People v. Shilitano

In People v. Shilitano, 218 NY 161 (1916) the Court of Appeals long ago set forth the manner in which courts should approach witness recantations made after a guilty verdict. The Court was concerned that witnesses could be tampered with or threatened after trial to induce them to change their testimony. Thus, the Court cautioned judges to review recantation evidence carefully and not to lightly overturn a jury verdict. People v. Shilitano is most often quoted for its statement that: "there is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony." Id. at 170. However, the Court in Shilitano made clear that recantation testimony is not to be rejected outright. It must be weighed carefully in light of all the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court said: "I do not wish to be understood as urging that the fact of recantation is not to be considered by the court in weighing the testimony upon which the defendant was convicted, but I wish to make clear the fact that recantation in and of itself does not necessarily require the court to order a new trial. Such being the case, whether or not a new trial should be granted must depend on all of the circumstances of the case, including the testimony of the witnesses for the people submitted on the motion for a new trial in which these witnesses recant the testimony which they gave upon the trial." (Id. at 169-170 1.) The Court of Appeals characterized recantation testimony as "unreliable." The Court also enumerated the factors that must be analyzed to determine if the recantation evidence is credible. Consideration of recantation evidence involves the following factors: (1) the inherent believability of the substance of the recanting testimony; (2) the witness's demeanor both at trial and at the evidentiary hearing; (3) the existence of evidence corroborating the trial testimony; (4) the reasons offered for both the trial testimony and the recantation; (5) the importance of facts established at trial as reaffirmed in the recantation; and (6) the relationship between the witness and defendant as related to a motive to lie.