8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 1/27
PARDON DOCKET
NO.
BEFORE
THE
LLINOIS
PRISONER
REVIEW
BOARD
ADVISING
THE
HONORABLE PATRICK QUINN GOVERNOR
IN
THE MATTER OF WILLIE JOHNSON
PETITION OF
WILLIEJOHNSON FOR EXECUTIVE
CLEMENCY
Gabriel A.
uentes
Andrew W.
ail
Justin C.
teffen
JENNER BLOCK
LLP
353
N.
lark
St
Chicago,
IL
60654
Telephone:
312) 22-9350
Facsimile: 312)
27-0484
Counsel or
Willie
Johnson
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 2/27
I
INTRODUCTION
II
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
3
III
REASONS
FOR
GRANTING
CLEMENCY
TO
WILLIE
JOHNSON
1
A.
WILLIE S
JANUARY
011
RECANTION HAD
SUBSTANTIALINDICIA OF
RELIABILITY
11
B
WILLIE S
PROSECUTION,
ND
HISSERVING A PRISON
SENTENCEFOR
PERJURY AFTER
HAVING RECANTED,
WILL
CHILL
FUTURE TRUTHFUL
RECANTATIONS 14
C.
WILLIE PLEADED GUILTY
TO A
FLAWED
INDICTMENT THAT DID NOT STATE
AN
OFFENSE
18
D. WILLIE S
30
-MONTH
PRISON
SENTENCE
S
AN
UNDULY
HARSH AND
DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTY,
FURTHER
CHILLING
RECANTATIONS
2
IV
CONCLUSION
2
V PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 3/27
I.
INTRODUCTION
Willie
Johnson
is the
only person
in
recent
memory charged
with
perjury
by the Cook
County State's
Attorney's Office
for recanting, in
apost-conviction
hearing, earlier
sworn
testimony.
Willie is a 43
-year
-old husband and
father.l
His prosecution and conviction for
perjury resulted
from
a unique
and
highly
aggressive
application
of
he Illinois perjury statute,
which
permits
proof
of
perjury by
the mere
presentation
of
two
conflicting
sworn
statements,
without proof of which was false. 720 ILLS
5/32-2(b).
Willie's prosecution stands to have
a
profound
chilling
effect
on truthful
recantations
by witnesses who
can
and
will
be
told by law
enforcement
that
like
Willie,
they
may
be prosecuted
for
perjury
and
sentenced
to
prison
simply
because they
changed their
story,
and
the law may
not
permit
them to defend themselves by
presenting
evidence
of
he
truth of heir recantation.
Willie
testified at a
February
1994 murder rial
thattwo
men,
lbert
Kirkman
and Cedric
Cal,
had shot
him
and two
of his
friends, who
both
died,
in April 1992 on
the West Side
of
Chicago. In
January
2011,
after
a representative
of
one
of
he convicted
men tracked Willie
down
out
of
tate
and persuaded
him
to
come
forward with
a
recantation, Willie
testified
under
oath
that
a man
named
Keith
Ford
and an
accomplice had
done the 1992 shooting. After a Cook
County
Circuit Court
udge denied the Kirkman and Cal post-conviction petition and said he
did
not believe Willie's recantation, the State
obtained
an
indictment
charging
Willie
with
perjury
each
and
every
day
from
his
February
1994 rial testimony
to his
January
2011 recantation.
Willie's
personal
background
information,data and
history
are
provided
in
greater
detail
in
Exhibit
16, Background of
illie Johnson, in compliance
with
requirements
of
he llinois
Prisoner
Review
Board. Willie
is
asking
for
expedited
consideration
of is
petition
by the
Governor,
utside
the
normal
PR
eview
process.
He
was
onvicted
very
recently,
on
October 7,
014,
and
immediately
entered IDOC
ustody.
While
his attorneys
have
discussed
the
content
of
he
petition
with
him
by
telephone,
they
have
not
yet had
an opportunity to obtain his signed and notarized declaration.
The
declaration
will be submitted
as
soon as it is
obtained.
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 4/27
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 5/27
Willie s
motion
to dismiss was
denied.
Faced with
the
likely
prospect
that he would be
barred
from
offering
any
evidence
of
nnocence
by proving
the
truth of
is
recantation,
and that
the
State would
not be
required to prove
his
recantation
false,
Willie
pleaded guilty to perjury on
October
7,
2014 n Cook
County
in
case number
11
CR 13172
and was sentenced to 30 months
in
the Illinois Department of orrections.
He ntered
custody immediately
on
October 7 2014.
Pursuant to 730
ILCS
5/3-3-13
and the
guidelines
set
forth
by the
Illinois Prisoner
Review
Board Willie
now
respectfully
requests
executive
clemency that
is
a
pardon for
and
expungement of
is
conviction, and
n
the
alternative, the
commutation of
is
prison
sentence so
that
he
may
be
released
immediately.
He
has
not
previously
petitioned
for clemency.
Given the
extraordinary circumstances of his
unique
and unfair application
of
he perjury
statute in a way
even the Cook County
State s Attorney
publicly
disclaimed,
Willie should not spend another day
in prison.
Every day
he spends in
prison does harm
not
only
to
him
but to the
ability
of
ll
potentially
recanting witnesses
to come forward and speak
the
truth
in
cases
in
which
justice
requires that
the
truth be told.
Under ll of
hese
circumstances,
Willie
respectfully
requests
that
the Governor
grant
him
executive clemency
forthwith,
without
the
ordinary time
for review
and
consideration by the
Illinois
Prisoner
Review Board
s
is
within
the
Governor s
authority
under
Madigan
.
Snyder,
208 11.
Zd
457
2004).
II. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
Until entering
Illinois
Department
of
orrections
custody
on October
7,
2014
Willie was
living as
a
stay-at-home
father with
his wife,
Chiffon, raising
their -year-old
twins,
Jayden and
Jessica, in Dallas, Texas. The events that eventually
led to his plea
of
uilty to
perjury
began
some
22
years earlier, on
the West
Side
of Chicago on April 21
1992 when
he sustained nine
gunshot wounds and his two
friends
were
killed.
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 6/27
n hat day in April
1992,
Willie was with his two friends, Cedric Herron and Sammy
Walker,
during
a fight
at
the West
Side home
of a man
named
Keith
Ford.
(Ex. 4, 11. App.
t.
Kirkman/Cal
June 17, 2013
Opinion
at 3.)
Willie
testified at
the
1994
rial of Kirkman
and
Cal
that
Ford
had directed
Kirkman and
Cal
to
attack
him. (Id.) Later that night, according
to
Willie's
1994
testimony, he
was
talking to Herron
and
Walker
outside
his
home
when two
men
approached and shot at
them,
illing Walker
and
Herron,
and
wounding
Willie
nine times. (Id.)
Willie
testified
at
the
trial that Cal
and
Kirkman
were
the
shooters, and
that
he had told
the
police
they
were
the shooters. (Id.
Also
testifying
at
the
1994
trial was
Willie's
then
-girlfriend,
Latrese
Buford,
who
said
that
earlier
in
the day, she had seen an altercation between Herron and
Ford
over
a
drug sale,and
that Ford
was
driving one of
two Astro
vans which
had
carried
group
of men
who
initiated
a
fight
with one of Herron's
drug dealers.
(Id.) Buford also
testified that after the fight,
Ford
approached Willie
and
told him
that being
around Herron could be
dangerous
because Herron
was
selling drugs on
Ford's
turf. (Id.).
Later
that night, Buford
was
inside a
home
near
the
shooting
when
she
heard
shots.
(Id.).
Later,
at
the
2011
hearing
on
post
-conviction
petitions
by
Kirkman and
Cal,
Buford
testified
further
that as she had told
the
police at
the
time,she
had
seen
an
Astro
van
parked
in an alley at the scene of
he
shooting and that she recognized
the
van.
(Ex.
5,
4/20/11
L.
Buford Post-Conviction
Testimony at
30-31,
68.) The
judge presiding over
the
post-conviction hearing
did not permit
her to testify
to her
understanding
of
whose
van
it
was
(Ford's),
ruling
that
such
testimony
would
be
speculative
or irrelevant. (Id. at
31,
9-71.)
At he
1994
rial of
irkman
and Cal, another witness,John Sylvester, testified
that
in
the
summer of 1992, Sylvester
asked
Willie
whether Kirkman and Cal had actually
done the
shooting
and
he said
no ....
he knew that they didn't do t. (Ex.
, . Sylvester
February
1994
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 7/27
Trial
Testimony at
40,
42.)
Further, at
the Kirkman and Cal
post-conviction
hearing,
Buford
testified
that
a
few months
after
Willie
was
eleased from the hospital in
1992, he
told
her
that he
had a
plan o
deal
with hose
who had shot his
friends to
death
because
I know
where they
play ball.
(Ex. 5, 4/20/11 L.
Buford
Post
-Conviction
Testimony
at 49-50.)
f ourse,
it
is
undisputed
that Kirkman and Cal
were in custody at
that time and
could not have
been
the
persons
Willie told Buford he
planned to deal
with t
a location
where he
knew they play[ed]
ball.
Kirkman
and Cal
were
convicted at
the 1994
trial and
15 years passed. In or
about
2008,
Willie
moved
to
Monroe,
Louisiana,
where he and
Chiffon
were
involved
in
a
2008
car
accident that
left
Willie
disabled.
Meanwhile,
an investigator
for
Kirkman began looking for
Willie.
The
process
of
finding
Willie
took the
investigator, Elliot
Slosar,
about six
months and
began
with
two
trips
Willie's sister in
Green
Bay, Wisconsin.(Ex.
7,
E.
Slosar Affid.
at
2.)
n
the
second
trip,
Willie's sister
was
able
to initiate
a
phone conversation
between
Willie and
Slosar,
but
Willie
was
hostile
to Slosar
in
these conversations
and wanted
nothing to
do
with
Slosar's
questions
about
the
Kirkman
and Cal case.
(Id.
at 2.)
Willie
remained hostile
to
the
idea of
iscussing
the
Kirkman
and Cal
case during further conversations,
at
Slosar's
instance, between
Willie
and his
sister.
(Id.
at
2.)
After
the
investigator himself
nitiated
a phone
call
to an
imprisoned
Chicago
gang member,
Willie
signed
an
affidavit
recanting his 1994 rial
testimony. (Id at
3.) The call
with
the gang
member
later
was
held
against Willie
under
a claim
by the State
that
his
recantation
was
influenced by the gang,
but that claim was
unsupported, and
Slosar's affidavit
flatly
refutes
it.
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 8/27
On January 19, 2011, he testified
at
the post
-conviction
hearing
of
Kirkman
and
Cal,
recanting
his
1994 tri l testimony and
implicating
Keith
Ford.
(Ex
8,
W
Johnson 2011
Testimony.)
Ford was he person whom Latrese
Buford had seen driving an
Astro
van
similar
to
the
one
she
saw at the crime
scene
immediately after
the
shooting,
and Ford was the
person she
had said she
heard
warning Willie
that
being
around Herron
was dangerous because
Ford
was
in
a dispute with
Herron over drug-selling turf.
The
udge, fter
limiting
Buford's
testimony
about
her
identification of the Astro
van
at
the
scene of the shooting
as Ford's,
and after
hearing
Willie's testimony,
denied
the post
-conviction
petitions of
Kirkman
and
Cal.
(Ex. 9, Post
-
Conviction
Ruling.)
The
tri l
judge
based his ruling heavily
on
his conclusion that
Willie's
post
-conviction
testimony was
not plausible.
The
tri l judge
mentioned that multiple
gunshots had
been
fired,
suggesting
to the
court
that Willie's
recollection of
a
single
shooter
was
not plausible.
(Ex.
9,
Post-Conviction Ruling at 4.) The judge disbelieved Willie's
testimony
that his
family
received
telephone
threats
when
he
was t the
hospital
emergency
room in 1992, lthough
the
court added
that
I haven't
heard
any
evidence
other
than
what
Mr.
ohnson
testified
to concerning
that.
Id.
at 4-5).
The
judge further found that Willie's stated reasons
for implicating Kirkman
and
Cal
in
1994 had shifted, and that
Willie recanted
after
having
a telephone
conversation with
a
gang
leader
named
Ray
Longstreet,
who gave him the
green
light to do the
right
thing.
(Id. at 6-7.)
Without
hearing any
other evidence concerning
this Longstreet phone
call,
the
judge
concluded
that
Willie
had testified
out of gang loyalties
and
further found his
recantation
not
credible.
(Id. at 7-9.)
Willie was not
on tri l for perjury
in the
post
-conviction hearing for Kirkman and Cal,
was
not
represented by
counsel, and had no
opportunity
to
present
his
own evidence directed at
D
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 9/27
the
truthfulness of his
2011 recantation. That evidence included
Slosar's full account of
he
circumstances of the Longstreet phone
call, which
was
initiated
not
by
Willie, but
by
Slosar.
Ex.
7,
E.
losar Affid.) Slosar affirms
that Willie initially reacted
with
hostility
to the Slosar's
efforts to talk
with Willie about the Kirkman
and Cal case, that
neither Slosar
nor
Longstreet
attempted
to
tell
Willie what
to
say, and
that
Longstreet
simply
told
Willie he need not
fear
retaliation for coming
forward. (Id.)
Slosar's
narrative
is
being
told here
for
the
first
time
and
was
never
presented
to the
Circuit or Appellate
Courts
in the
Kirkman
and
Cal
post
-conviction
matter.
Slosar's
account
would
have been
presented
to
Willie's
jury, had
it been
permitted
to
hear evidence
of
he
truthfulness
of
Willie's recantation.
The
investigative narrative
is
a
first
hand
account
refuting
the
State's claims,
and
the
Kirkman
and
Cal post-conviction judge's
findings, that
Willie
came forward out
of
ang
loyalties. e id not.
After the
Circuit
Court denied the
Kirkman and Cal
petitions
and
pronounced Willie's
testimony not credible,
the
State's Attorney
of Cook
County
proceeded
to obtain
a
grand
jury
indictment
charging Willie with
perjury
under
an Illinois statute that
allows perjury
to be
proved
by
an
offer
of wo
contradictory,
sworn
statements; unlike the
federal
perjury
statute,
the
Illinois
law
allows
proof
by
two
contradictory sworn statements without regard to
the
age
of
the
statements
or whether both fell within the statute's limitations
period.
Compare 720 ILLS 5/32-
2 b)
stating
that a
perjury indictment
based on
two
contradictory
statements need
not
specify
which statement is false)
with 18 U.S.C.
§
1623 c)
providing that federal perjury
indictment
based
on two contradictory
sworn
statements
need not specify which is false if
each
statement
was
made
during the limitations period).
In an apparent effort
to
avoid
dismissal on
limitations
grounds, the
Cook
County
State's
Attorney's Office
obtained
an
indictment
alleging that Willie
committed
perjury on a
continuing
basis
during each and every day of a 17
-year
-period
from
D
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 10/27
February
8,
1994 far
outside
perjury s three-year
limitations
period)
to
January 19,
2011. Ex.
10, W
ohnson
Motion
to
Dismiss
Indictment.)
After Willie
moved
to dismiss
the indictment on
limitations
grounds,
the
Cook
County
State s
Attorney s
Office told
the
Circuit
Court
that it
need not
be
concerned
about
the
limitations
problem
because
the
prosecution would
prove
only the falsity of
Willie s January
2011
recantation, as this was
he
only
testimony
at issue in the
case. Ex.
1,
11/7/2012
Tr.
at 7.)
The
Assistant
State s Attorney
told the
Court:
Counsel s argument s that
the perjured statement
is
from
1994
when in
fact that s
not
what
we re
alleging.
It s the
statement
that the
defendant made
in
the
post-
conviction
matter
in
January
of
2011,
and we re
within
the
statute
of
imitations
with respect to
that.
That is
the
allegation that is before the
fact finder.
The
prior
testimony
is
simply evidence
that
will be
used
with respect
to the
fact
finder
making that
determination as to
whether
this
defendant
committed
perjury in
2011.
(Id.) Willie s
motion was
denied.
In
April
2014,
23
former judges and
prosecutors
wrote to
the State s
Attorney about
Willie s
prosecution and
expressed
their
concern
that
perjury
prosecutions based
simply
on
recantations
of
ontradictory
earlier
sworn
testimony would discourage
truthful
recantations,
and
that
perjury charges should be
brought in
recantations only
where
the
State could
prove
the
falsity
of the
recantation.
Ex. 1,
W
Wolfson 4/24/14
Letter
to
A. Alvarez.) The
State s
Attorney
of Cook County
responded
in
a
letter
consistent
with her assistant s
representation to
the
Circuit
Court
in
November 2012, that
the
former
judges and prosecutors
need not be
concerned
about whether
the
prosecution
would
discourage
truthful recantations
because the
State s Attorney
would prosecute
recantations
only in cases in
which
it
could
prove
the
falsity of
the
recantation. Ex.2,
/5/14
A.
Alvarez
Letter
to W
olfson.)
The
etter
which
contained a
reference
line
identifying
it
as
having
been sent in
Willie s
criminal
perjury case
then
pending in
the Circuit
Court, stated:
8
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 11/27
[i]t
is appropriate to prosecute
perjury only in
cases
in
which
it can
be proven
beyond
a
reasonable doubt that
a
recantation, as opposed
to
prior
testimony,
is
false. I
say
this
in spite of
the fact
that Illinois law does
not require
such
a
stringent test and appellate courts require much
less
in establishing
guilt
in
perjury
prosecutions ....
n]o
perjury
prosecution
involving
a recantation should
ever
move
forward without
the
evidence and
ability
to
prove
that
the
recantation
is
perjured.
At
the time
of
he State's Attorney's
letter
Willie
had moved
to
dismiss
the
indictment
for having
wrongly
alleged
perjury
as
a continuing offense.
The motion also
sought
a
bill of
particulars
confirming that,
as
the State had represented to the
Court
in November 2012, the
State
would
need to
prove the
falsity
of
illie's
January
2011
recantation.
(Ex.
10,
W
ohnson
Motion To
Dismiss Indictment.) Notwithstanding the State's November 2012 representation
to
the
Circuit
Court whether his defendant committed
perjury
in 2011
was
the allegation
that
is
before the fact
finder ),
and notwithstanding the
State's
Attorney's
statement to the
23
former
judges
and
prosecutors (that
she was in agreement
with them
that
perjury
prosecutions
in
recantation
cases should be brought only where it can be proven beyond
a reasonable
doubt hat
the
recantation,
as
opposed to
prior
testimony,
is
false ),
the
State told
the
Circuit
Court
in
July
2014 hat
it
would
not prove
the falsity of illie's
recantation, that
it need not
do so,and that the
truth or
falsity of
the
recantation was an
issue
that should never reach
Willie's
jury. (Ex.
3,
People's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Indictment at 1-Z.) The
State
told
the
Court:
The
statute
under which defendant
is
charged does not
require
proof
of which of
the
two statements
is
false.
720
ILLS
5/32-2(b).
The
opinions
of
the parties
regarding
which of
he statements is
the
falsity is irrelevant
to the
question of
Defendant's guilt on the
charge
of
erjury.
The
very
fact that two contradictory
statements
were made
under
oath
at separate proceedings is
sufficient
to prove
the
charge
of erjury. 720
ILCS
5/32-2(b). Just as The People are
not
required to
prove which of he statements are false,a
ury
would
not
be required to determine
or
agree
which
of he statements are false.
D
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 12/27
Ala
Shortly after
the Court
denied Willie's
motion
to dismiss and request
for a
bill of
particulars, Willie
pleaded guilty to
the indictment
on
October
7, 2014.
III.
RE SONS
FOR GR NTING
CLEMENCY
TO WILLIE JOHNSON
Willie Johnson
was
prepared to present substantial
evidence of
he truth of
his
January
2011
recantation in
order
to
establish
his innocence to
the charge
of erjury.
Instead, he
pleaded
guilty
when
confronted with the probability that
the
truth
of
his
2011
recantation would be
considered
irrelevant and
inadmissible. Willie's prosecution
is said to be the only perjury
prosecution
brought
in Cook
County
in
a
recantation
case
in
at
least
the
past
four
years. (Ex.
12,
Frank Main, lvarez: I
on t rosecute
every
witness suspected of ying, Chi, Sun
-Times,
June 3,2014 at
2.)
Ultimately,
Willie's
guilt
or
innocence at his
trial
would have turned
only
on
whether
the
prosecutor
could
present
evidence of
two
conflicting
sworn
statements,
and
not on
whether either
was
rue
or false. The State proceeded under
this
theory even
though it had stated
in
open
court
that
it
would
not,
and
even though
the
State's
Attorney
herself
wrote
to
the
23
former
judges
and prosecutors
in
a
way strongly suggesting
that
she would not exercise her
discretion, in recantation cases, in a way that
availed
itself of
the Illinois perjury
statute's
stringent
provision
allowing
perjury
prosecutions
to be
based on two conflicting statements.
After
the State's
Attorney said she would proceed only with
proof
hat a recantation
was
false,
the
State did
not
follow its own prescription in
Willie's
case and argued
successfully in
the
Circuit Court
that truth or falsity of he
statements was
irrelevant
and
would never
be
decided
by the
jury. The result
was
Willie's
guilty
plea
s tated
forcefully
by
the 23 former
judges
and
prosecutors
in an
amicus curiae
brief
filed in the Circuit Court,
Willie's prosecution
will
discourage truthful
as
well
as
untruthful
recantations.
10
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 13/27
Willie s conviction
and 30
-month
prison
sentence thus
yield
a result that is
abhorrent
to
justice
and that calls
out
for
the exercise
of he Governor s
power of
xecutive clemency. Willie
is
asking that this
power
be
exercised
forthwith,
and
without
the
usual
time
associated
with
consideration
by
the Illinois
Prisoner Review
Board.
Every
day
of
Willie s incarceration
undermines justice
by
sending
a
signal to all
potential recanting witnesses that simply
by
changing their story,
they
will
be
prosecuted
and ailed —with
no
regard
under
Illinois law
for
the
truthfulness
of
heir recantation, and no
guarantee of
an opportunity to
prove
their
innocence by
presenting
evidence
that they recanted
truthfully.
A.
WILLIE S
JANUARY
011
RECANTION
H D
SUBSTANTIAL
INDICIA
OF
ELIABILITY.
The innocence case
which Illinois law precluded
Willie from
presenting would
have
been
based on
his
own testimony that he
told
the
truth in January 2011 at the
Kirkman and Cal post-
conviction
hearing
when he said
he identified
Kirkman and Cal as the shooters,
and did not
identify Ford, out
of
a
fear
of Ford and out
of
a
misguided desire to
exact
revenge
himself
on
Ford. Willie s
testimony
is
backed
by
at leasttwo
prior
and admissible
consistent
statements
(to
Buford
and
Sylvester in or about
1992)
hat
the
men in custody
for
the
shooting were
not
the
shooters. t
also
is backed by
Buford s
sighting of an
Astro
van, resembling
one
Ford
had
been
seen
driving
that day, t
the
scene
of
he
shooting
moments after
the
shooting
happened.
None
of he
responses
the State
has
offered,
in its multiple
opportunities
to
do so
in the
perjury prosecution of Willie,
should
give the
Governor
any
pause
in granting Willie
clemency.
(See Ex. 12, Chi,
Sun
-Times
Article;
Ex. 2, 6/5/14 A.
Alvarez
Letter
to W.
Wolfson;
Ex.
13 ,
People s
Response
to
the
Motion for Leave to
File an
Amicus
Brief in Support of efendant s
11
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 14/27
Motion to Dismiss.)
First, the State has
repeatedly raised
the red
herring
of gang influence
on
Willie's
recantation
by
pointing out that Willie, in his
sworn
recantation, admitted
having
a
phone
conversation with
an
incarcerated gang
leader
named Ray
Longstreet. But Willie
wanted
to have nothing
to do
with the
Kirkman
and
Cal
case
when the Kirkman
investigator found him
living
out of tate in 2008.
(Ex. 7,E. losar Affid. at
2.) The
investigator swears today that
he
initiated
the
Longstreet call,
which
lasted
about
one
minute,
and
in which
no
one told
Willie
whom he should
or should not
identify. (Id at 2,3.)
The investigator
swears today
that the
purpose
of
the
call was
simply to allay Willie's fears
of
retaliation
so
that he would
come
forward
at
ll
with
truthful
testimony
that
Kirkman
and
Cal were
not
the shooters.
(Id. at
3.)
Second, he Circuit
Court's
denial
of he
Kirkman
and
Cal post
-conviction petition
based
on Willie's testimony
being not credible
came
not
after a tri l of any
perjury charge against
Willie,
who
had no counsel
at
the
proceeding
and
no
opportunity himself
to
argue that
his
recantation was in fact
truthful.
The
Circuit
Court
barred
Buford from
testifying
that
the
Astro
van she
had
seen at the
crime scene resembled the one
she
had
seen
Ford
driving
that day.
The
Circuit Court
did not
hear
the
prior sworn
testimony
of
Sylvester.
No vidence
was
presented
from the Kirkman
investigator about
the
full
circumstances
of
the phone call
with
the
incarcerated gang
member, r about how
the investigator,
and
not Willie, had
initiated
that call.
No
vidence was offered
to
explain
how a
heavily medicated Willie might have
been
mistaken
about
having received
threatening phone calls
while
lying in the
emergency
room
19
years
Willie has
attached
these
documents
hereto as
exhibits and has responded
to
them here
to
provide
a
means
by
which the
Governor may
give the
State's
arguments a full and
f ir review in advance of
further briefing. The State has
availed itself
of ultiple
opportunities, as attached hereto,
to state on
the record
and in
public its
belief that
Willie
committed perjury and that his
January 2011
recantation
was alse —but his
Petition
represents
Willie's
first opportunity
to argue
his case for
innocence based
on the
truth of
is
recantation.
12
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 15/27
earlier suffering from nine gunshot
wounds or
about
how the
calls
might
have
been
directed to
his family at another
location, even
elsewhere
in
the
hospital. None of
those
avenues was
explored, and the
Circuit Court
and Appellate
Court
did not
have the
benefit of any of that
evidence or
argument. Accordingly, the
Circuit
Court
and
Appellate
Court
decisions
in
the
Kirkman
and
Cal
matter
have no bearing
whatsoever
on Willie s guilt
or innocence in
his perjury
case.
In
fact,
the
opinions of therjudges based
on
the
incomplete
record
presented
in the post-
conviction hearing most
certainly would
have been
inadmissible
in a perjury
tri l of
illie,
and
Willie sjury would
never have
been
allowed to
hear them.
Third,
t
is
important
to
remember
that Willie,
even
in
his
guilty
plea,
has never
admitted
that he lied when he
recanted
in
January
2011.
Rather, Willie
pleaded
guilty to a
perjury
indictment
that charged him
with
having perjured
himself continuously
over
a
17
-year
-period
based on
two contradictory
sworn
statements
17 years
apart. The indictment
failed to
charge
Willie
with
the specific
act of
committing perjury in his January 2011 recantation, and as
explained further
below
he
State
took
shifting positions
as to
what
t would prove but settled
on
the position
that
it
need
not prove
either
statement
false. For
reasons
stated
below
in Part III(C),
Willie
pleaded
guilty
to a
form
of
perjury that cannot
legally
be considered an offense
under
Illinois law. But for purposes
of considering
the impact of his guilty
plea on
this
clemency
petition,
the
flawed
form of the
indictment means
that
as a
technical
matter, Willie
never
expressly
admitted
perjuring himself
in January 2011. His admission to having
made
two
contradictory statements means no more
than
that —the
statements
were
contradictory,
so one
of
them must
be false.
e maintains that his
1994 ri l testimony —too old itselfto be
prosecuted
for perjury
—was
alse.
His guilty plea
to
perjury
ought
not
to be held
against
him
on the
instant
clemency petition
because the most
critic l of
he
two
statements
has
always
been
his
January
13
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 16/27
2011
recantation
and
the
claim
by the
State, in
its
public statements and
response
to
the
amici,
that in
January 2011, illie was
alsely attempting
to
exonerate two convicted
murderers.
Finally, notwithstanding
the
substantial
evidence
supporting the truthfulness
of
Willie s
recantation
and
the absence
of
rue
admission
by
him that
it
was alse, the
real
issue now before
the
Governor in this
clemency petition goes far beyond
the
guilt
or innocence of
illie Johnson.
The issue
before the
Governor is how truthful recantations
will
be
discouraged by this
prosecution
and the
manner
in which it was brought,
in direct
contravention
of
the line
prosecutor s
promise to the defense and the
Court
in
November 2012
and
of the State s
Attorney s
view
in
June
2014
that recantation perjury
cases
should never
be
brought
in
the
absence
of
proofof
he falsity
of
he
recantation.3
As xplained
below,
Willie s
prosecution
will
have a
palpably
chilling effect on
the
willingness of itnesses to give
truthful recantations
in
the
future.
B. WILLIE S
PROSECUTION,
ND
HIS
SERVING
A
PRISON SENTENCE
FOR
PERJURY AFTER HAVING
RECANTED,
ILL
CHILL
FUTURE
TRUTHFULRECANTATIONS.
Willie s prosecution
is
certain
to
chill future
truthful
recantations.
Two groups
of
amici
saw
Willie s indictment as
having
such a chilling effect:
(1)
a
group
of 23
former
prosecutors
and
judges
including
former
U.S. Attorneys
James
R.
Thompson and Dan K.
Webb;
former
3
The
analysis is not changed
were
the
State s
Attorney to
contend
that in
her
letter
to the 23
former
judges and prosecutors,
she
never committed to presenting proof at
trial
of he
recantation s
falsity
In
other words, an
interpretation of
the
State s
Attorney s
June 2014 letter
to
the effect that she
believed
recantation perjury
cases to be
appropriate
only
where she
herself
is
persuaded of the
recantation s falsity
would be a
hollow promise
inconsistent
with the spirit of
er
stated agreement
with the
23
former
judges
and prosecutors. In
Willie s
perjury case,the
State s
Attorney
stood on the
law
that
perjury
could
be
proved
through
two
conflicting statements. A defendant barred
from
putting the State
to its
proofof ts professed
belief in
the falsity
of he
recantation
is
in
the
same
shoes
as a
defendant
prosecuted
based
only on
two
materially
conflicting
sworn
statements. Willie s
prosecution
therefore
was
brought in
precisely the
way
the
State s Attorney
strongly intimated she
would never
proceed.
14
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 17/27
Associate
U.S.
Attorney General John
R.
Schmidt;
former
judges
George N
eighton, Kenneth
L. Gillis,
Dom
J.
Rizzi, Nan Nolan, Warren
D. Wolfson,
and
Julian Frazin;
former Illinois
Attorney
General
Tyrone
C.
ahner; former assistant U.S.
attorneys
Ronald
S.
Safer, Andrea
L.
Zopp (also a
former First Assistant
Cook
County
State s Attorney),
Jeffrey
H. Cramer, Jeremy
D.
argolis, Lori
E.
ightfoot, and
Stuart J. Chanen; and
former
Cook County assistant state s
attorneys
Jeffrey
Singer, Don
J.
Mizerk;
Jorge Montes, and Mary
Brigid
Hayes also a
former
Assistant
Illinois
Attorney
General);
and
(2)
a group
of 12 exonerated Illinois
defendants whose
wrongful
criminal
convictions
were
based
in
whole
or in part
on witness
testimony
later
recanted.
(Ex.
14,
Amicus
Curiae
Brief.)
The
amici
tated:
[T]he
prosecution ofMr.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 ll
judicial proceedings
is
to encourage
truth
-telling,
not
punish it
....The
history of
he
last 30 years
strongly
suggests
that
many
recantations
are truthful, and
such
recantations are among
the
primary
reasons
that so
many
wrongful
convictions
...have recently come o
light. [T]o
discourage
recantation that might be true by
pressing perjury charges too
aggressively —that
urns the
truth-finding mission of he courts upside
down.
(Ex.
14,
Amicus Curiae
Brief
at
10,
quoting Editorial, Law
Shouldn t Discourage
the
Truth,
Chi,
Sun
-Times,May
,2014,
t
61.)
Willie s
prosecution
represents
an especially acute example
of
a
perjury prosecution that
will
discourage
truthful recantations. Willie s
case
demonstrated
ow
asily
a
recanting
witness
may
be
charged and convicted
of
erjury. The
mere existence
of
wo
conflicting
pieces of worn
testimony
is
all
that
is required by the Illinois
perjury
statute.
Accordingly,
every witness who
gives a sworn
recantation of
arlier
sworn
testimony will have created
a
record
upon which a
perjury indictment
may
be
obtained.
Then, at
trial even in
prosecutions
in which
the State
publicly
claims
that
the
recantation was false, and
in which the State
asserts
that
justice
requires
prosecution
of a
false
recantation,
the
State
will
not have to prove the falsity
of he recantation.
This
is
precisely
what happened
in Willie s case. Willie s
prosecution sends a
strong signal
to
15
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 18/27
every potential recanting
witness:
If he
prosecutor
does
not
believe
the
recantation,
or
ifa udge
does
not believe
it
the witness
will be subject
to
a
felony perjury prosecution in which proving
the
truth
of
he
recantation will
not
be
an option.
The mere
existence of the two
conflicting
statements — no
matter that the recanted
testimony
occurred years outside
the limitations
period
for perjury prosecutions — is
enough
to
secure a conviction.
law enforcement
agent
or
official
may
point to
Willie s case as
an
example
of
how
easily
a
perjury
charge
may
be
lodged
and
proved
against a
recanting witness.
Willie s
case
also
demonstrated how
law
enforcement
officials are unafraid to
threaten recanting witnesses with
perjury.
Before
Willie
testified
at
the
Kirkman
and Cal
post-conviction
hearing,
a
prosecutor
and
a State s Attorney s
Office
investigator traveled to
Louisiana to
interview
him,
and
during
the
interview,
the
prosecutor
told
him
he
would
be prosecuted for
perjury
if
he
persisted
in
his
recantation.
Ex.
15, Willie
Johnson Affid.)
Willie
had
everything
to
lose and nothing to gain
by
recanting,
but
he recanted
anyway. Now
hat Willie
was
successfully prosecuted
for perjury,
his case
will
be
used by
law
enforcement
to
show that a
perjury prosecution is
not
just an
idle
threat, but a reality
for recanting witnesses in
Illinois
when law
enforcement
disbelieves the
recantation. The
risk
that
law enforcement
will disbelieve
the
recantation
and
seek a perjury
indictment,
and that
the
recanting
witness will then
be
unable to
point to
the
truthfulness
of he
recantation,
will
be
too great a
risk for many recanting
witnesses.
Counsel for any potential
recanting witness would
likely
advise
the
witness that the
recanting,
under
oath,
ofany
previous
sworn
testimony
brings
substantial
exposure
to a felony
perjury
charge and
a
possible
term of
imprisonment.
Willie s
sentence
was 30 months in
prison.
He its
in an
Illinois
prison in
East
Moline
at
this
very moment
—because he recanted.
~[~
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 19/27
The State's
response to the argument
of
he
amici was
to
state
that Willie's
prosecution
will not
chill truthful recantations because
1)
Willie's
recantation was false,
according to the
State,
and
2)
the
State
will prosecute perjury
only
where it
can prove
the falsity
of the
recantation. Ex. 1,
4/24/14
A.
Alvarez Letter
to
W
olfson.)
First,
Willie's
recantation
had
substantial indicia of eliability
and was
never
proved false.
See Part I(A),
supra.)
Second,
he
reason
why
he truth of illie's
statement
was
never
tested
in his
perjury case was
hat
the Cook
County State's
Attorney's Office
simply declined to do
so.
In what the State described as
the
only recent case
in which the State
has
prosecuted
arecantation-related
perjury,
at
least in
Cook
County,
t
argued
that
the
truth
or
falsity
of
he
recantation
was
irrelevant
and would never be
decided by a jury.
Ex.
3,
People's Response to
Defendant's Motion
to
Dismiss
Indictment.)
The Circuit
Court agreed.
Accordingly, the State's
argument about
why
Willie's
prosecution
will
not have
a
chilling effect
on
truthful recantations
is
entitled to
zero
weight. Willie's
prosecution,and
the
circumstances
leading
to
his guilty
plea
after
the
court
accepted the State's
position that the
truth
of his
recantation was irrelevant,
pave a
path
toward chilling
ll
recantations. The State
blazed this
path itselfby
prosecuting
Willie
based
on
the
two
conflicting
statements
and without
committing to
prove the latter statement false,
or to
allow
Willie to
defend
the
indictment
based on the
l tter statement's
truth.
Willie's
prosecution
represents the
ill
effect that
the
Cook County
State's
Attorney
publicly
stated she would avoid
by
not
availing herself
of
he stringent
interpretation of
he
Illinois
perjury
statute
but instead
proceeding where a recantation's
falsity can be proved. See
Ex.
2,
4/24/14
A.
Alvarez
Letter
to
W
Wolfson.) The State's Attorney's
ultimately hollow
promise to
rely
on
proofof he falsity
of
recantation forms perhaps the
most
powerful evidence
in favor of xecutive
clemency. The
prosecutor herself admitted that to
avoid the chilling
effect
17
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 20/27
of
ecantation perjury cases, such cases
would
need to
be
brought
in
a
manner entirely different
from the way
in
which Willie s
perjury
case
was prosecuted.
Executive clemency
represents
an
alternative
—and
now
necessary
—means
o
the end
mapped
out
by
the
State s
Attorney.
C.
WILLIE
PLEADED GUILTYTO
A
FLAWED
INDICTMENT
THAT
DID
NOT STATEAN
OFFENSE
As s
detailed more
fully in
Willie s
motion
to
dismiss
the
indictment
in
this
matter,
the
State improperly charged
him
with an
act
of erjury
that
purportedly continued
every
day over a
14-year period from the
February
1994 Kirkman and Cal
murder
tri l
to his
January
2011
recantation. Ex. 10, W
ohnson
Motion
to
Dismiss
Indictment.) Willie
ultimately pleaded
guilty to
an indictment that did
not charge
him with
a
cognizable offense
under Illinois law.
This
flaw in
the
indictment
highlighted the
need
for
the
State,
as
a
matter
of
olicy,
to do
what t
ultimately
declined
to do: Charge
and
prove
the falsity
of
illie s January
2011
recantation.
Willie s case is notable
not
only as
the
only
recent
matter
in which the State
charged
perjury for a
recantation,
but
also
as the
only case —
to
Willie s knowledge —
in
which the State
has
sought
o prove
its
perjury case
by
two
conflicting
statements
when
one
of hose statements
—
the
February 1994
tri l testimony
implicating Kirkman
and
Cal —
is outside the three-year
limitations
period.
The
State
has never
quarreled with that
testimony
and said
in
open court in
November
2012
hat
it
planned
to
prove only
the falsity
of he
January 2011 recantation
Ex.
11 ,
11/7/2012
Tr. at
7), but
in
reality, the
Illinois
perjury statute did not require the
State to
allege
which was true or false, and
the indictment did
not do
so.
See 720 ILLS
5/32-2(b);
Ex. 10, W
Johnson
Motion
to
Dismiss
Indictment,
Ex. A.)
The
indictment did
something else, and
it was something
very
strange.
In apparent
anticipation
of he
potential
limitations
problem
with the
elements
of
he
offense
including the
1994,
ut
-o f
-time
tri l
testimony, he State
charged that Willie
committed perjury as a continuing
18
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 21/27
from
February 1994
through
the date
of
his
January 2011 recantation. (Id.)
The
indictment's
allegation
that
Willie was
committing perjury every day for 17 years, or that he
could have been under oath
every
day for 17 years,
is
absurd
on
its face,
particularly when
the
State
is invested so
heavily in
the
truth
of he
February
1994 trial testimony.
hy not simply
charge
that
the
perjury occurred
in January 2011?
The
answer may
be
that the
State was
simply
confused
about how precisely to
charge
a
perjury case
based
on
two
conflicting
statements.
Or,
perhaps the State
wanted
to
leave
open
the possibility,
which it ultimately pursued,
of elying on
the
perjury
statute's
provision
that
the State
need
not
prove
the
falsity of
ither
statement, but
need
only prove
that
two
conflicting
statements
were
made.
When
Willie
moved
to
dismiss the
indictment on limitations
grounds because
one
of
he statements was
too
old
to
be
prosecuted,
the
Circuit Court
denied
the
motion in November
2012
by
finding
that the last
act required by
the offense
as
charged
was
he
January 2011 testimony.
Ex.
11, 11/7/2012 Tr. at 7.)
Consequently,
Willie's
case is
an illustration of
he
bizarre result
that
can and did
occur
under the Illinois
perjury statute,
which
lacks the
federal
perjury statute's safeguard
of llowing
proof hrough two
conflicting statements only
if
both were made within the limitations period.
18
U.S.C.§
623(c). To
minimize the chances
of
ismissal on
limitations grounds,
he State
charged perjury
as
a continuing offense
when perjury
was
not and could never be
a
continuing
offense under
the
law.
The
Illinois perjury statute might
work well when both of he
conflicting
statements
fall within
the
limitations
period, but when one
of
hem
does
not,
only
the more recent
of the
two
statements ought
to be
charged
as
perjury.
The
State's
line
prosecutor apparently
understood this truism
in November 2012, but
the
drafters
of
the
indictment did
not charge
Willie
with perjuring
himself only in January 2011. The
indictment's reliance
on both
LL
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 22/27
statements where one
ell long
outside the limitations period made
Willie s
prosecution uniquely
aggressive.
Cases
such as
Willie s,
in
which
the
State
charges
perjury
based
on a
recantation
it
claims
to be false
and
with the
intent to rely
on Section 32-2(b) o
prevail
based
only
on
proof
of
he two
conflicting
sworn statements,
are a
poor fit
for Section
32-2(b) and make a
strong
case
for
the
exercise
of prosecutorial
discretion
and
now
clemency
where
the
prosecutor
failed to
exercise
that discretion. The
State s
Attorney appeared to recognize
how ill-suited
recantation perjury
cases are to
Section
32-2 b)
when
she told the
23 former judges
and
prosecutors that
she
would
only
bring
a
recantation perjury
case
in
which
she could prove
the
recantation
by
definition
the
l tter
of
he
two
statements)
alse.
The
Governor
should
complete the State s
Attorney s
thought
by
granting clemency here.
D. WILLIE S30
-MONTH PRISON
SENTENCE S
AN
UNDULYHARSH
AND
DISPROPORTIONATE
PENALTY,
URTHER
CHILLING
RECANTATIONS.
Probation would have
been
an appropriate
disposition for
this
offense,
given
that Willie
had left
behind his
earlier
gang
and
criminal
lifestyle
and is
now
a
disabled father
oftwo
young
children,
living
alaw-abiding life in the Dallas, Texas area. His previous criminal
conviction for
armed
robbery and
attempted murder, ft-cited
by
the
State, occurred
in
1995 and resulted
in an
18
-year prison sentence
from
which he
was
released
in
2003;
his
drug
convictions two matters
for
which
he
received
one
year and four
years
in 1989, and
two
1990
matters
for which he
received
a
year
each) ccurred
even
earlier. Ex.
16, Background
of
Willie
Johnson.) There is
zero evidence that
Willie,
as
the
person
he
is today,
represents a
hreat to harm anyone.
The
30
-month sentence is
not
only unduly
harsh
in
Willie s
case, but also
disproportionate in
comparison
to
the results of ther
perjury
cases.
In
other
cases, sworn law
enforcement
officials who
perjured themselves despite
their legal obligation to
uphold
the
law
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 23/27
were
sentenced
far
less
harshly.
Sylshina London,
a Chicago
police officer
who was convicted
at rial
on
a charge
that
she
perjuriously
accused a
mourner
in a
funeral procession
of hrowing a
bottle
at
her car,
received
a
sentence of nly
four
-and
-a-half
months.
People v.
London,No. 12
CR 018601
Cook
County);
ee also
Ex.
17,
Mark
Suppelsa, WGN nvestigates: n fficer s
li e
and the
boss
who backed
her
up,
Oct.
6, 2014, wgntv.com.) Pamela Bruce, a Cook County
sheriff
eputy, lso went o
tri l
on a perjury
charge,
which
related
to
her
having lied
about
her
role in
the beating of a
Cook
County
ail
inmate, and she received
probation.
People v. Bruce,
No. 13
CR 4921 Cook
County);
Ex.
18,
Steve Schmadeke,
x
-Cook
ail
guard voids prison
time
for
mentally
ill
inmate s
beating,
Chi.
Tribune,
November
18,
2014,
t l.)
In
other
noted
instances
of perjury
by law
enforcement
officers, no prosecution at all was brought. Ex. 14,
Amicus Curiae
Brief t
9.)
By
ontrast, Willie
Johnson,
a
disabled
father
of
wo young
children
and
not a sworn law
enforcement
officer,
and who did not
go to
tri l
but
pleaded
uilty, received
30
months
in state
prison.
The
severity of
illie s sentence
only
adds to his prosecution s
chilling
effect on
truthful
recantations.
The
unnecessarily
harsh and disproportionate nature of is 30-month sentence adds
yet another ground
for
executive
clemency
—
at minimum, is
sentence should
be
commuted
to
no
prison
time
so he may be released immediately.
I~i~~K~~[~Ily
~]~I
The perjury prosecution of Willie Johnson
creates
an
unacceptable
risk
of
iscouraging
future recantations of false testimony or identifications in criminal
cases.
The
23
former
prosecutors
and
judges who filed
an
amicus brief
in
this case
were correct, and
the
Cook
County
State s
Attorney underscored the
point
of he 23 former judges
and
prosecutors when she said
she would not
bring
a
recantation perjury
case without
being
able to
prove
the
falsity of
the
21
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 24/27
recantation, only to bring the single
recantation perjury
case
her
office
can
remember by
asserting that the
recantation's
truth
or falsity
was
irrelevant and
not a
matter
to
be
considered
by
Willie's
jury. Willie's
perjury
prosecution, and his
unduly harsh and
disproportionate
30-
month
prison sentence,
are
a
paradigm
for
the
concerns
about
chilling
of ruthful recantations.
Future
witnesses prepared to
recant can be told
—correctly —that they
will
be
cannon fodder
for
perjury
prosecutions just
as
Willie was. Willie should
receive executive clemency
immediately,
notwithstanding
the
arguments that the State's
Attorney has made
publicly
and
repeatedly
as to
his guilt,
as
attached hereto.
The
State's
most
trenchant
argument
o the
23
former
judges and
prosecutors,
was
that
Willie's
prosecution would not chill
truthful
recantations
because no
such perjury
case should
ever
be brought
in
the absence
of roof, beyond a
reasonable
doubt,
of
he
recantation's
falsity.
But
in
the
end
he
State
was unwilling
to
apply ts
prescription
to
the
only recantation perjury
case t
was
prosecuting. Willie's
perjury prosecution became a prime example
of
how
recanting
witnesses
so
easily can
and
will
be charged
with
perjury
when the
prosecutor does not
believe
the recantation.
ow
that
recanting witnesses
will
see
from Willie's
prosecution that
they
are
provably guilty
of erjury from the
moment
they
recant,
without
the ability to
demonstrate the
truthfulness of
heir recantations, executive
clemency s appropriate and should be
granted
to
Willie forthwith.
22
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 25/27
V
PRAYER FOR
RELIEF
For
the
foregoing
reasons we
respectfully
request that the
Governor pardon Willie
Johnson and expunge his
October
7,
2014
conviction
for
perjury. In the alternative
we
respectfully
request
that his
30
-month prison sentence be
commuted to no term
of
ncarceration
resulting
in
his
immediate
release.
Dated:
December 3,2014
Gabriel A
uentes
Andrew
W ail
Justin
C.
teffen
JENNER BLOCK
LLP
353 N
lark
St.
Chicago,
L
60654
Telephone:
312) 22-9350
Facsimile: 312)
27-0484
Respectfully
submitted,
WILLIE
JOHNSON
By:
One
of is Attorneys
23
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 26/27
DE L R TION
I
Willie
Johnson eclare under penalty
of
erjury
that
ll
of
he
assertions
made
in
this
petition are
complete
ruthful and accurate.
Willie Johnson
Subscribed
and
sworn to before me
this
day
of
014.
Notary Public
8/18/2019 Johnson's petition for Executive Clemency
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/johnsons-petition-for-executive-clemency 27/27
CER
TIFI
CAT
E OF SE
RVIC
E
I Gab
riel
A.
u
en tes
, an
attor
ney
h
ereby
cert
ify t
hat
a ru
e
an
d
corr
ect copy
of
he
Pet
ition
of
ill
ie J
ohns
on
fo
r
E
xecu
tive
C
leme
ncy
was
se r
ve d by
UP
S
vern
ight
this
3rd
Day
of
Dece
mber
upo
n
e
ach of
he f
ollow
ing:
Ho
n.
Jud
ge
D
enni
s Porter
Circu
it
Co
urt
of
Co
ok
C
ounty
,
llin
ois
Cri mi
nal
C
ourt D
ivisi
on
2600
Sout
h
C
alifo
rnia
A
venue
, R
oom
60
6
Chica
go IL
6
0608
Hon.
An
ita Al
varez
S
tate s
A
ttorn
ey of
C
ook
Co
unty
9
W
ashi
ngton
,
uite 3
200
Ch
icag
o IL
60
602
Cam
Ga
briel
A.
ue
ntes
S
ub scr
ibed a
nd
swor
n
to
be
fore me
this .1~~
a~
da
y
of ~,
c.r~,~,I
~.,
014.
-~~
N~o
ary
Pu
blic
~
OFFIC
IAL
SEA
L
JA
NYCE
,
1f
lE~ST
ER
NOTARY
UBIiC
,
S
TATE
0~
LLi
N~~S
MY
COMMIS
SION
EXPIRES
9-2
9-2015
Gab
riel A.
uente
s
And
rew W ail
Ju
stin C.
te
ffen
JE
NNER
BL
OCK
LLP
3
53 N
.
lark St.
Chic
ago,
IL
6
0654
T
eleph
one:
312)
22
-9350
Fac
simil
e: 3
12)
2
7-04
84
C
ouns
el
or
W
illie
Johns
on
Top Related