Seventh Circuit Hears Oral Argument In Evan Zimmerman Case

On April 10, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of Evan Zimmerman versus the City of Eau Claire, et al. Last year, District Judge John C. Shabaz granted summary judgment to the defendants, the City of Eau Claire, and police officers Eric Larsen, Donn Adams, Gary Foster and Todd Trapp in Zimmerman's civil rights lawsuit. In 2001, Zimmerman was charged with the murder of Kathy Thompson, a woman who was recently married and whom Zimmerman had previously dated. Thompson had been strangled. At his criminal trial, Zimmerman was convicted of murder. Zimmerman was granted a new trial due to his trial counsel's deficiencies. After a second criminal trial was commenced in April 2005, the district attorney decided to drop its prosecution of Zimmerman. Zimmerman subsequently filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming the defendants denied him due process of law by withholding exculpatory evidence. Zimmerman claimed that the defendants withheld exculpatory evidence concerning the testimony of Maureen Horne. The district court rejected this argument, stating "This argument is highly speculative. . . There is no evidence in the record that an earlier statement by Horne existed and was destroyed or that she was improperly coached by defendant Larsen. Plaintiff has failed to show that there was any statement by Horne that was exculpatory which was destroyed or suppressed by the defendants." Zimmerman also claimed that the police officers coerced testimony from witness Brice Rene. The district court rejected that argument too, stating "there is no evidence that any of Rene's statements were coerced or improperly coached. Plaintiff's attorney had the opportunity to cross examine Rene concerning his statements and the hypnosis. Rene's statements did not deny plaintiff due process." The district court also rejected Zimmerman's claim that defendant Trapp falsified plaintiff's polygraph report. Thus, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. At the oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, Zimmerman's attorney, Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy, argued that summary judgment should not have been granted and that Zimmerman was entitled to a trial. Counsel for the police officers argued that Zimmerman's arguments were based on mere speculation and there was no evidence of police misconduct. Judge Richard Posner chaired the Seventh Circuit panel that heard oral argument. A decision is expected later this year.

Donald Vance Files Suit Against Donald Rumsfeld

On Monday, December 18, 2006, Donald Vance, a 29 year-old former member of the United States Navy, and a former supervisor of security personnel for the Sandi Group and later Shield Group Security (SGS) in Iraq, filed suit against Donald Rumsfeld in the Northern District of Illinois. In his suit, Vance alleges that while employed by SGS in Iraq he observed suspicious payments by SGS agents to Iraqi Sheikhs and reported this activity to the FBI, in particular, to FBI agent Travis Carlisle in Chicago. Vance alleges that he was subsequently removed from the SGS compound and then taken to the US Embassy, then to Camp Prosperity and later to Camp Cropper which Vance alleges houses "high-value" detainees. Vance alleges he was detained for almost 100 days purely for purposes of conducting months of abusive interrogations. Vance alleges he was detained without due process of law, was never charged with a crime, was never told why he was being detained, was never given the opportunity to obtain a lawyer, was never given the opportunity to challenge his detention, and not even his family was told of his detention. Vance alleges that while detained his detention and interrogation were tantamount to torture in that he was exposed to intolerable cold and continuous artificial light, he was placed in solitary confinement, he was subjected to blarring music, he was awoken by startling if he fell asleep, he was subjected to blindfolding and "hooding" and deprived of food and water. Vance alleges that defendant Donald Rumsfeld was personally responsible for developing, authorizing, supervising and implementing the policies and practices of arrest, detention, treatment, and interrogation of detainees in Iraq. Vance alleges that Rumsfeld's policies and directives are inconsistent with fundamental Constitutional and human rights and that "Defendant Rumsfeld is not entitled to any form of official immunity for his knowing decisions to break with the laws protecting American citizens and international treaties on human rights." Vance's complaint contains the following ten counts: false arrest (I), unlawful detention (II), unlawful search and seizure (III), right to counsel in interrogations - coerced statements (IV), denial of Sixth Amendment right to counsel (V), denial of right to confront adverse witnesses (VI), denial of right to present witnesses and evidence, and to have exculpatory evidence disclosed (VII), conditions of detention (VIII), denial of necessary medical care (IX) and denial of property without due process (X). Vance's suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Vance's suit has been assigned to the Honorable Milton I. Shadur. Vance is represented by attorneys Michael Kanovitz and Jon Loevy of the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.