99-2154 Shasteen v. Saver

Listen to this article

“When one contemplates the circumstances of this case, it is difficult to find misconduct in connection with Garnati’s actions… [T]he prosecutor was shown a copy of the note dated April 6 and was told by a confident Mrs. Misselhorn that she and her husband in fact purchased the note on April 6. The Shasteens also had adequate opportunity to expose the alleged perjury on cross-examination. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, ‘once the inconsistencies were pointed out, the State produced the records necessary to discredit the Misselhorns’ testimony.’… While we recognize that it would have been preferable if Garnati had checked the ledger and not relied solely on the Misselhorns’ representations concerning the date of the note, we cannot say that his behavior resulted in a knowing use of perjured testimony. This is especially the case since the Shasteens were able during the trial to show that the Misselhorns did not purchase the note on April 6. Therefore, the Shasteens had ample opportunity to expose the alleged perjury, thus minimizing its impact. See Saadeh, 61 F.3d at 523-24. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decision to deny the Shasteens a writ of habeas corpus.”

Affirmed.