In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has overturned a $14M verdict in favor of John Thompson, obtained after the New Orleans District Attorney's Office withheld exculpatory blood evidence. The Supreme Court held that a District Attorney may not be held liable for a civil rights violation for failure to train prosecutors based on just one failure to disclose. The case is captioned Connick v. Thompson (09-571).
David Protess will be on leave from Northwestern University for the spring quarter. Northwestern spokesman Alan Cubbage said Protess would have "no faculty responsibilities" for the spring quarter. Nor will Protess direct the Medill Innocence Project, which he founded. More to follow. . .
On Thursday, March 29, after deliberating for less than an ho
ur, a twelve member federal jury returned a verdict in favor of Chicago police officers Parris George & Paul Heyden rejecting the claims of Jimmy Butler. Jimmy Butler claimed George and Heyden randomly stopped him at the corner of Central and Iowa in Chicago and threatened him to either buy drugs for them or be arrested. Butler claimed he was held in a police car for forty-five minutes while officers tried to pressure him to buy drugs. Despite his claim of being with the officers for a such a long time, he could not even identify the race of the officers, let alone identify them. In truth, Butler was caught after he bought drugs from an apartment on Iowa and Parkside. After seeing the police, Butler took off running and George chased him down an alley. Butler was caught by Heyden at Augusta and Parkside. Being out of breath, Butler spit out of his mouth the two bags of heroin he purchased. City of Chicago dispatch records confirmed the chase. After this dispatch report was introduced in Court, Butler was caught again in his lies. This was most revealing when his own lawyer sought ONLY $500 from the jury, telegraphing that he didn't even believe his client's story. Jury had no knowledge that if Butler prevailed, even for $500, his lawyer would have been able to petition the Court for the City of Chicago to pay his attorneys fees, which could have been tens of thousands of dollars. Jury saw through the lies and frivolous case and returned a swift verdict vindicating the officers. Parris George and Paul Heyden were represented by Avi Kamionski and Helena Wright of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. Jimmy Butler was represented by Katie Ehrmin and Jeffrey Granich.
In a case going to trial on Monday in the Northern District of Illinois, March 28, Judge Matthew Kennelly is allowing the parties to run the criminal backgrounds of the prospective jurors during jury selection. The case is Butler v. City of Chicago, and the plaintiff claims he was falsely arrested. The two police officer defendants deny Mr. Butler was falsely arrested. This is a welcome ruling, as it will help ensure that the parties receive a fair and impartial jury and will prevent individuals from serving on the jury while at the same time lying about their arrest history. The defendant police officers are represented by Avi Kamionski and Helena Wright of the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey Granich.
A district court judge last week removed a juror from a federal civil rights trial after it was learned that the juror had failed to disclose the fact that he had been arrested on EIGHT prior occasions by Chicago police officers. In the case before the Court, four plaintiffs were suing two Chicago police officers claiming they were falsely arrested by the police. Thus, all jurors were asked during jury selection whether they had ever been arrested by the Chicago police. The juror at issue failed to disclose his extensive arrest history. The Chicago police officers were represented by Andrew Hale and Jonathan Boulahanis of Andrew M. Hale & Associates.
I asked him several times in the deposition why he pardoned Oscar Walden? What evidence of innocence did he review? He had no answer. The Chicago Tribunes headline today highlights the problem: Ryan on tape: 'I pardoned guys I knew were guilty'
.jpeg)
I was always under the impression that Medill's goal was to see that the "innocent" Anthony McKinney should go free. If Medill truly believed that McKinney is innocent and is sitting in prison unjustly, wouldn't those professors and students do everything and anything to get him out. In 2009, there was simple request for all of Medill's work on the case. Turning over the information would expedite McKinney's post-conviction hearing. Instead of turning it over, David Protess has been fighting the subpoenas and working very hard to prevent anyone from seeing exactly what goes on behind the scenes at Medill. Why? Are they hiding something? Northwestern's latest investigation seems to suggest that they are.
Could it be that the documents they are hiding don't support McKinney's claim of innocence? hmm...
The Chicago Tribune is reporting that David Protess, "whose Medill Innocence Project has been the pride of the prestigious journalism school" - has been asked to stop teaching classes in light of the misconduct that has occurred in the Anthony McKinney case. As the Tribune explained: "At the center of the dispute are memos written by students during their investigation of the McKinney prosecution —documents Protess turned over to McKinney's lawyers at Northwestern Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions so they could try to win his freedom. Led by Protess to believe that only limited information had been shared, university officials said, they spent almost a year and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses fighting prosecutors' bid for all the student records. But now Northwestern officials question whether Protess was forthcoming about what he turned over to McKinney's lawyers. That information was crucial because those materials should also have been given to prosecutors. In addition, a private lawyer hired by Northwestern to lead the court fight with prosecutors abruptly quit representing Protess in the matter last fall, accusing the professor of giving him inaccurate information about what student records had been turned over to McKinney's lawyers, according to documents recently obtained by the Tribune."
Finally, Northwestern was straight with Protess: "We believe that you have displayed a lack of candor with us and have not cooperated with us," lawyer Richard O'Brien wrote Protess shortly before he withdrew from representing him, according to a copy of the e-mail.
We need more candor from Protess about what happened in McKinney's case and what exactly is happening at Medill. Northwestern's actions at this point are good, but long overdue. In October and November of 2009, when the story broke, I called for Northwestern to take the State's Attorney's allegations seriously and work to clear the name of Medill and its students. Nothing happened. I was then invited by WNUR (Northwestern's Radio Station) in December 2009 to a panel discussion with Northwestern professors, where I told them in person that the university should be investigating these allegations. The professors dismissed my call for an investigation and were adamant that Protess should fight the subpoenas. A year later, its pretty clear that Protess is still hiding things and he is now being told to step down because of his actions.
Keep up the pressure Northwestern - this will only help the integrity of the university.
On Thursday, March 17, after deliberating for little over an hour, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of Chicago police officers Clifton Thurman and Nataly Janik, rejecting the the claims brought by plaintiffs Marlin Anderson, Marilyn Anderson, Markita Anderson, and Christopher Monroe. On the early morning hours of April 19, 2008, after shots were fired outside a house party at 6702 S. Green Street in Chicago, police responded to a chaotic scene. Marlin Anderson was charged with guns recovered from the first floor of the residence and her daughter Marilyn Anderson was charged with a gun recovered from the second floor of the residence. Christopher Monroe was charged with battery upon a police officer and Markita Anderson was charged with obstruction of a police officer. Plaintiffs brought claims for false arrest, excessive force and malicious prosecution and asked the jury to award them $250,000. The jury rejected all of plaintiff's claims and returned a verdict in favor of Officers Thurman and Janik. The Chicago police officers were represented by Andrew Hale and Jonathan Boulahanis of the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. Plaintiffs were represented by Jeffrey Granich, Josh Friedman and Katie Ehrmin.
A federal jury on Thursday, March 17, 2011, swiftly rejected a man's bizarre allegations against 5th District Chicago police officers claiming he was taken into a West Pullman alley and strip searched. Anthony Mensah, a convicted felon, claimed that he was driven to the alley by Officers Rosalind Bowie, Gregory Jones and James Couch and was forced to take his pants off for an anal cavity search. Notably, the search Mensah said happened in the alley was identical to an intake search he experienced in Cook County Jail as a result of a 2007 theft arrest. The jury quickly returned a verdict in favor of the officers, who said that they merely interviewed Mensah because he matched a description of a drug dealer provided to them by a concerned citizen. During the interview, Mensah yelled about his disdain for police because he lost his trucking job after he was arrested for stealing his truck and its merchandise. The Chicago police officers were represented by Shneur Nathan and Joan Ahn of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. Thomas Morrissey represented the plaintiff.
.jpeg)
After a week long trial, a federal jury rejected Oscar Walden's claim that the police coerced his confession to rape back in 1952. Walden was arrested in January 1952 when an employee at a drug store called the police and said that he looked like the person depicted in a police sketch who was wanted for rape. Once brought to the police station, Walden was identified by the rape victim as being the man who attacked her. The next day, Walden gave a confession to police officers. Walden was convicted at his criminal trial and spent 14 years in prison before being released on parole in 1965. In 1978, then Governor James Thompson gave Walden a general pardon. Thereafter, Walden sought an "innocence" pardon on several occasions but was denied each time. However, in 2002, Governor George Ryan gave Walden an "innocence" pardon, despite the fact there was no new evidence of innocence. At the time, the rape victim and all the police officers and states attorneys involved in the 1952 criminal trial were deceased. That innocence pardon allowed Walden to file a civil lawsuit against the City of Chicago wherein Walden claimed that his confession was coerced by physical and mental mistreatment at the hands of Chicago police officers. Walden testified at his civil trial, as did his former attorney George Leighton and an expert witness named Joseph Lipari who opined that the City of Chicago had a policy and practice of coercing confessions from criminal suspects in 1952. Since the police officers, state's attorneys and rape victim were all deceased, but had been subjected to cross-examination at Walden's criminal trial, the defense used actors and presented their criminal trial testimony to the civil jury. After deliberating less than one day, the jury rejected Walden's claims and found in favor of the City of Chicago. The jury specifically found that the police officers had not coerced Walden's confession. Walden's attorneys had asked the jury to award him $15 million. The City of Chicago was represented by attorneys Andrew M. Hale and Avi Kamionski from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. Walden was represented by Flint Taylor and John Stainthorp from the Peoples Law Office.
Enter keywords:
