Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andersonn v. Jaimet

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 29, 2017

MARK J. ANDERSON, Petitioner,
v.
KAREN JAIMET, Respondent.[1]

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Mark J. Anderson was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, in 2003. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling twenty-three years. After exhausting state court remedies, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 1).

         This matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the petition is time-barred. (Doc. 11). Petitioner responded to the motion at Doc. 14.

         1. Grounds Asserted for Habeas Relief

         As construed on preliminary review, the petition states the following grounds:

1. Use of inadmissible hearsay evidence (minor victim's statements made to an investigator) at trial;
2. The introduction of petitioner's illegally obtained confession;
3. Lack of corroborating evidence;
4. Lack of DNA testing;
5. Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and
6. Actual innocence.

See, Doc. 3.

         2. Relevant Facts

         In view of the issue raised in respondent's motion, it is not necessary to delve too deeply into the facts underlying petitioner's conviction.

         This summary of the fact is taken from the Appellate Court's Rule 23 Order denying Anderson's direct appeal, Doc. Doc. 11, Ex, 2.[2] State court determinations of facts “shall be presumed to be correct” and can only be rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(1). Petitioner has not offered any evidence to rebut the state court's determinations of fact.

         The victim was petitioner's nine-year-old stepdaughter, A.F. A.F. told her brother, J.F., that petitioner sexually abused her, and J.F. told their mother. The mother contacted the police. Casey Woodham, an investigator with the DuPage County Children's Center, interviewed the victim. A.F. made detailed statements describing petitioner's abuse of her. Petitioner was interviewed by a different investigator and a detective; during that interview, he confessed to sexually abusing A. F.

         About two years later, A.F. was interviewed again. This time, A.F. said that she had been abused by a man named “Robert” whom she had met at a park and who had come to her home five times and abused her. She also said that her brother J.F. had told her to change her story so that Anderson would not go to jail.

         At trial, the videotaped confession was played, and Casey Woodham testified about the statements made by A.F. during the first interview. A.F. testified that it was “Rob” and not petitioner who had abused her. A detective testified that he had removed a stained comforter and a carpet sample from the home. A forensic scientist testified that the carpet did not contain blood or semen and that the stain on the comforter tested positive for semen. However, the semen on the comforter did not match petitioner's DNA profile. Petitioner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.