Federal District Court Overturns Brendan Dassey’s 2007 Conviction for Rape and Murder
The Eastern District Court of Michigan this past week released a decision to throw out the confession of Brendan Dassey, a Wisconsin man who has been serving a life sentence in prison after a conviction for raping and murdering a woman in 2005, according to The New York Times. Dassey was the 16-year-old learning disabled nephew of Steven Avery, who the court also sentenced to life for raping and murdering Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer. The court found that the detectives who interrogated Dassey pressured and led him to give an involuntary confession that he assisted in Avery’s rape and murder of Halbach. Without the confession, the state can either appeal the federal district court magistrate’s decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, retry Dassey, or release him from prison. Dassey Investigators Used False Promises to Coerce a Confession Civil rights groups have already criticized Dassey’s conviction; he was even the subject of a Netflix original series called Making a Murderer. NBC 5 Chicago reports that the federal court magistrate found that Dassey’s investigators made false promises, and gave him the impression that he was not a suspect in the investigation and didn’t have to worry about criminal charges. Because of these misleading tactics and the fact that Dassey had a low IQ and no experience dealing with the police, the magistrate found that Dassey made an involuntary confession. Defendants May Suppress Involuntary Confessions Many criminal defendants make plea deals wherein they agree to accept a particular conviction in exchange for leniency from prosecutors. But these plea deals are different from an actual confession. A confession is when a criminal defendant to police that they committed criminal acts. Such a confession makes it very difficult for a defendant to avoid a conviction at trial. A defense lawyer may, however, exclude a confession from the trial if they can demonstrate that the defendant did not give the confession freely. The Illinois Code provides that the defense may move to suppress an involuntary confession. In determining whether or not the confession was voluntary, the court will examine the totality of the circumstances (every relevant fact), including both the nature of the interrogation and the character of the defendant. This can include how much pressure the interrogators used, the setting of the interrogation, its duration, and the age, experience and mental abilities of the defendant. Age, Intellect and Interrogation Make Dassey Confession Involuntary In Brendan Dassey’s case, the court had plenty of reasons to find that the confession was not voluntary. Dassey’s first interrogation did not result in any kind of confession. The investigators had to interrogate Dassey four times before he confessed. The investigators promised Dassey they were on his side and that he didn’t have to worry as long as he told the truth. Dassey was still a teenager at the time, had never dealt with the police, and had a borderline intelligence score. Many of the questions interrogators asked several times, and hinted strongly at what they wanted Dassey to say, even after he had changed his testimony several times. In the end, the picture emerges of investigators who manipulated a vulnerable person into telling them what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, Dassey has already served almost a decade in prison. If he is released, it’s likely he will sue the state to compensate him for all he has suffered. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Review of 2009 IPRA Decision Agrees with CPD Decision to Terminate Cops
In an appeal of an internal police misconduct decision, A state appeals court decided that two Chicago Police Department officers should lose their jobs because they assaulted a citizen while off-duty at a restaurant in 2006, according to The Cook County Record. The case was on appeal before the court after the City challenged a circuit court ruling that ordered the police department to reinstate the two former police officers involved, Jason Orsa and Brian Murphy. The Independent Police Review Authority recommended that the department fire Orsa and Murphy after they threatened and beat Chicago resident Obed DeLeon without following any threat to themselves or others. The police department fired the two after an extensive hearing in 2009. Orsa and Murphy Beat DeLeon and Violated Procedure The incident that led to this lengthy legal battle occurred at a Taco and Burrito King restaurant in Chicago. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports that Orsa and Murphy along with another police officer and a non-officer friend sat at a table in front of DeLeon before pointing a service weapon at his head, pushing him against a wall and punching him repeatedly. The two later claimed that DeLeon was shouting gang slogans and threatening to kill police officers, but witnesses on the scene did not recall any such actions by DeLeon. When on-duty officers arrived, Orsa and Murphy did not make any statements that DeLeon threatened them. The officers did not file a tactical response report, which is a step that police procedure requires in police use-of-force situations. After the altercation, DeLeon filed a complaint with the Chicago Police Department’s Office of Professional Standards, which the Independent Police Review Authority replaced in 2007. IPRA Complaint Investigation Focuses on Community Relations The Independent Police Review Authority has the task of reviewing virtually all complaints of police misconduct, as well as situations that are likely to lead to such complaints. The IPRA receives complaints from Chicago citizens including excessive use of force, coercion (like when a police officer tries to force a suspect to confess), and verbal abuse of citizens on the basis of racial or other bias, by Chicago Police Department officers. They also receive notice from the department itself whenever an officer fires a service weapon or taser, or whenever there is an incident in one of the jails that the CPD administers. The Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA) investigates all other allegations of police misconduct (like soliciting bribes or planting evidence). In this way, the IPRA acts as a kind of public relations shield for the CPD: they handle the kinds of complaints that are most likely to create political backlash against the City of Chicago. Civil Lawsuit vs. IPRA Complaint Should you take your complaint of police misconduct to the IPRA? It depends on what kind of outcome you hope to achieve. On the one hand, the IPRA can discipline an officer directly, and sometimes cause the officer to lose their job. On the other hand, the IPRA does not offer money damages to individuals who have suffered from police misconduct, such as excessive force. Also, the IPRA has a long history of being soft on police officers. While Orsa and Murphy lost their jobs, many other cops have gone unpunished or received light discipline, even for shooting suspects with little or no justification. If you hope to receive any financial compensation for injuries or distress you have suffered, and you want an unbiased hearing, you are better off suing the CPD and the City of Chicago in a court of law. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Police Made Arrest Based on Suspect’s Dress, Lawsuit Claims
A Muslim woman is suing the Chicago Police Department for unlawful search and other civil rights violations after they mistook her for a terrorist based on her religious dress, according to CBS News. The police officers detained Itemid Al-Matar last year on the Fourth of July as she approached a subway station. She argues that the officers stopped her because she was wearing a hijab or head scarf and face veil. Police officers handled her roughly at the subway station and later strip searched her at the police station. The police officers did not find any evidence that Al-Matar posed a threat, but charged with resisting arrest. Woman Resembled “Lone Wolf Suicide Bomber” -- Because She Wore a Backpack Ms. Al-Matar is a Saudi Arabian citizen who began studying English in the United States two years ago. Al-Matar says she was hurrying home to break her Ramadan fast when police stopped her. The Chicago Tribune reports that several officers grabbed her as she approached a CTA stop and ripped off her hijab. A security video that is now publicly available shows three officers holding a woman in a hijab down on a stair landing while two more officers stand by. The police report from the incident indicates that police officers believed Al-Matar was a “lone wolf suicide bomber” because she was holding her backpack and wearing objects that officers believed might have been “incendiary devices,” which turned out to be ankle weights. The complaint accuses the Chicago Police Department of excessive use of force, unlawful search, false arrest, the violation of Al-Matar’s freedom of religious expression, and malicious prosecution. Fourth Amendment Requires Reasonable Suspicion for Searches In most cases, a police officer needs one of three things to search or arrest someone: a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. In order to stop and search someone, police need a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime or was in the process of committing a crime. Reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person would believe, based on the information available to the officer, that some kind of criminal activity was going on and that more investigation was necessary. To arrest someone, police need probable cause for arrest. Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe, based on the information available to the police officer, that the suspect has committed a crime or is going to commit a crime. The Illinois Code provides that if an officer stops a person for questioning and then believes that they are in danger of an attack, they may search the person for any weapons. Police Likely Lacked Reasonable Suspicion to Search Al-Matar Did the officers in Al-Matar’s case violate her rights when they stopped and searched her? No one is arguing that the police officers in this case had a valid search or arrest warrant for Al-Matar. So the only argument that the search was legal is that the officers had reasonable suspicion when they detained her. Would a reasonable person believe, based on the information available to the officers, that some kind of criminal activity was going on? The evidence that officers argued provided reasonable suspicion included Al-Matar’s holding a backpack, walking briskly and wearing ankle weights. Would a reasonable person take this evidence to mean that a crime was afoot? Probably not. After all, how many people in a busy subway station are carrying backpacks or walking quickly? Without reasonable suspicion, the arrest violates Al-matar’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Video Shows Officers Firing into O’Neal’s Car
The Chicago Police Department has decided to release video footage from the body camera of one of the officers involved in the police shooting of Paul O’Neal, an unarmed black teen, according to The Chicago Tribune. The department released the video footage on Friday, August 5. The shooting occurred on July 28, after O’Neal crashed a stolen Jaguar into the vehicles of multiple police officers who were pursuing him. Officers first shot into the stolen vehicle. Then, after O’Neal attempted to flee the scene on foot, one of the officers pursued him on foot as well and shot him in the back. O’Neal died of the gunshot. He was unarmed. Body Camera Footage from Shooter Still Missing The New York Times reports that the video footage of the police shooting that the department released on August 5 comes from the body camera of one of the police officers that was in a car that O’Neal struck with the Jaguar. The footage shows the Jaguar striking the police vehicle, then driving around the stopped vehicle, almost running over one of the police officers. The officer with the body camera gets out of the car and begins shooting at the Jaguar as it drives away. The body camera footage that the department released does not show the officer shooting O’Neal in the back. It does, however, show that the officers handcuffed O’Neal after he sustained the mortal gunshot wound and left him prone on the ground after the shooting. The police department states that they are investigating why the body camera of the officer who shot O’Neal did not capture the footage of the fatal shooting. Police Violated Procedure in O’Neal Shooting The Chicago Police Department has already stated that it appears that the officers violated police department policy during the events surrounding the shooting. Police use of force guidelines prohibit police from firing into a moving vehicle if the danger of the moving vehicle itself is the only threat to the police officers at the time. Illinois law allows police to fire at a fleeing suspect if they have a reason to believe that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officers or the public. The video captured one of the officers stating that he believed that the suspect had fired at the officers, but neither the video nor any official police department statement indicates that O’Neal had a gun. O’Neal’s Family Suing City for Wrongful Death Because O’Neal was unarmed and running away on foot when he was shot, and because he was running away from officers when one of them shot him in the back, it seems that there is no real argument that he posed a threat to the officers at the time they shot him. If O’Neal was unarmed, then it also seems likely that he accomplished the theft of the Jaguar without using force. Although Illinois law allows officers to fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe the suspect has committed a forcible felony (a felony that included the use of violence, like a carjacking), this exception does not seem to apply in this case. A lawyer for the family of O’Neal have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit seeks money damages from the City of Chicago to compensate the family for the killing of O’Neal. The lawyer for the family believes that the police officer intentionally disabled his body camera before shooting O’Neal. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you know has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal help fast. Get in contact with an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Court of Appeals Threw Out Several Corruption Counts
A criminal appeals court is set to hear arguments in the resentencing hearing for former governor Rod Blagojevich on August 9, according to The Associated Press. The court will decide whether to reduce the sentence of 14 years in prison that a federal district court handed down in 2011. Blagojevich originally received the sentence after the district court convicted him of 18 counts of corruption. Last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw out five of the counts of corruption that the district court conviction contained. Blagojevich has already served four years of the original sentence. His lawyers will argue that the sentence should be reduced to five years total, leaving only one more year. District Court Convicted Blagojevich of Attempting to Sell Senate Seat CNN reports that the corruption charges that the criminal appeal deals with originated from Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat in 2008. The counts included wire fraud, extortion, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to solicit bribes. When Barack Obama won the 2008 election and became the next President of the United States, he resigned from his post as United States Senator from Illinois in the middle of his term. The Illinois Constitution allows the Governor of Illinois to appoint a replacement senator in this situation. Blagojevich sought an appointee who would agree to provide some form of kickback, including contributions to Blagojevich’s campaign, appointing him to a lucrative non-profit post, or appointing his wife to a corporate board. Federal Appellate Courts Have Broad Authority to Change Convictions If a federal court convicts a defendant of a crime, the defendant can appeal to a federal appeals court. The court can hear any errors that the district court committed during the original trial if those errors substantially affected the rights of the defendant. The appeals court can send the case back to the district court with instructions for retrying the case, or it can directly change the outcome by reducing the sentence, throwing out specific counts, or even reversing the whole conviction. Bad Jury Instructions Led Court to Throw Out Convictions As The Chicago Tribune points out, some of the corruption counts that the appeals court threw out were related to Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Obama’s senate seat. The problem with these convictions was that the instructions to the jury in the original federal district court trial were not sufficiently specific. The instructions to the jury for whether or not Blagojevich was guilty of attempting to sell Obama’s senate seat would have treated all kickbacks alike, but the appeals court ruled that only specific kinds of kickbacks (like the award of private sector jobs) would count as crimes. The appeals court threw out the convictions that used vague jury instructions. Now the district court has to decide whether this change in the convictions means that Blagojevich should serve less time. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Officers Relieved of Police Powers after Shooting
The Chicago police officer who shot an unarmed teenager in the back last week was wearing a body camera, but the camera was not recording at the time of the police shooting, The Chicago Tribune reports. The Chicago Police Department is investigating why the camera did not capture the event, says department spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi. Initial investigations into the shooting indicated that the three officers involved violated department policy; the officers have had to turn in their badges. Police Officer Shot Fleeing O’Neal in Back The shooting occurred last Thursday, July 28th, after 18-year-old Paul O’Neal crashed a car into two police vehicles in Chicago’s South Side. The owner of the car, a Jaguar, reported the vehicle stolen. Two of the officers in the vehicles opened fire at O’Neal as he was still in the Jaguar. After crashing the car, O’Neal attempted to flee the scene on foot. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Jaguar sideswiped the first police vehicle and hit the second one while it was parked. A third officer who was in one of the police vehicles chased O’Neal on foot and shot him to death. The Cook County medical examiner stated that bullets struck O’Neal in the back. Footage from vehicle-mounted cameras captured parts of the incident, including police shooting at O’Neal while he was in the Jaguar. But the body camera of the officer who killed O’Neal did not capture the fatal shooting. More Chicago Cops Wearing Body Cameras The Chicago Police department began to use police body cameras and vehicle dashboard cameras in 2015. In response to recent high-profile police shootings and increased legal scrutiny, the department has increased its use of the cameras in recent months. Police officers now use the cameras in seven different police districts in Chicago, primarily on the South Side. Department policy requires police to release camera footage of police shootings within 60 days, with the option for the police department to seek a 30-day extension. Chicago Police Department May Be Liable for Wrongful Death In 2015, the Chicago Police Department revised its use-of-force policy to prohibit firing at a moving vehicle. The department’s Independent Police Review Authority recently released recommendations that would narrow the situations in which police can use force, especially against fleeing suspects. Illinois state law allows police to fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe that the suspect has committed a forcible felony. The recommendation would change the policy to prohibit firing at a fleeing felon unless the officer has reason to believe that the suspect poses an immediate danger to the officer or someone else. In a case like the O’Neal shooting, police may have already suspect O’Neal of stealing the Jaguar. If the theft involved the use of force (for example, if O’Neal had committed an armed carjacking), this suspicion may have allowed the officers to fire at O’Neal as he fled the scene under current state law. O’Neal also crashed the Jaguar into the police vehicles. If officers suspected that O’Neal intentionally crashed the car in an attempt to injure the officers, this may also have qualified as a forcible felony. If the cash was an accident, on the other hand, it would likely not count as a forcible felony. If the officers shot O’Neal in violation of state law, the officers and the department may be liable for damages in a wrongful death lawsuit. Chicago Criminal Rights Law If you or someone you know has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal help immediately. Contact an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Lawyer Argues for Exclusion of Canine Evidence A criminal appeals lawyer for an Aurora man is appealing his 2013 conviction for murder, arguing that the trial court should not have allowed some of the evidence in the trial, The Chicago Tribune reports. A jury convicted the man, Aurelio Montano, of murdering his wife. The wife, Maria Guadalupe, died in 1990. Montano’s lawyer argues that the trial judge should have excluded testimony about the use of dogs to search for the wife’s body. Montano, who is 60 years old, was already serving a prison sentence for two other murders in Aurora in 1996. Police Dogs Found Rug with Scent of Cadaver, but No Body Prosecutors charged Montano in 2008 with murdering his wife, Montano family members found a rug buried on the farm where they Aurelio Montano and his wife had lived and worked. Police investigators connected interviews with different family members that seemed to indicate that Montano had disposed of Maria Guadalupe’s body after she vanished. During the trial, the prosecutors also introduced testimony regarding dogs that police used to search for Maria Guadalupe’s body. They testified that the dogs found the scent of a human cadaver on a rug and in the hole where the rug was buried. Testimony from the family indicated that Aurelio Montano may have wrapped Guadalupe’s body in the rug before burying her. Montano’s lawyer argues that the judge should not have allowed the testimony about the dogs to come before the jury because there was not enough scientific evidence to show that the dogs were able to detect the scent of a dead body. Without such scientific evidence, the lawyer argues, the canine testimony is “unduly prejudicial”—that is, it distorts the jury’s perception of events without really proving anything. He also argued that, because police never found a dead body, there was not sufficient evidence to prove that anyone killed Maria Guadalupe. The state criminal appeals prosecutor argues in response that scientific research has established the ability of trained canines to locate the scent of a cadaver. According to The Guardian, the kind of dogs used to investigate Maria Guadalupe Montano’s disappearance cannot naturally detect the scent of a cadaver; police canine trainers must teach them how to do it. When Courts Allow Prejudicial Evidence, Defendants can Appeal Rule 403 of the Illinois Rules of Evidence states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” In Illinois, a defendant may appeal a criminal conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. On appeal, the convicted person’s lawyer may point out any errors that may have significantly affected the defendant’s rights in the original trial. This includes occasions where the trial judge violated rules of evidence by allowing testimony which the judge should have excluded. If the judge determines that the judge should have excluded the evidence and that the inclusion of the evidence seriously changed the outcome of the trial, the judge can order the trial court to retry the case, or even reverse the conviction. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Lawyer If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals lawyer at Barney & Hourihane today to find out more about your options. See Related Blog Posts Chicago Police Algorithm Attempts to Predict Shooters, Victims
In a move that is raising racial profiling fears, Chicago Police are now using a computerized algorithm to decide where officers should patrol, according to The Chicago Tribune. The formula takes information about criminal history and involvement in shootings in order to generate a score that indicates how likely people are to be perpetrators or victims of violent crime. The Chicago Police Department is currently focusing on residents with scores over 400—that is, people who the algorithm predicts to be over 400 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime. This list of high-scoring individuals is known as the “strategic subject list.” The department then meets with the people on the list to try to prevent them from killing, or being killed. The theory, according to The New York Times, is that a relatively small number of people are responsible for most of the violent crime in the city. The trick is identifying who they are. During the meetings, which police call “custom notifications,” police officers inform subjects that they are under intense police scrutiny. At the same time, social workers offer assistance with housing and drug rehabilitation in an effort to provide gang members with a way out of a dangerous life. Civil Liberties Groups Worry List May Be Racial Profiling Tool The department has been running the program for over three years. The program has come in for criticism from several different directions. There have been over 330 homicides this year to date, which is an increase of over 40%. At this rate, there will be over 600 homicides this year. It’s not just the list’s effectiveness that is raising concerns. Some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, are concerned that the algorithm used to generate the scores may give disproportionately high scores to racial minorities or residents of high-crime neighborhoods. This, in turn, could lead to disproportionate police scrutiny on the basis of race or geography. The department defends the program, arguing that over 20% of the subjects they visited requested some kind of assistance, and that fewer than 10% were victims of violence after the visits. Illinois Law Prohibits Racial Profiling The Illinois Criminal Code of Procedure of 1963 lays out the law for police officers on arrest, search and seizure. In general, a police officer may arrest someone if they have:
Chicago Algorithm Could Be Unconstitutional Racial Profiling Although the Chicago Police Department has performed mass arrests of gang-related suspects, the “custom notification” meetings are not searches, seizures or arrests. This means that they do not require a search warrant or reasonable grounds for the officers to believe that the subject has committed a crime. Because the officers are requesting permission to enter homes or speaking to the subjects outside, the officers don’t need a warrant to justify forced entry. However, if the police department did use the algorithm or list to decide who to arrest without a warrant, this would be a due process violation: the rule requires that the officer have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime, not that they will commit a crime in the future. Likewise, if the algorithm was based entirely on race, and officers were to use it in deciding whom to detain, this would be a violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights. But even if race were one factor in the algorithm, it might still survive a court challenge. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been falsely arrested, you need expert legal help. Contact an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts State’s Attorney Drops Murder Charges on Appeal
In what may be a case of false imprisonment, two men are free after 23 years in prison, after Chicago prosecutors dropped murder charges against them, The Chicago Tribune reports. The men are Armando Serrano and Jose Montanez. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office decided to drop the charges because prosecutors could no longer carry the burden of proof necessary to uphold the conviction. The decision came after an appeals court judge issued a ruling which found that “profoundly alarming acts of misconduct” had led to the arrest. Investigating Officer Pays Out in Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Over two decades ago, prosecutors convicted the two of the 1993 murder of Rodrigo Vargas in Humboldt Park. The conviction rested on evidence provided by former Detective Reynaldo Guevara. Guevara was a West Side police officer whose work has attracted increasing criticism from the courts. Guevara allegedly arrested Serrano and Montanez on the basis of a tip he received from an informant, who later confessed that Guevara provided the story to the informant. The informant says that Guevara threatened and intimidated him to force him to give false testimony, according to ABC 7 Chicago. Authorities have previously released another person, Juan Johnson, that Guevara investigated for a 1989 murder. Johnson won a $21 million dollar wrongful conviction lawsuit against Guevara. Kimberly Foxx will take over the State’s Attorney’s Office in December, and plans to review the cases of at least two other men in prison for crimes that Guevara investigated. Illinois Appeals Courts Can Reverse Trial Court Convictions Under Illinois Law, all appeals of criminal verdicts go to the Illinois Appellate Court. The State can appeal when a court dismisses a charge, or effectively does so by suppressing evidence from an arrest, quashing a warrant, etc. If the state appeals, the defendant usually goes free from jail during the appeal. The time that passes during the appeal doesn’t count toward time served for the purposes of obtaining discharge if a court later convicts the defendant. If a defendant pleads guilty, they can appeal the sentence, or try to withdraw the plea. If the defendant appeals a guilty verdict, they do not go free during the appeal process. During the appeal, the defendant’s attorney can bring to the attention of the Appellate Court any errors in the trial that substantially affected the defendant’s rights. The Appellate Court has a wide variety of options if they find that important mistakes occurred at the trial court level. The Appellate Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court, reduce the conviction to a lesser offense, reduce the defendant’s sentence, or order a new trial. United States federal law allows individuals who have suffered from wrongful imprisonment to sue those responsible for money damages, including attorney’s fees. Serrano and Montanez Could Sue for Wrongful Conviction Because the trial court convicted Serrano and Montanez of murder, they went to prison while their appeal was taking place. The fact that the only evidence against them at the trial court turned out to be a perjury would probably be a big enough error for the Appellate Court to reverse their convictions. The State’s Attorney probably decided to drop the charges rather than waste any more time in court awaiting a reversal. In cases like that of Serrano and Montanez, a lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department for wrongful imprisonment could succeed, since the actions of the detective deprived them of significant rights. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted, you need expert legal help. Contact an experienced criminal appeals attorney at Barney & Hourihane today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Independent Authority Recommends Fewer Shootings, More Warnings
The Chicago Police Department should tighten its rules on deadly force, according to a report by the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA). According to The Chicago Tribune, the quarterly report argues that the circumstances in which police officers are allowed to fire at suspects should be narrower. The IPRA thinks the Chicago police should aim to avoid shootings that fall within legal rules but may be avoidable nonetheless. Specifically, they recommend that the City revise its rule allowing officers to fire at fleeing felons. The rule should only allow such shootings when the police believe the felon is an immediate threat to the physical safety of police officers or others. They also recommend that police rules require warnings before officers fire their weapons and that police officers avoid drawing their guns unless they believe they will have to shoot. IPRA Is Soft on Excessive Force Other recommendations included making it easier for police disciplinary authorities to fire or suspend officers involved in shootings. The Chicago Police Department has rarely taken these steps. Only 3 of the 400 incidents in which police shot someone in the last decade have resulted in findings that the officer violated department use-of-force rules. Decatur Herald & Review reports that the IPRA itself recommends punishment in less than 4% of cases with sworn affidavits alleging police misconduct. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has promised to replace the IPRA with a more aggressive oversight body, but so far no concrete plans have emerged. The latest report may be a sign that the IPRA is trying to reform itself in order to avoid more drastic restructuring by the mayor’s office. Illinois Laws on Police Use of Deadly Force The law of the land requires that officers use deadly force only to protect against likely harm. In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that police officers couldn’t shoot at a fleeing suspect just because they were suspected of committing a burglary. It would only have been justified if they believed the suspect posed an immediate threat to someone’s safety. In that case, the suspect was unarmed and made no specific threats. Illinois courts have concluded that, in cases where a police officer suspects that a person has committed a forcible felony, the officer it is reasonable for the officer to use force, since the fleeing suspect poses an immediate threat to others. Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Illinois Criminal Code defines a “forcible felony” as including first and second degree murder, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnaping, or aggravated battery. Illinois courts tend to defer to the factual findings of internal police administrative reviews, except when those reviews seem obviously at odds with the evidence in front of the court. Will Police Rules Satisfy Illinois Courts? The standard the Supreme Court laid out in Garner is very broad, but protects suspects who do not pose any physical threat: police officers cannot fire weapons at such suspects. Chicago police are within Illinois law when they fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe that suspect committed a forcible felony, as defined by the Illinois Criminal Code. However, specific police department rules may require the officer to exhaust other methods of arresting the suspect without using lethal force. If the Chicago Police Department implements the recommendations of the Internal Police Review Authority quarterly report, then officers may need to give verbal warnings to suspects before using deadly force. If an internal review body decides that an officer has followed the departmental rules for use of deadly force, a court is likely to respect that finding, unless the evidence clearly contradicts the finding. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you love has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal advice. Contact an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today and get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|