviction had been reversed by the Illinois Appellate Court. Jd. at 308-15, 332-35, 423. B, Perjury Charges are not Applied Uniformly to Pro-State Witnesses Perjury charges in this ease should also be dismissed because the State in recent cases has not applied the perjury statute uniformly to all recanting witnesses, but rather has used it against witnesses that are unfavorable to the prosecution more often than against pro-state witnesses. Frank Main, Former Judges, Ex-Prosecutors Urge Alvarez to Drop Perjury Case, Chi. Sun- Times, May 5, 2014, at 2. For example, the State did not bring perjury charges against police officers from the Village of Glenview when a video tape of an arrest suggested that they lied under oath. Sperling v. Village of Glenview, et al., No. 14-02787 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 17, 2014). ‘After viewing the videotape that contradicted the swom testimony of the police officers, the Judge dismissed the charges against the defendant and commented that “[o]bviously this is very ‘outrageous conduct...All officers lied on the stand today...All their testimony was a lie. So there’s strong evidence it was a conspiracy to lie in this ease, for everyone to come up with the same lie... Many, many, many, many times they all lied.” id., Complaint, 7, Dkt. No. 1. ‘The State also failed to bring perjury charges in a similar case against City of Chicago police officers who allegedly filed false police reports and testified falsely before a grand jury. Klyzek v. City of Chicago, et al., No 14-cv-03547 (N.D. Ill. filed May 14, 2014). The State’s failure to prosecute pro-state witnesses such as police officers for judicially recognized perjury, while at the same time prosecuting recanting defense witnesses for perjury shows a disabling conflict of interest and clear bias in the application of the perjury law. ‘The potential for this sort 9of abuse of prosecutorial discretion is a separate and independent reason to dismiss the charges against Willie Johnson. Iv. CONCLUSION In order to maximize the truth-gathering goal of judigial proceedings, the Court should not permit the State to discourage recantations by bringing perjury charges against witnesses who recant.? The history of the last 30 years strongly suggests that many recantations are ‘truthful, and such recantations are among the primary reasons that so many wrongful convictions (many described in this brief at pp. 4 to 8 supra) have recently come to light. “[TJo discourage recantation that might be true by pressing perjury charges too aggressively—that tums the truth- finding mission of the courts upside down.” Editorial, supra. Likewise, to bring perjury charges against pro-defendant witnesses, while at the same time ignoring blatant cases of perjury ‘committed by pro-state witnesses is an unwise and unjust application of perjury law and, as a matter of evenhanded justice, should not be countenanced by the courts. For these reasons, ‘Amici request that the Court dismiss the indictments for perjury against Mr. Johnson. Dated: July 15, 2014 Respectfully submitted, James I. Kaplan Lauren Beslow Daniel B. Lewin QuARLES & BRADY LLP (Firm ID 36566) 300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, Hlinois 60654 (312) 715-5000 (312) 715-5155 (fax) Counsel for Amici Curiae Amici do not take the position that any perjury prosecution of a recanting witness is always unwarranted. What we do say is that prosecution is not warranted in cases like that of Willie Johnson, whose recantation has strong indicia of reliability and who appears to have litle to gain by © 10APPENDIX A (FORMER PROSECUTORS AND FORMER JUDGES) Stuart J. Chanen Former Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois Jeffrey H. Cramer Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Ilinois ‘Tyrone C. Fahner Former Attorney General of Illinois; Former Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Iinois Michael J. Falconer Former Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney Julian Frazin Former Judge, Cook County Cireuit Court Kenneth L. Gillis Former Judge, Cook County Circuit Court; Former First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Mary Brigid Hayes Former Assistant Illinois Attorney General; Former Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Gary V. Johnson Former Kane County State’s Auorney Christopher M. Kennedy Former Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney George N. Leighton Former Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois; Former Judge, Mlinois Appellate Court, First District; Former Judge, Cook County Cireuit Court Lori E. Lightfoot Former Assistant United States Attorney, Northern Distriet of Ilinois Jeremy D. Margolis Former Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois Don J. Mizerk Former Assistant State’s Attomey; Former Board Member, National District Attorneys Association Jorge Montes Former Assistant Cook County State's Atorney Nan Nolan Former United States Magistrate Judge, Northern District of Hinois Dom J. Rizzi Former Judge, Ilinois Appellate Court, First District Ronald S. Safer Former Assistant United States Attorney, Norther District of Hlinois John R. Schmidt Former Associate Attorney General of the United States Jeflrey Singer Former Assistant Cook County State’s AttorneyJames R. Thompson Former United States Attorney, Northern District of linois Dan K. Webb Former United States Atorney, Northern District of Ilinois Warren D. Wolfson Former Judge, Illinois Appellate Court, First District; Former Judge, Cook County Circuit Court Andrea L. Zopp Former First Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney; Former Assistant United States AttomeyAPPENDIX B (EXONERATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES INVOLVED WITNESS RECANTATIONS) Kenneth Adams Maurice Patterson Cook County Cook County Convicted of murder 1979 Convicted of murder 2002 Exonerated 1996 Exonerated 2010 Jonathan Barr Willie Rainge Cook County Cook County Convicted of murder 1991 Convicted of murder 1979 Exonerated 2011 Exonerated 1996 Rolando Cruz Jacques Rivera DuPage County Cook County Convicted of murder 1985 Convicted of murder 1990 Exonerated 1995 Exonerated 2011 Gary Dotson. Daniel Taylor Cook County Cook County Convicted of rape1979 Convicted of murder 1992 Exonerated 1989 Exonerated 2011 James Harden Cook County Convicted of murder 1992 Exonerated 2011 Dana Holland Cook County Convicted of attempted murder 1993 Exonerated 20031 James Kluppelberg Cook County Convicted of murder 1989 Exonerated 2001 Deon Patrick Cook County Convicted of murder 1995 Exonerated 2014