Background
Robert Gold-Smith was convicted of solicitation of murder for hire and solicitation of murder. The appellate court previously reversed those convictions and remanded for further proceedings, while concluding that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to convict him and that double jeopardy did not bar retrial. After the State nol-prossed both charges in March 2023, Gold-Smith petitioned for a certificate of innocence.
At the evidentiary hearing, Gold-Smith testified that other inmates had warned him that jail informant Brian McDaniel intended to frame him while wearing a wire. Gold-Smith acknowledged about one minute of small talk with McDaniel but denied participating in the whispered conversation captured on the recording or soliciting McDaniel to kill his ex-wife. The circuit court denied the petition, relying in part on Gold-Smith’s later recorded statement that he had told the informant what the informant wanted to hear to make him go away. Gold-Smith then submitted an affidavit in which McDaniel claimed the whispering voice was his own, but the court denied Gold-Smith’s combined request to vacate or reconsider its judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that Gold-Smith failed to prove every statutory requirement for a certificate of innocence. His recorded statement supported the circuit court’s reasonable inference that he voluntarily communicated with McDaniel in a manner that contributed to his conviction. Because Gold-Smith did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had not voluntarily caused or brought about his conviction, that failure alone defeated his petition.
The court also upheld the finding that Gold-Smith failed to prove his innocence. Its earlier determination that the evidence could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt remained binding under the law-of-the-case doctrine, and the circuit court was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence and make credibility determinations. The appellate court further treated Gold-Smith’s filing—submitted 29 days after judgment—as a motion to reconsider rather than a section 2-1401 petition and held that the circuit court properly denied relief because counsel knew of McDaniel before the hearing but did not subpoena him.
Key Takeaways
- A certificate-of-innocence petitioner must prove every statutory element by a preponderance of the evidence; failure on any single element defeats the petition.
- A petitioner’s own recorded statements may support a finding that the petitioner voluntarily caused or brought about the conviction, even when the petitioner denies the alleged criminal conversation.
- Evidence offered after judgment is not newly discovered without due diligence; anticipating that a witness might invoke the Fifth Amendment did not excuse the failure to subpoena him and allow the trial court to assess the privilege.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that dismissal of charges following reversal does not itself establish entitlement to a certificate of innocence. Illinois courts may examine the underlying record, resolve credibility disputes, and deny relief when the petitioner cannot affirmatively establish both innocence and lack of responsibility for bringing about the conviction.
The order also emphasizes the procedural importance of timely developing available evidence before the certificate-of-innocence hearing. A party who knows of a potentially favorable witness generally cannot withhold a subpoena and later characterize that witness’s affidavit as newly discovered evidence.