On March 27, 2013, U.S. District Judge Harold Baker, sitting in the Central District of Illinois, entered a judgment against the City of Paris, Illinois, former Paris Police Chief Gene Ray, former Paris detective James Parrish, and former Edgar County State’s Attorney Michael McFatridge that requires that the City of Paris, Edgar County, various insurance companies, and the State of Illinois pay Randy Steidl a total of $3.5 million dollars. When combined with the $2.5 million dollars already paid to Steidl by the State of Illinois on behalf of several Illinois State Police Defendants last year, the total amount of the award is $6 million.

Randy Steidl was wrongfully convicted in 1987 for a gruesome double murder in Paris, Illinois that he did not commit. He spent 17 years in jail, 12 on death row, until he was exonerated by the Federal Court in 2003. Investigators from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and the Illinois State Police found that the witnesses against Steidl were “created,’’ that their version of events were “impossible,” that important evidence was suppressed from Steidl, and that he and his co-defendant, Herb Whitlock, were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

In 2005 People’s Law Office lawyers filed a civil rights lawsuit on Steidl’s  behalf that, after eight years of litigation, including two successful appeals and one trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, has been resolved by this judgment. However, Mr. Steidl’s pursuit of justice and full compensation is not complete, as Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, like Governors Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan before him, has refused to act on Steidl’s request for a pardon on the basis of innocence. Additionally, the State of Illinois has, to date, refused to honor its statutory obligation to pay State’s Attorney McFatridge’s portion of the judgment.

Mr. Steidl, a leading member of Witness to Innocence and a public advocate for the national abolition of the death penalty, made the following statement concerning his case:

I am both pleased and relieved that, after 25 years of fighting for justice, I have finally resolved my civil case. While no amount of money can fully compensate me for what I have suffered, this judgment and the prior settlement establish, once and for all, that I was wrongfully convicted for crimes I did not commit. However, my pursuit of justice will not end until my name is completely cleared by an innocence pardon from the Governor.

Co-Plaintiff Herbert Whitlock, who was represented by separate counsel, previously settled his case for an undisclosed amount.

Follow these links for more information on Randy Steidl’s wrongful conviction case:

Appellate Court Victory in Randy Steidl’s Wrongful Conviction Case

March 28, 2013 Tribune Article: 9 years later, freed man wins $3.5 million judgment

Illinois Times Article: From death row to hero

Witness to Innocence: Randy Steidl

Today, March 27, 2013 attorneys for the NATO 3 appeared before Judge Thaddeus Wilson to hear his ruling on an argument, given last week, that the terrorism counts filed against the NATO 3 should be dismissed.The motion to dismiss, which was filed in January, challenges the statutory definitions of “terrorism” as being unconstitutionally vague and as impermissibly restricting lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment.

In a 33 page order, Judge Wilson denied the motion to dismiss.  His opinion found that the Illinois Terrorism Statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.  Ruling on the challenge that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the defendants, Judge Wilson denied the motion without prejudice.  This means that the defendants may be able to raise the issue again after the State presents its evidence at trial.

The next court date will be Tuesday, April 16 for a status hearing.

Read the Defendant’s Motion, Memorandum, Reply and Surreply below, followed by Judge Wilson’s Order

NATO 3 Motion to Dismiss Terrorism Counts

NATO 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

NATO 3 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

NATO 3 Surreply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Judge Wilson’s Order Denying Motion to Dismiss the Terrorism Counts

Yesterday, March 19, People’s Law Office attorney Michael Deutsch argued before Judge Thaddeus Wilson that the terrorism counts filed against the NATO 3 should be dismissed based on the unconstitutionality of the Illinois terrorism statute.

In lieu of the usual courtroom, a larger courtroom was used in order to accommodate the over 40 supporters that were in attendance. During the hearing, Deutsch argued that the state terrorism statute used to charge Brian Jacob Church, Jared Chase, and Brent Betterly is unconstitutional on its face and as-applied to the three young activists.

Deutsch opened by articulating that this case concerns not only the defendants, but to everyone in this state and beyond.  Due to the vagueness of many of the terms in the statute, people in Illinois or coming to Illinois are not given notice about what actions could fall within the state terrorism statute.

First, Deutsch cautioned that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it potentially sweeps in protected First Amendment conduct and because the statute lacks a culpable mental state, allowing for the potential criminalization of innocent conduct. Deutsch pointed out that, under the Illinois terrorism statute, a group of activists emailing their legislative representatives could potentially be charged with terrorism if the amount of emails shuts down the server.  Deutsch referenced examples where this has occurred, which were cited in Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss.

Additionally, Deutsch argued that the statute fails to identify a culpable mental state and it does not require acts be committed with the use force or violence.  Nor does the statute even require the commission of a crime. Deutsch noted that this is a significant departure from other states, who have identified the commission of a state or federal crime as a predicate for terrorism charge. This makes the statute overly broad and unconstitutional and creates the potential for arbitrary and politically-motivated prosecutions.

In addition to challenging the statute on its face, Deutsch argued that the statute is unconstitutional as-applied to the defendants.  While an as-applied challenge raises significant questions before the facts have been determined by a court, Deutsch argued that even if the facts as alleged were taken as true it would not amount to terrorism.

Judge Wilson indicated that he intends to have a ruling by the next court date.  The next court date will be Wednesday, March 27th at 2pm at the Criminal Court Building at 2650 S. California. The status hearing will take place in courtroom 303, which is Judge Wilson’s assigned court room.

Lawyers from People’s Law Office Challenging Illinois Terrorism Statute

Date: March 19, 2013
Time: 2:00pm
Location: Cook County Criminal Court, Judge Thaddeus Wilson, Room 303 (may be moved to a different court room to accommodate crowd)
2650 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608

Contact: Michael Deutsch, Lawyer for Brian Jacob Church
People’s Law Office
773-235-0070

Today, March 19, 2013, lawyers for the NATO 3 will argue their motion to dismiss the state terrorism charges filed against their clients Brian Jacob Church, Jared Chase, and Brent Betterly. The motion, which was filed in January, challenges the statutory definitions of “terrorism” as being unconstitutionally vague and as impermissibly restricting lawful conduct protected by the First Amendment.

The definition of terrorism used in the Illinois statute, “an intent to coerce or intimidate a significant portion of the civilian population,” does not require an element of force or violence, nor does it limit its application to illegal conduct. Furthermore, the statute fails to define a “significant portion of the civilian population” and lacks standards for defining other terms such as “coerce” and “intimidate.” For these reasons, the statute fails to provide constitutionally sufficient notice to those facing potential criminal charges.

The vagueness of the statute also allows for the arbitrary and politically motivated use of the statute by police and prosecutors, exemplified by the charging of Betterly, Church, and Chase on the eve of major anti-NATO demonstrations last May. Though the terrorism statute was passed following September 11, 2001, the challenged sections had never been used until Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez charged the NATO 3 with material support for terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism and issued an accompanying press release alleging sensationalist plots by the young activists—none of which ever occurred.

The NATO 3 lawyers will be available to answer questions after the court appearance.

Read the Defendant’s Motion, Memorandum and Reply below

NATO 3 Motion to Dismiss Terrorism Counts

NATO 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

NATO 3 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

On Monday, March 4th, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest supporting the right to record on-duty police officers in a second private civil rights lawsuit in Maryland federal court. Photojournalist Mannie Garcia was on a public street when he used his camera to document a rough arrest by Montgomery County Police officers in June 2011. An all-too-common scenario unfolded next: though Mr. Garcia was 30 to 100 feet away, an officer arrested him, placed him in a chokehold, seized his camera, threw him to the ground, and placed him under arrest for disorderly conduct. Mr. Garcia’s video card was never returned to him.

Mr. Garcia was acquitted of the disorderly conduct charges and brought a civil rights lawsuit alleging that his arrest and the seizure of his camera violated his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. Though Mr. Garcia is a member of the press and even identified himself as such, it makes no difference for the First Amendment rights analysis, which is one issue rightfully emphasized in the D.O.J.’s Statement. Importantly, the Statement also expresses “concern” “that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

This is the second Maryland case in which the D.O.J. has filed a Statement of Interest in the last year. In 2012, the D.O.J. weighed in on Christopher Sharp’s case—in which the Baltimore Police seized Mr. Sharp’s phone and deleted videos he had taken of BPD officers arresting his friend as well as numerous personal videos.

Both incidents involve obvious attempts to document what the recording individuals believed to be police misconduct, particularly excessive use of force in the course of an arrest. The cases provide crucial insight into how cell phones and their now-ubiquitous recording capability are understood as threats to historical impunity of police action. Recording police activity can not only be a deterrent, but can also serve as critical evidence of police misconduct in civil rights cases seeking to hold police officers accountable for their actions. Video documentation of police misconduct has been useful in a number of civil rights cases litigated over the years by People’s Law Office.

In addition, such recordings may help people who find themselves facing disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespass charges get them dismissed. Those easily leveled, discretionary charges are often used by police = as a way to deter or punish people exercising their First Amendment right to record. In the Statement of Interest in Mannie Garcia’s case, even the D.O.J. admits such charges must be viewed “skeptically” by courts.

Each U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that has considered the issue has concluded that the right to record on-duty police activity is protected by the First Amendment. This includes the Seventh Circuit: when reviewing the A.C.L.U.’s recent challenge to the Illinois’s eavesdropping law (which specifically made it a felony to audio record on-duty police), said “Audio and audiovisual recording are media of expression commonly used for the preservation and dissemination of information and ideas and thus are ‘included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.’” Most courts have also recognized that the right to record on-duty police should enjoy particular protection under the First Amendment because of its close relationship to public scrutiny of official government conduct and its corresponding importance in a democratic society.

While Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez is currently enjoined from prosecuting individuals who record on-duty police officers under Illinois’s eavesdropping law, the Chicago Police Department has not announced any policy changes or educational initiatives designed to prevent violations of civil rights by officers who may seize recording-capable devices believing the law to be in force. In addition, the use of discretionary charges in order to punish and deter people who attempt to hold police accountable for their actions through recordings is not directly affected by the A.C.L.U. case and remains a critical civil rights and First Amendment issue in Chicago and the nation. We at People’s Law Office continue to closely monitor how courts rule on the issue of the right to record police officers, as we see it as a First Amendment right and a crucial tool in confronting and exposing police brutality.

——–

The DOJ’s full Statement of Interest in Mannie Garcia’s case can be read here.

The DOJ’s 2012 Statement of Interest in the Sharp case can be read in its entirety here, and their subsequent letter to the Baltimore Police Department suggesting appropriate Department policy changes can be read here.

The Seventh Circuit’s full opinion in ACLU v. Alvarez can be read here.

By G. Flint Taylor

                On Friday March 3, 2013, former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley filed his opposition to Chicago police torture survivor Ronald Kitchen’s motion for a court order compelling him to sit for a sworn, videotaped deposition. This is the latest skirmish in a nine year long legal battle to force Daley to answer about his central role in the police torture scandal and its cover-up. This involvement began with his refusal, while the elected State’s Attorney of Cook County, to prosecute Jon Burge, the mastermind of a now notorious police torture ring, when damning evidence of Burge’s sadistic brutality was first presented to him in 1982; continued on his watch as scores of African American torture survivors were subsequently prosecuted and wrongfully convicted on the basis of tortured confessions; and culminated with his role in the cover-up of the scandal after he became Mayor.

When public attention was drawn to Daley’s involvement in the torture scandal in 2006, he gave a short statement to the Special Prosecutor who was in the final stages of investigating Burge and his confederates. Not surprisingly, the questioning by the Special Prosecutor, who was a political disciple of Daley’s father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, consisted of a series of “softballs” interspersed with apologies for having the temerity to question such an important politician. The following year a federal judge ordered Daley to submit to a deposition in a case brought by torture survivor Madison Hobley, but the case was settled before the deposition occurred. In 2010, torture survivor Michael Tillman successfully joined Daley as a defendant in the racially motivated conspiracy that led to Tillman’s torture and wrongful conviction, but despite the court’s groundbreaking decision, Daley nonetheless resisted sitting for a deposition. Once again, the case settled before Daley had to face the music.

Now the lawyers for Ronald Kitchen, another Burge torture victim, seek to depose Daley. Kitchen, who gave a false written confession to one of Daley’s prosecutors, would not have been tortured and wrongfully convicted if Daley had acted six years earlier by prosecuting Burge. In one of his last acts before switching hats to become Chicago’s Mayor in 1989, Daley personally approved his prosecutors’ request to seek the death penalty in Kitchen’s case. Convicted on the basis of his coerced confession, Kitchen joined nine other Burge torture victims who were sent to death row with Daley’s approval. Twenty-one years later, Kitchen was exonerated and awarded a certificate of innocence by the Cook County courts.

After Daley was subpoenaed for deposition, his lawyers stalled for several months, requesting conferences with Kitchen’s lawyers at which the reasons for the deposition were further debated.  Daley’s private lawyers, who are handsomely paid with taxpayer funds, argued that his testimony was not relevant to the case and articulated Daley’s fear that the deposition video would be made public.  Finally, they conceded that which was apparent from the beginning — that they would not voluntarily present him, no matter what compromises Kitchen’s lawyers were willing to make. Thus Kitchen’s lawyers were forced to file a motion to compel Daley’s testimony, which set forth the basis for the deposition and the areas of questioning. Daley, the master of media manipulation, arranged to file his opposition late on Friday afternoon, no doubt so that the major news outlets, which have shown substantial interest in this issue in the past, would not pick up on it.

Daley’s opposition, which relied heavily on his longtime position as Mayor, attacked Kitchen’s lawyers, who have been instrumental in developing the evidence of Daley’s alleged complicity in the torture conspiracy, asserting that: Somewhat predictably, plaintiff [Kitchen’s] counsel has once again rekindled a longstanding personal campaign to subject former States Attorney/former Mayor Richard M. Daley, a nonparty, to a deposition. This ongoing quest at best is tantamount to a fishing expedition. More ominously, it suggests an unsubtle attempt to orchestrate media attention and generate pre-trial publicity rather than seek legitimate discovery. Not only are plaintiff’s proposed reasons for seeking the deposition suspect, he has not demonstrated a compelling need for the deposition

Ignoring Daley’s documented role in the racially motivated torture conspiracy, his lawyers highlighted the fact that there exists on You Tube a “one sided” video that features Kitchen describing his torture and shows Burge taking the Fifth Amendment and his fellow abuser, Michael Kill, proclaiming that he has used the “n-word” more than a million times.  Rather than a deposition, where he would be subjected to rigorous cross examination, Daley’s lawyers have again proposed in their opposition that he answer, no doubt with his lawyer’s skilled assistance, a limited set of written questions, a proposal that Kitchen’s lawyers have repeatedly rejected.

It is truly ironic that the once all powerful Mayor of the City of Chicago, who previously exerted near total control of the Chicago media, now so fears an under oath accounting of his 30 year involvement in the police torture scandal that his lawyers have filed his opposition in what amounts to the dead of night. Moreover, the question so frequently heard, particularly in the African American community — why are the taxpayers paying his high priced lawyers to continue to orchestrate this duck and dodge routine — has once again raised its ugly head.  As Daley continues to hide from a robust interrogation of his role, his well-deserved legacy from the torture scandal and its continuing cover-up continues to darken.

The “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,” the Green Scare and the Criminalization of a Movement
By Brad Thomson, Legal Worker

A version of this post first appeared on the National Lawyers Guild website. 

This post is adapted from a recent presentation on an “Environment and the Law” panel at the Climate Crisis Chicago Conference The panel was examining ways in which the law has been used either to further the interests of industries causing harm to the environment or to target and prosecute activists. I was asked to speak on the animal rights movement and how these issues relate to activists opposed to animal exploitation.

In examining the legal risks faced by climate justice activists and the environmentalist movement, it is useful to examine the ways in which the criminal legal system is used against animal rights activists. First, it is important to acknowledge that advocating for non-human animals is an environmentalist issue which can advance the interests of the climate justice movement. Specifically, animal agriculture is a major cause of climate change and adopting a vegan diet is one of the best steps people can take to reduce their carbon footprint.

Secondly, examining the criminalization of the animal rights movement is instructive in that it is part of a larger strategy by in this country to target and disrupt the environmentalist movement. Over the last decade, we have witnessed the “Green Scare”- the heavy handed response by government and law enforcement in arresting, prosecuting and demonizing environmentalists under the guise of “anti-terrorism.” This trend is a continuation of the decades-old strategy of the government to label activists as “terrorists” in an attempt to undermine and dismiss otherwise effective movements. (For more information on the Green Scare, I would recommend the writing of Will Potter: his blog greenisthenewred.com and his book “Green Is The New Red: An Insiders Account of A Social Movement Under Siege.”

One clear example of the targeting of animal activists is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2006 which amended and expanded the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA). The AETA makes “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” or “intentionally plac[ing] a person in fear of death or serious bodily injury” federal crimes of terrorism. One of the most significant changes from the AEPA to the AETA was the inclusion of “tertiary targets” meaning “any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise.” This expands the scope so broadly to include any entity that has any relationship with an animal enterprise, which the statute defines as:

(A) commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences

This broad scope of what entities could fall within the statute is an example of the danger of the AETA. Any individual interested in advocating on behalf of animals is left to wonder whether their action could be perceived as violating the law, particularly considering the AETA includes a potential “conspiracy” charge which allows for prosecution and conviction not based on an individual’s action alone, but based on their connection to other people’s actions, regardless of participation or even knowledge of the specific actions.

We have seen a number of prosecutions under both the AEPA and the AETA. These prosecutions have been notable in that they have both criminalized activity that is generally protected by the First Amendment, such as chanting and leafleting and also been used in instances of underground direct actions which are already criminalized by existing federal or state statutes. There have been constitutional challenges to the AEPA and AETA, none of which have been successful and currently no prosecutions are pending.

The most promising legal challenge at this time is Blum v. Holder, a federal civil lawsuit filed by five animal rights advocates challenging the AETA. The five activists, represented by lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights (and members of the NLG) are arguing that the AETA is unconstitutional on its face due to the fact that the language of the statute is overbroad and vague and could criminalize otherwise constitutionally protected activity. In particular, the suit charges that this statute leads to a “chilling effect” where people choose not to participate in constitutionally protected activity out of fear of prosecution. The suit was filed in December of 2011 and the government filed a Motion to Dismiss in March of 2012. This Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed and was argued in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts in August of 2012. The plaintiffs and their attorneys are currently awaiting the judge’s decision. Go to CCR’s website for more info and updates on the suit. (http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/Blum)

The National Lawyers Guild has been vocal in its opposition to the AETA for years, exposing the collusion between corporations and the government, representing activists charged under the AEPA and AETA and operating a “Green Scare Hotline.” NLG has also recently established an Animal Rights Activism Committee which is organizing to use the law to end animal exploitation and provide resources to animal rights activists who are criminalized because of their involvement in the movement for animal liberation.

The AETA, the Green Scare and the larger government strategy of targeting activists under the guise of “anti-terrorism” creates a real threat to vibrant social movements and civil liberties. Lawyers, legal workers and law students with the NLG are deeply committed to challenging this government strategy and defending activists when they are charged with crimes for their participation in movements. While there is a crucial role for legal professionals a great deal can be done through the legal system, the battle cannot be fought in the courts alone. One of the best ways to fight back against these government tactics is to courageously and vociferously exercise your rights and advocate for these movements and the issues they are concerned with. Fearlessly and vociferously advocating for the liberation of animals is one of the best things an individual can do not only for animals, but for the environment, for civil liberties and ultimately for humanity.

Brad Thomson is a legal worker member of the National Lawyers Guild and is active on the Mass Defense Committee, Military Law Task Force and the newly formed Animal Rights Activism Committee. Brad works as a paralegal and private investigator for People’s Law Office, a civil rights law firm in Chicago focused on police misconduct and criminal defense, particularly for social justice activists.

The Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) recently released a statistical report on “Officer Involved Shootings in 2012.” Founded in 2007, IPRA is the agency responsible for investigating complaints and allegations of police misconduct, brutality, shootings and abuse by officers of the Chicago Police Department (CPD).

The report, which can be viewed here: Chicago Police officer involved shootings, provides only numerical and statistical information, providing minimal depth and no descriptions or details of the incidents. However, the numbers alone are striking. In 2012, there were 50 incidents of police officers shooting individuals and causing injury, which means a police shooting occurred on average of once a week last year in the city of Chicago.

As a result of these 50 police shootings, 57 individuals were injured and 8 of them were killed. One statistic that remarkably demonstrates the racialized nature of police violence is the number of African-American people shot by Chicago police in 2012. According to the City of Chicago’s own report, Chicago police officers shot 57 individuals in 2012 and 50 of them were black. That means that 87.72% of the people shot by CPD were African-American. Of the remaining seven people injured by police, 3 are identified as “White Hispanic” (Latino), 2 of them are listed as “unknown race” and only 2 of them are identified as “white.” Further demonstrating the way in which African-American males are targeted and victimized by law enforcement, 55 people injured were identified as male (96% of the total number shot).

Another notable aspect of this report is the breakdown of how many police shooting incidents occurred within each district. Officer involved shootings occurred in 14 of the 25 Chicago Police Districts. The most police shootings occurred in the 6th District, with 8 incidents in this South Side district covering parts of the Ashburn Gresham and Chatham neighborhoods. The next highest quantity of police shootings occurred in the 3rd and 4th Districts, with 7 shootings in each. This means that 22 police shootings (44% of the total) in 2012 occurred in three districts that border one another on the far South Side. (View map of CPD Districts)

Unfortunately, due to the lack of information provided in this IPRA report, it is unclear what circumstances led to each of these shootings. However, it is known that in at least some of these cases, the police shot and killed unarmed individuals.

At a time when politicians and the media are discussing gun violence occurring in Chicago and throughout the country, it is important to recognize that police officers, government employees who are sworn to protect all of us, are far too often responsible for the gun violence against civilians.

Victims of police shootings, brutality and abuse who courageously come forward must be supported and civil rights litigation must be employed to advance strategies of justice and social change to improve the conditions for all who live in Chicago. The People’s Law Office continues to encourage and promote government transparency and all efforts to make the Chicago police force more accountable to the public they serve and protect, including providing meaningful disciplinary consequences to those officers who shoot, beat or abuse people. When Chicago Police Department and the Independent Police Review Authority fail to hold police officers accountable, we utilize our skills as civil rights lawyers to file lawsuits on behalf of those abused by police. For more information about the types of cases we handle, view our Practice Areas.

This article is part of People’s Law Office’s ongoing analysis of IPRA and police accountability. Read further analysis here.

On January 31, 2013 People’s Law office and MacArthur Justice Center lawyers filed a motion in Federal Court on behalf of police torture survivor  Ronald Kitchen that seeks a  Court order compelling former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to give a sworn deposition in Kitchen’s case. This motion emphasizes Daley’s central role in the Burge torture scandal, and documents Daley’s long running attempt, at taxpayer’s expense, to avoid questioning about his involvement in the decades long, racially motivated conspiracy.