By: Derek Hawkins//October 6, 2020//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Shan Fieldman v. Christine Brannon
Case No.: 19-1795
Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Habeas Relief – Exclusion of Evidence
On July 23, 2010, Shan Fieldman climbed into a truck in a Walmart parking lot and told a hitman that he wanted his ex-wife and her boyfriend killed. The hitman was in fact an undercover police officer who videotaped their conversation. Fieldman was charged and tried in Illinois state court for solicitation of murder for hire.
Fieldman defended against the state’s charges by contesting his intent (a necessary element of the offense) to have his ex-wife and her boyfriend killed. To that end, because a police informant brokered his meeting with the hitman, Fieldman sought to testify about his interactions with that informant during the five weeks before his conversation with the hitman. Fieldman believed this testimony would provide the jury with critical contextual information about his state of mind and demonstrate that his meeting with the hitman was a charade.
But the Illinois trial court did not allow the jury to hear this testimony because the court concluded it was irrelevant. Fieldman was convicted and unsuccessfully appealed his convictions through the Illinois state courts.
In this federal collateral attack on his conviction, Fieldman contends the court’s exclusion of his testimony deprived him of his federal constitutional right to present a complete defense. We agree. The court’s exclusion was contrary to clearly established federal law confirming a defendant’s right to testify, on his own behalf, about circumstances bearing directly on his guilt or innocence or the jury’s ascertainment of guilt. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986); Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987). And the exclusion of material portions of his testimony had a detrimental effect on his interests because it undercut his entire defense and effectively prevented him from challenging the state’s strongest evidence. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of habeas relief.
Affirmed