holding that "[b]ecause the postconviction trial judge is in the best position to observe and weigh the credibility of witnesses testifying at an evidentiary hearing, his findings of fact will not be overturned unless those findings are manifestly erroneous"
How later courts described this case
- holding that "[b]ecause the postconviction trial judge is in the best position to observe and weigh the credibility of witnesses testifying at an evidentiary hearing, his findings of fact will not be overturned unless those findings are manifestly erroneous"
- discussing the combined effect of all the evidence available to the defendant on a successive postconviction petition, and whether, when added to the evidence presented at trial, it would likely lead to a different result
- discussing the cumulative evidence now available to the defendant, in order to determine whether the result would probably change at retrial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE McBRIDE, specially concurring:
I write to specially concur because I agree that defendant should be given a new trial based upon the evidence presented to the trial court which, in my opinion, meets the cause-and-prejudice test outlined in section 122 — 1(f) (725 ILCS 5/122 — 1(f) (West 2004)). Therefore, the majority discussion about case precedent since the 2004 enactment as to whether actual innocence remains an exception to the cause-and-prejudice requirement necessary for the filing of successive petitions is unnecessary. I agree with the analysis in all other respects; therefore, I specially concur.