01-2929 Harding v. Walls

Listen to this article

“Harland’s affidavit averred that he discussed his case with his attorney and the prosecutor prior to trial and that, during those discussions, he was ‘reassured’ that his testifying against Harding would benefit his own case. Additionally, the affidavits of the prosecutor and defense counsel both state unequivocally that Harland received no promises or any agreements for a charge reduction or an agreed sentencing term prior to testifying against Harding. The affidavit of Harland’s defense attorney attested to the fact that the prosecutor refused to negotiate a plea in exchange for testimony. Mere reassurances given outside the realm of negotiations hardly qualify as a definitive request or promise for beneficial consideration. Indeed, as the respondent points out, such reassurances reflect that Harland was simply advised of the reality that cooperating with the prosecution might benefit him at a future date. Absent anything more, it is not at all unreasonable to conclude that Harland testified truthfully since he had nothing more than a common sense hope that his testimony might be beneficial to his own case. Because we find that the state court’s determination that Harland did not commit constitutional error by perjuring himself was reasonable, we need not reach the intertwined issues of harmless error and impact on the jury.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Bauer, J.