united-states criminal-law appeal criminal-procedure perjury
Are You Entitled To Release From Prison If All Of Your Accusers Recant Their Testimony?
<p>There's no physical evidence that a man convicted of a murder in Addison, Ill. is guilty. Instead, his conviction is mostly based on the testimony of three friends, all of whom later recant.</p>
<p>May a federal court vacate the murder conviction and order that he be freed from prison?</p>

<p>No. A federal court may not vacate the conviction which the state court declined to vacate under these circumstances.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On March 22, 2009, a jury found Luis Villavicencio‐Serna guilty of
first‐degree murder of Armando Huerta Jr. Scant physical evidence
linked him to the charge. The conviction instead was largely based on
testimony from three of his friends, all of whom later recanted.</p>
<p>Villavicencio‐Serna exhausted his state‐court appeals and then sought
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Throughout
these proceedings, he consistently has challenged the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction. He emphasizes the lack of
physical evidence connecting him to the murder, and he suggests that
several factors - inconsistencies between the testimonies of his three
friends, their subsequent recantations, and the interrogation tactics
used by the police—reveal that the police pressured his friends to
implicate him. Finally, he offers an alternative theory that links
another group to the murder.</p>
<p>In the face of these arguments, the Illinois Appellate Court upheld
his conviction. The [federal] district court, applying the double‐layered
deference required by section 2254(d), concluded that the state
court’s decision was not unreasonable, and so it refused to issue the
writ. <em>See Villavicencio‐Serna v. Melvin</em>, No. 17 C 5442, 2019 WL
2548688 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2019).</p>
<p>Although we sympathize with the district court’s observation that “the
lack of any physical evidence in this case is troubling,” we too
conclude that Villavicencio‐Serna has not shown enough to entitle him
to issuance of the writ. We therefore affirm.</p>
</blockquote>
