A three-judge panel of the First District said in an opinion Friday that Chancellor Aaron must get a new trial because he proved a key witness for the state gave a radically different version of what happened during a subsequent trial of Aaron's co-defendant.
"We found that this recantation and testimony was of such a conclusive character that it would probably change the outcome upon retrial," Justice Sharon O. Johnson wrote for the panel, adding that in the present case, Aaron "appeals the denial of his petition after a third-stage evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial."
Aaron and a co-defendant, Kirk Horshaw, were accused of shooting and killing Aaron Crawford in May 2002. An eyewitness to the incident, one of Crawford's friends, Daniel Wesley, would soon be identified by state prosecutors as a key witness to the case.
Wesley agreed to testify at Aaron's 2005 trial, and prosecutors came to the conclusion that he alone was responsible for killing Crawford. Initially difficult to find in anticipation of the trial, prosecutors brought Wesley back to Chicago from Minnesota, where he was serving a sentence for aggravated battery, according to the opinion.
Aaron and Wesley had known each other for years, with prosecutors showing at trial that they had been members of rival gangs. Wesley said the shooting was the result of an argument between Horshaw and Crawford that resulted in firearms being pulled.
Wesley initially maintained that he did not see who shot Crawford, but that it could be either Aaron or Horshaw. Less than a year later, in April 2003, Wesley was arrested on unrelated weapons charges and at the time told police and an assistant prosecutor that Aaron alone killed Crawford, the panel noted.
Wesley testified at Aaron's trial repeating what he told police, that Aaron had killed Crawford, and in September 2005, a state court jury found Aaron guilty of murder. Aaron was sentenced a few months later to 25 years for murder and another 20 years for a mandatory firearms enhancement.
Horshaw was tried separately in 2010, and prosecutors again called Wesley to testify, though this time the version of events was altered from Aaron's trial. Wesley said during Horshaw's trial that not only had he been intoxicated the night of the shooting, he conceded that he was "just trying to get out of the police station" for the weapons charges, according to the opinion.
Aaron filed a petition to reconsider his sentence in light of the new information that had come out from Horshaw's trial, saying the new testimony casts doubt on his role in the murder. A trial court denied the petition, and in 2013, an Illinois appeals court reversed the decision, saying the motion should be allowed to move forward, the opinion said.
Aaron introduced new evidence from Wesley, as well as two other eyewitnesses who had not come forward, and after multiple delays, including because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the motion was denied in January 2024. The trial judge found that despite Wesley recanting his initial testimony that Aaron killed Crawford, it did not prove Aaron's innocence, the opinion said.
Illinois' Post-Conviction Hearing Act requires that a defendant show "actual innocence" if they seek to have their sentence revisited. Aaron asserted that a trial court judge misapplied the law when finding he had not proven his innocence through the new evidence provided by Wesley and the other two eyewitnesses.
The appeals panel said Friday that because the evidence at Aaron's original trial was "far from overwhelming," the new evidence successfully cleared the actual innocence bar. The panel reversed the denial of petition and ordered a new trial.
Justice Thaddeus L. Wilson authored a special concurrence to note what he called an ambiguity that undermines the consistency of postconviction relief. The opinion found that regardless of how an appeals court should review the case, Aaron should get a new trial.
"What is clear, however, is that even under the more deferential manifest error standard, reversal is warranted here," Justice Wilson said. "The trial court's findings, when measured against the totality of the evidence, reveal a sufficient probability that another jury would reach a different result."
An attorney representing Aaron and a spokesperson for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for comment Monday.
Justices Sharon O. Johnson, Mary L. Mikva and Thaddeus L. Wilson sat for the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
The state is represented by Eileen O'Neill Burke, John E. Nowak and Brian A. Levitsky of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
Aaron is represented by James E. Chadd, Tiffany Boye Green and Douglas R. Hoff of the Office of the State Appellate Defender.
The case is People v. Aaron, case number 1-24-0126, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
--Editing by Covey Son.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
