People v. Brown
Key Takeaways
- 1 Court reverses denial of successive postconviction leave where eyewitness published exonerating account years after trial.
- 2 Prior inconsistent statement by new witness is a credibility issue, not positive rebuttal, at leave-to-file stage.
- 3 Relevant for criminal defense attorneys pursuing successive postconviction petitions based on newly discovered eyewitness evidence.
Summary
Lamont Brown was convicted of first degree murder in 2008 and sentenced to 60 years. After his direct appeal and multiple collateral attacks failed, Brown filed a 2024 motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition asserting actual innocence. His claim rested on a 2023 book published by purported eyewitness Rayvon Parker — who identified a different perpetrator — and prison messages from Parker. The Cook County circuit court denied the motion, and Brown appealed.
The First District reversed on all substantive issues. The court held that the book's absence from the filed record was not fatal given Brown's verified petition and corroborating circumstances, and that the lack of a formal affidavit from Parker was excused because the book and messages independently corroborated his account and appointed counsel could obtain an affidavit at the second stage. The court further held that Parker's account was newly discovered because Brown's pre-trial investigator had interviewed Parker, who at that time denied witnessing the murder — meaning no amount of due diligence could have compelled earlier disclosure. Critically, Parker's 2007 affidavit denying he witnessed the shooting was deemed merely a prior inconsistent statement affecting credibility, not a positive rebuttal precluding relief at the pleading stage.
This decision is significant for defense counsel because it clarifies that technical evidentiary gaps — a missing exhibit, no affidavit — will not automatically doom a successive petition at the leave-to-file stage, and that a witness's prior denial does not categorically foreclose an actual innocence claim based on that witness's later exonerating account.
Key Holdings
1. A missing exhibit from the filed record is not fatal to a successive postconviction petition at the leave-to-file stage where the petitioner's verified allegations, internal citations, and corroborating circumstances support the exhibit's existence and content.
2. The absence of a supporting affidavit from an incarcerated witness does not preclude leave to file a successive postconviction petition where other evidence — such as a published book and prison messages — independently corroborates the witness's account and appointed counsel can obtain an affidavit at the second stage.
3. A witness's prior inconsistent statement denying knowledge of a crime constitutes a credibility issue, not a positive rebuttal of the witness's later exonerating account, and credibility is not assessed at the leave-to-file stage of a successive postconviction petition.
4. A witness's exonerating account constitutes newly discovered evidence even where the defendant was aware of the witness before trial, if the defendant exercised due diligence and no amount of diligence could have compelled the witness to reveal the account at that time.