Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

 On February 22, 2007, Chicago police officers Damen Balesteri, Dennis Oboikovitz, Sharmaun Freeman and Shaun McGovern arrested Melvin Wiley after he was observed selling drugs on the 6200 block of South Laflin on the south side of Chicago. Officer Balesteri observed Wiley conduct two hand-to-hand transactions while conducting a drug surveillance from an abandoned building across the street. Wiley told a very different story, claiming that he had two of his friends, Darnell Russell and Sydney Hunter, came to the 6200 block of S. Laflin because Wiley was going to take his young daughter out to celebrate her birthday. Wiley and Russell claimed that the officers pulled them out of Russell's car at gun point and placed them in handcuffs. Wiley, Russell and other witnesses claimed that while in police custody on Laflin, one of the officers put his finger in Russell's rectum, causing Russell to have a seizure. Wiley and Russell claimed that the police officers just left Russell on the street to die after allegedly having this seizure. Russell and Wiley marched their family members into court to testify on their behalf but they could not keep their stories straight.  Russell's mom had claimed she witnessed her son on Laflin after having a seizure but it was shown that she was actually at work at the time of the incident. Russell's step-father testified but in his testimony he admitted he never even saw Wiley at the scene of the incident. On the last day of trial, plaintiff's counsel was allowed to call a rebuttal witness to testify there was no abandoned building on the 6200 block of S. Laflin, but on cross-examination it was shown, via Google Maps, that there clearly was an abandoned building on the 6200 block of S. Laflin, consistent with Officer Balesteri's testimony. Russell claimed he went to the hospital relating to this incident but he offered no medical testimony to support his allegations. After deliberating for less than an hour, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant police officers on all counts. The Chicago police officers were represented by attorneys Avi Kamionski, James McGovern and Cherie Getchell from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Sam Adam, Jr. and Jeffrey Neslund.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, March 29, after deliberating for less than an hour, 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. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHICAGO - A Federal Jury in Chicago refused to award any money to Larry Nelson, a chicago man who claimed he was pulled over for no reason.  Larry Nelson alleged that after was pulling out of a Marathon gas station near the intersection of Iowa and Pulaski he was stopped by four Chicago Police Officers.  Nelson further claimed that the officers came out with their guns drawn and pointed at his face and one officer even threatened to kill him. Nelson even came up with some bizarre story that police were pointing "laser beams" at him. Nelson claimed his car was searched and that police found this campaign poster inside.  It was this campaign poster that made the police "re-think who they were messing with," Larry Nelson said at trial.   Nelson contends that once the police discovered he was a politician and connected to then presidential candidate Barak Obama, the police let him go.  At trial, Nelson testified that he in fact endorsed Barak Obama for president - and that is why he put Obama's name on HIS poster. 

The police officers  - Elizabeth Wilson, Bradley Ruzak, Richard Novotny and Ronald Lis - all denied violating Nelson's rights.  As the encounter was so routine and uneventful, the officers didn't have any recollection of Nelson or his so called Obama connection.  Police maintained they wouldn't stop anyone without reason and highlighted to the Jury that they stopped forty other people that evening an not one person complained of any misconduct. Police records also proved Nelson's account to be wrong.  

This is just one of Nelson's lawsuits against the CIty of Chicago.  Thankfully here, the Jury found the lawsuit to be completely frivolous and vindicated the police officers involved. 

Another WIN for the good guys.

Larry Nelson was represented by Irene Dymkar and James Bowers.  Chicago Police were represented by Avi Kamionski and Cherie Getchell of Andrew M. Hale & Associates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WNUR News - Northwestern University's student-run radio will be airing an open discussion tonight to address the allegations being made against the Medill Innocence Project. 

 As previously posted, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office has subpoenaed the journalism students for all their documents related to the Anthony McKinney investigation. The States Attorney is also see king the student's course outline and grade information.   The State has evidence that students paid witnesses in exchange for their testimony,  The Students, presumably, deny these allegations.  

The question tonight will be: Are the State's requests reasonable? Can the students legally hide behind a reporter's  privilege?  Should they be able to hide this information?  Can students pick and choose what information they disclose to prosecutors?  What are the implications of such actions? What does it say about the Medill Innocence Project? What's wrong with just putting all the cards on the table and seeking the truth? 

A lot of questions.....tune in tonight to hear the panelists weigh in. 

PANELIST BIOS:

Professor Jack Doppelt

Medill School of Journalism
Focuses on, among other topics, Law and Media Ethics

Mr. Avi T Kamionski

Associate of Andrew M. Hale Law Firm in Chicago
Concentrates practice in Civil Rights Litigation

Professor Laura Beth Nielsen

Director of Legal Studies Department, Northwestern
Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology
Research Fellow, American Bar Foundation
 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We decided to launch our very own YouTube channel. 

Visit DontBlameTheCops YouTube Channel to see the latest media coverage on the Jerry Miller decision.  

Here is the ABC Channel 7 News coverage: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

         

Barry Scheck and Jerry Miller speak at the Gel 2009 conference about Miller's wrongful conviction case.  Barry Scheck of Neufeld, Scheck & Brustin, represent Jerry Miller in his lawsuit.  

This speaking engagement came just days before United States District Court Judge Suzzane Conlon ruled in favor of the police officers in the lawsuit.  As previously report, Judge Conlon found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Miller.  The court further found that the lineup - where Miller was identified - was fair. 

Although Miller was exonerated on DNA evidence, the police did their jobs and did not commit any misconduct.  

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Andrew Hale & Associates has released the following press release which has been picked up by the Chicago Tribune , ABC7 News Chicago , WBBM780 , and the Newswire

Chicago, IL - August 17, 2009 -- A federal district court judge has ruled in favor of three retired Chicago police officers who were sued by Jerry Miller in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Miller was convicted in 1982 of raping a woman at a parking garage in the Gold Coast section of Chicago.

Miller was identified by two employees who worked at the parking garage and stopped a man - later identified as Miller - as he was attempting to drive his rape victim's car out of the parking garage, with the victim locked in the trunk.

After spending 26 years in prison, Miller was released after DNA testing from the crime scene proved that Miller was not the rapist. Shortly thereafter, Miller filed a civil lawsuit, alleging that several now retired Chicago police officers had framed him for the crime by conducting a suggestive lineup and failing to disclose material exculpatory evidence.

Judge Suzanne B. Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims against the officers and granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirety finding as a matter of law that the officers did not engage in any misconduct.

The retired police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC.

About Andrew M. Hale & Associates

Andrew M. Hale & Associates specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and police officers. The firm's principal attorneys are Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski. The firm maintains a blog dedicated to the defense of police officers in wrongful conviction cases: www.wrongfulconvictionlawsuitdefense.com or www.dontblamethecops.com.

For more information contact: Andrew M. Hale, 312-341-9646, ahale@ahalelaw.com, www.ahalelaw.com

*Source Andrew M. Hale & Associates - Federal Court Case no. 08 C 773

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 As recently reported, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of three retired Chicago police officers who were sued by plaintiff Jerry Miller in a civil rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois. One of Miller's claims was that the police officers conducted an unduly suggestive lineup. The court rejected that argument, stating: "A lineup does not require five persons with identical measurements and countenances. United States v. Funches, 84 F.3d 249, 253 (7th Cir. 1996). It is undisputed that Miller and the other participants in the lineup were males, black, between 5'6" and 6', between 150 and 170 pounds, and between 23 and 31 years old. Miller was the same height as a filler, one inch taller than a filler, and four to five inches shorter than two fillers. He weighed the same as two fillers, was five pounds lighter than a filler, and was 20 pounds lighter than a filler. The parity level establishes the lineup was not unduly suggestive."  (For more information on this case, see the prior blog post).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Three retired Chicago police officers who were sued for allegedly framing plaintiff Jerry Miller received a total victory when District Court Judge Suzanne B. Conlon granted their motion for summary judgment in its entirely. Miller was convicted in 1982 of a brutal rape in the Gold Coast area of Chicago. He was convicted based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified Miller as the man who attempted to drive his rape victim's car out a parking garage where they worked at the time. The parking lot attendants foiled the rapist's escape by preventing him from driving the car out of the parking garage. Miller spent 26 years in prison before being released in 2006 based on new DNA testing which showed that Miller was not the rapist. That DNA testing lead to the real culprit, Robert Weeks, who was already incarcerated for other sexual assaults. Miller subsequently brought a civil lawsuit against several retired Chicago police officers alleging that they framed him for the rape by conducting a suggestive lineup and photo array and by failing to disclose material evidence. In a 26-page opinion, Judge Conlon rejected all of Miller's claims and held that the Officers were entitled to summary judgment. Judge Conlon stated "The police officers are entitled to summary judgment on Count I for [Section] 1983 denial of a fair trial because Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the lineup and photo array were unduly suggestive or tainted his trial. He presents no genuine issue of material fact that evidence about the photo array was suppressed or material. And he presents no evidence of a conspiracy. The police officers are entitled to summary judgment on Miller's substantive due process claim because it is not legally viable, and Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the police officers fabricated evidence. Summary judgment is granted to the police officers on Count V for malicious prosecution because the undisputed facts demonstrate probable cause to arrest and prosecute Miller. Summary judgment is granted to the police officers on Count VI for IIED because Miller presents no genuine issue of material fact that the police officers fabricated evidence." The court's ruling confirmed what the defense attorneys had been stating all along - that this was an unfortunate case of eyewitness misidentification - not police misconduct. The police officers were represented by Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski, Ebone Liggins, and Christina Liu from the firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC. Plaintiff Jerry Miller was represented by John Stainthorp from the Peoples  Law Office and Nick Brustin, Peter Neufeld, and Barry Scheck from the Innocence Project.

Here is the opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In a 17-page Order dated January 26, 2009, United States District Court Judge Ruben Castillo reduced a jury verdict against the City of Chicago and three Chicago police officers from $7.9 million to $1.9 million. The plaintiff in the case, Rachelle Jackson, had sued three Chicago police officers and the City of Chicago claiming she was falsely arrested and detained for attempting to disarm a Chicago police officer. Ms. Jackson was arrested on November 19, 2002 for attempting to disarm Chicago police officer Kelly Brogan after Brogan's squad car was involved in a serious automobile accident. Ms. Jackson admitted to pulling Officer Brogan out of the squad car and placing her in a "full nelson" hold but claimed she was trying to rescue Officer Brogan, not disarm her. Ms. Jackson spent ten months in jail before her criminal charges were ultimately dismissed at trial. Ms. Jackson then filed a civil suit against the Chicago police officers involved in her arrest. Following a nine-day jury trial, the jury awarded Ms. Jackson $7.9 million on her various claims. In granting the defendants' motion for a remittitur, Judge Castillo agreed that the jury's damage award was "monstrously excessive," not rationally related to the evidence presented, and out of range with awards in similar cases. Judge Castillo noted that "[t]here was no evidence that Plaintiff requires professional treatment for mental or emotional distress (other than her alcohol treatment), nor was there any evidence of lost wages, medical expenses, or other out-of-pocket losses. Based on the evidence an award of $7.9 million in compensatory damages was grossly excessive." Judge Castillo reduced plaintiff's compensatory damages to $1.9 million. This is only the second time in fifteen years that Judge Castillo has modified a jury verdict. Defendants were represented at trial by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski and Ebone Liggins of the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jerry Miller has filed a federal court civil rights lawsuit against the City of Chicago and several retired Chicago Police Officers. Miller was arrested in 1981 and charged with raping a woman at a parking garage at 506 N. Rush Street in Chicago. Two parking lot attendants identified Miller from a police lineup as the person attempting to drive the rape victim's car out of the parking structure while the victim was locked in the trunk. Miller was convicted at his criminal trial and spent 26 years in prison. In July 2006 the Cook County State's Attorney's Office agreed to post-conviction DNA testing that showed that Miller was not the contributor of a DNA profile found on the victim's clothing. Miller has now filed suit against the City of Chicago and several now-retired Chicago Police Officers. Miller alleges, among other things, that the Officers told the two parking lot attendants to pick Miller out of a police lineup. The factual basis for this allegation is unknown at this time and the two parking lot attendants are deceased. The case has been assigned to District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon. Miller is represented by John Stainthorp at the Peoples Law Office. The Police Officer Defendants are represented by Andrew M. Hale and Avi Kamionski from Andrew M. Hale & Associates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a published opinion in In Re City of Chicago, No. 07-2608,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its prior orders sanctioning Prince Foryoh for making false statements on his application for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. The prior orders barred Foryoh from conducting any federal litigation until all of his outstanding fees and costs, in all of his cases had been paid. The appeal arose after the district courts in Foryoh's pending cases determined that they would allow Foryoh to litigate his pending cases notwithstanding the court's orders. When the defendants objected, the district court judges referred the matter to the Executive Committee, which issued orders stating that barring Foryoh from proceeding would raise due process concerns and prejudice the defendants, since the cases would have to be stayed until Foryoh could pay. On the City's motion, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its prior sanctions. The court rejected the view that the sanctions posed any constitutional problem, and described the sanction as "modest." The court emphasized that Foryoh had filed frivolous lawsuits and attempted to defraud both the judiciary and his opponents. The court also rejected the idea that Foryoh's cases would have to be stayed, stating that Foryoh must meet the normal schedule for civil litigation, and that if he fails to do so, his suits must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did clarify that once Foryoh pays what he owes, he is entitled to have the order lifted immediately. Avi Kamionski handled the case in the district court and Myriam Kasper handled the appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link