## Facts

- Robert Wilson, an Illinois prisoner, was convicted of first-degree attempted murder for a February 28, 1997 knife attack on June Siler at a Chicago bus stop and was sentenced to 30 years.
- The prosecution’s case relied primarily on Siler’s identification and Wilson’s confession; no physical evidence linked Wilson to the attack.
- Wilson sought to present evidence that Jerryco Wagner committed a series of similar unprovoked knife attacks in the same area within about two weeks of the Siler attack, including an especially similar attack on Leticia Guzman.
- Wagner was arrested and admitted committing the other attacks.
- The state trial court excluded the Wagner evidence as insufficiently connected to the charged offense; the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed under a heightened “close connection” approach to third-party guilt evidence.
- After unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings, Wilson filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson’s Sixth Amendment claim was procedurally defaulted based on how it was presented in state court.
2. Whether, under AEDPA, the state courts’ exclusion of the Wagner third-party guilt evidence was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent on the right to present a defense.
3. Whether any constitutional error was harmless or instead had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict under Brecht.

## Decision

- The district court held the Sixth Amendment claim was not procedurally defaulted because Wilson fairly presented the substance of the federal claim in state court.
- The court held the exclusion of the Wagner evidence violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and that the state courts’ approval of the exclusion was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law under § 2254(d).
- The court found the error was not harmless under Brecht because it likely affected the jury’s verdict.
- The court granted the writ of habeas corpus.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense, which may be violated when evidentiary rules are applied arbitrarily or disproportionately to exclude critical, reliable defense evidence.
- Third-party guilt evidence may not be excluded through heightened nexus requirements when the evidence is directly relevant, strongly probative, and supported by reliable indicia (including corroboration and admissions by the third party).
- On federal habeas review, relief is available when the state court’s adjudication is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- Even when a constitutional violation is shown, habeas relief requires prejudice: the error must have had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict under Brecht.

## Conclusion

The court granted federal habeas relief because the state courts barred highly probative and reliable third-party guilt evidence central to Wilson’s defense without adequate justification, and the exclusion likely influenced the jury in a case lacking physical evidence.


Wilson v. Firkus, 457 F. Supp. 2d 865 (N.D. Ill. 2006)