Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged his murder conviction on ground that record did not support jury's guilty verdict, under circumstances where record lacked physical evidence that linked defendant to murder, and where record contained inconsistencies in testimonies of three individuals, who initially identified defendant as shooter, but eventually recanted said identifications. Dist. Ct. could properly find under applicable double-layered deference required by section 2254(d) that state court's decision which upheld defendant's conviction was not unreasonable. Moreover, although defendant presented several examples of inconsistencies in testimonies of said witnesses, defendant failed to establish that state-court's evaluation of sufficiency of evidence issue was objectively unreasonable. Too, Dist. Ct. in resolving instant habeas claim did not have license to re-determine credibility of witnesses at defendant's trial, which was within jury's domain. Also, identified inconsistencies in testimonies were not so serious so as to compel finding that state court unreasonably concluded that jury's verdict did not fail for lack of sufficiency of evidence.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus