Johnson v. Ayers

Background

Willie Darnell Johnson was convicted in 1987 of murdering Willie Womble and attempting to murder Angela Womble. The trial evidence included Angela Womble’s identification of John Allen Duchine and her identification of Johnson from a photo lineup. Duchine later testified at his own trial that Johnson was the second shooter.

Johnson’s claims I and H had previously been denied after a 2018 evidentiary hearing. Claim I alleged actual innocence. Claim H alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to investigate whether Johnson’s brother, Tim Johnson, was responsible for the homicide.

Motion for Reconsideration

Johnson asked the court to reconsider its earlier ruling. Under the applicable local rule, reconsideration of an interlocutory ruling requires a showing of a material factual or legal difference that could not previously have been discovered with reasonable diligence, newly developed material facts or law, or the court’s failure to consider material facts previously presented. The court stated that reconsideration motions are generally disfavored and cannot be used simply to repeat rejected arguments or present new arguments.

For the actual-innocence claim, Johnson challenged the court’s deference to the state court’s credibility findings concerning Duchine. Duchine had first identified Johnson as a participant, later signed a 1992 declaration blaming Tim Johnson, and then recanted that declaration during a 1996 state-court hearing. The court concluded that the state court’s credibility findings were supported by the record, including Duchine’s testimony, his disavowal of the 1992 declaration, and the evidence from Johnson’s trial. Johnson did not identify a valid basis for rejecting those findings or for reconsideration.

For the ineffective-assistance claim, Johnson argued that his trial counsel failed to investigate Tim Johnson’s possible involvement. The court noted that Tim Johnson had refused to speak with the trial investigator and that a post-hearing statement indicated Johnson’s family had interfered with the investigation. The court also stated that evidence presented at the state-court hearing showed, at most, that Tim Johnson might have been involved in planning the robbery-murder, not that he was the shooter instead of Johnson. The court therefore denied reconsideration of claim H.

Request for Another Evidentiary Hearing

Johnson asked for a hearing so Duchine could testify again after his release from prison. Johnson did not provide a statement from Duchine, and the court assumed that Duchine would testify in Johnson’s favor. Even with that assumption, the court found a hearing unwarranted because Johnson could not overcome the state court’s supported credibility findings by recalling the same witness to give different testimony.

The court also explained that a freestanding actual-innocence claim requires an extraordinarily high and truly persuasive showing of innocence. It determined that another recantation from Duchine would not sufficiently strengthen Johnson’s claim, given Duchine’s repeated conflicting accounts over time. The court viewed the proposed testimony as affected by that history.

Disposition

The court denied Johnson’s motion for reconsideration and denied his request for an additional evidentiary hearing. Judge Susan Illston did not alter the earlier denial of claims I and H.