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

The Boston Globe is reporting that the a federal district court in Boston has dismissed a wrongful conviction lawsuit brought by Cambridge resident James Haley who spent 34 years in prison before a judge overturned his 1972 murder conviction. Haley learned in 2006 that certain police interviews had not been turned over to his attorney. The Suffolk District Attorney's office agreed the evidence should have been turned over and filed a motion to vacate Haley's conviction. Haley was freed on January 18, 2008 and prosecutors later decided not to retry Haley. U.S. district court judge Richard G. Stearns rejected claims that the detectives - now deceased - deliberately withheld inconsistent statements made by key witnesses and found that prosecutors - not the police - were responsible for disclosing evidence to the defense and that in 1972 the law was not clear on whether the prosecutors were obligated to share these witness statements with Haley's lawyer. Haley was represented in his civil suit by Chicago attorney Jon Loevy from the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

Chaunte Ott has filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee, two former police chiefs, and eight current or former detectives. Ott was convicted in 1995 of murdering 16 year-old Jessica Payne. Ott spent 13 years in prison before being released earlier this year. Just days ago, DNA evidence has linked Walter Ellis to the crime. The Milwaukee police department issued a statement stating: "MPD made the arrest after developing probable cause to believe Chaunte Ott was the perpetrator. A jury found the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt and found him guilty. Police acknowledge technology changed over the years, bringing more evidence to light." Ott is represented by Chicago attorney Jon Loevy from the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Rosemary Sobol of the Chicago Sun Times is reporting :

Humboldt Park murder has connection to recent wrongful conviction award
Comments
June 30, 2009
BY ROSEMARY SOBOL Staff Reporter
The Saturday murder of a Berwyn man occurred inside a sport-utility vehicle registered to a man who was recently awarded a record $21 million by a federal jury after he spent 11 years in prison for a murder conviction that was later overturned.

The slaying of 37-year-old Freddy Vasquez, of Berwyn, occurred at 7:06 a.m. on the 2400 block of West North Ave. in the Humboldt Park neighborhood, according to Shakespeare District police Capt. Marc Buslik.

Vasquez was sitting in the rear driver’s side seat of an SUV that is registered to Juan Johnson, who recently was awarded the $21 million award, according to Buslik, who said Johnson was not in the vehicle or on the scene of the incident.

A federal jury awarded the money to Johnson June 22 and attorneys for Johnson, an alleged Spanish Cobra leader, said his wrongful conviction was part of a pattern of abuse on the city's Northwest Side by former Chicago Police Officer Reynaldo Guevara, authorities said.

In Johnson's case, at least three people who identified him in the murder later said they did so only after Guevara or others working with him told them to, his attorneys said. The $21 million award was the largest ever for a wrongful conviction in Chicago, his attorneys said.

In Saturday’s murder, a car pulled up alongside the SUV on its passenger’s side and someone inside opened fire, striking Vasquez in the neck and head, according to the captain, who said rounds also went through the vehicle and hit 32-year-old Leticia Vega -- who was sitting next to Vasquez -- in the chest.

The SUV was being driven by Myra DeLeon and 37-year-old Timothy Russell was a passenger, Buslik said, adding that DeLeon was not shot and drove the SUV to Saints Mary and Elizabeth Medical Center.

Authorities said Vega, who was seriously injured, was later transferred to another hospital for treatment.

Vasquez, of 2238 S. Kenilworth Ave. in Berwyn, was pronounced dead at Saint Elizabeth Medical Center at 7:27 a.m. Saturday, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner's office.

An autopsy Sunday determined Vasquez died of multiple gunshot wounds and his death was declared a homicide, according to the medical examiner’s office.

All the people inside the SUV had just returned from a social club when the shooting occurred and all are allegedly affiliated with the Spanish Cobra street gang, according to the captain, who said the slaying may have been a result of an ongoing feud between the Spanish Cobras and the Maniac Latin Disciples.

Police are seeking to speak to Johnson because his vehicle was involved in the incident, according to Buslik.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In reporting on the recent jury verdict received by Juan Johnson, the media is reporting that Johnson was a member of the Spanish Cobras street gang and was accused of beating and killing a member of the rival Latin Eagles street gang. Attorney Jim Sotos, who represented Reynaldo Guevara, a retired Chicago gang specialist, noted that "There were two witnesses who specifically testified that they saw [Juan Johnson] commit this murder. And the two [witnesses] that changed their story did so at the behest of gang leaders." Indeed, it was gang members who recanted their prior testimony and changed their story to claim that Guevara coerced them into identifying Johnson in the murder. Yet, the jury was not allowed to hear any evidence about gangs at all and was not told that the murder involved a fight between two rival gangs and that Johnson was a member of one of the gangs involved in the street brawl. Nor was the defense allowed to introduce evidence that the gang members changed their story in order to get back at Guevara, who was a Chicago Police gang specialist.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As previously reported, Juan Johnson, the man who recently was awarded $21 million in his civil rights lawsuit, was arrested last year as part of a drug sting on a Chicago street gang. Here' s a Chicago Tribune story about the bust. Tio Hardiman, director of mediation services at CeaseFire, where Johnson was allegedly working as a violence interrupter, is quoted saying "This comes as a total surprise." It probably comes as a total surprise to the jury in Johnson's case too, as they were not allowed to hear any evidence regarding Johnson's cocaine bust.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The jury in Juan Johnson's civil trial was not told that just last year Johnson, as part of a federal sweep of a Chicago street gang, was arrested and charged with being involved in the sale of crack cocaine. Johnson was set to plead guilty to that offense in March of this year but somehow managed to convince the United State's Attorney's Office to postpone his guilty plea until after his civil trial. Johnson obviously did not want the jury to hear evidence that was inconsistent with his claimed testimony of living his life on the straight and narrow. And why did the United State's Attorney's Office AGREE to the postponement?? Here is a copy of the motion Johnson filed requesting the continuance. Johnson managed to keep his crack cocaine offense from the jury, but at the same time managed to introduce evidence that Detective Guevara allegedly (according to who?) had a reputation for framing criminal suspects. Hardly seems fair . . .  

(Photo from LA Times Blog Post) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

              

A federal jury in Chicago has awarded $21 million to Juan Johnson, who spent nearly 12 years in
prison for a murder he says he did not commit. Johnson was convicted with his brother of killing a man outside a Humboldt Park night club back in 1989 when Johnson was 19 years old. Johnson was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Johnson was able to convince the court to grant him a new trial and he was re-tried and acquitted in 2004. In his civil suit, Johnson claimed that Chicago detective Reynaldo Guevara framed him for the murder by convincing four witnesses to identify him. Johnson was represented by Jon Loevy from the law firm of Loevy & Loevy. Detective Guevara and the City of Chicago were represented by attorney Jim Sotos. THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THIS STORY . . . MORE TO FOLLOW 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dean Cage, a 42 year old man, was convicted in 1995 for the rape of a 15 year old girl on the South Side. Last year he was freed after DNA cleared him of the rape. He had spent 12 years in prison. Cage receieved a certificate of innocence from the state allowing him to not only seek retribution from the state under Illinois law, but also to file suit against the police officers that arrested him.

Cage seeks to hold police officers and the City of Chicago liable, despite very little evidence. Cage claims that he "looked nothing like" the composite drawing. He claimed that the police framed him just so that they could clear the crime.

However, the 15 year old girl picked Cage out of a police lineup after hearing his voice. Also, the police received a tip after releasing the sketch that lead them to Cage.

Jon Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy, represents Cage in the action.  Here is the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

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

The AP is reporting that Alton Logan, who was convicted in 1983 of shooting a security guard at McDonald's, has been issued a certificate of innocence by Chief Judge Paul Biebel Jr. in the Cook County Circuit Court. Logan was convicted by a jury, but two attorneys last year revealed his innocence. A client of theirs had admitted to them that he had committed the crime, however, they could not come forward until that client passed away in 2007. 

                          

 

Alton Logan's case made national headlines last year when attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz revealed that Logan was innocent because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald's - the crime Logan was charged with. Watch Coventry and Kunz explain why they kept this a secret all these years. 

As a result of the revelation of this secret - Logan's attorney Jon Loevy is now considering a lawsuit against the Chicago Police.  

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

                                        

(Photo from Center on Wrongful Convictions Pendleton Profile) 

This man was released from prison based on new DNA testing and is now back in jail, charged with murder.  

 According to the Associated Press:

A man exonerated by DNA evidence in a rape case after serving several years in an Illinois prison now faces a murder charge in Indiana.  Jail records show 51-year-old Marlon Pendleton is in custody at Lake County Jail where he's been since Dec. 19. Pendleton was arrested earlier this month for allegedly killing his 45-year-old girlfriend. Her body was found at a Hammond, Ind., home where Pendleton was living.
Pendleton made headlines in 2006 when DNA evidence cleared him of a 1992 rape conviction. He had served eight years of a 10-year prison sentence.
Since then, he's been pardoned by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago for suffering he endured during his time in jail

Mr. Pendelton's attorneys, Jon Loevy and Locke Bowman allege that Chicago Crime Lab analyst prepared incomplete and misleading lab reports.  In addition, he contends detectives fabricated a case against him.  

Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions was responsible for securing Mr. Pendleton's release through DNA testing.  According to their website,  they contend that the eyewitness identification is to blame.  They contend that in 1994, the Chicago Crime Lab did not do enough to test a rape kit taken from the victim.  

Could someone be innocent of one crime and guilty of another - of course.  But it is ironic.  If Pendleton did in fact commit this murder, justice should prevail and he should be sent back to jail.  This is not first case we have seen of "exonerated" individuals returning back to prison for new crimes they commit.  As with those cases, if they in fact committed those crime, they should be brought to justice and should not be able to recover millions of dollars in civil suits.  

Critics will say that the two cases are separate, and even if the person commits a new crime, he is still entitled to compensation for a wrongful incarceration, where he in fact was innocent.  It is not that simple.  Nevertheless,  any money recovered from the civil suit should be sent directly to the victims of the new crimes.  Here, If Pendleton is found guilty of murder - but somehow still recovers millions - the murder victim and her family deserve the money and should file suit against Pendleton to secure a lien on that money.  They should file that lawsuit - now.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Download file

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Warfield v. City 2008 WL 2764862 (July 16, 2008) Judge Castillo granted in part summary judgment in Warfield v. City 05 C 3712. The Court ruled that plaintiffs, like an innocent bystanders, cannot recover for be shot by police, under a Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment theory. Under the Fourth, since plaintiff were "not the intended targets of the officers' bullets. In Bublitz v. Cottey, for example, a family was killed after their vehicle collided with the car of a fleeing felon when police officers used a tire-deflation device to stop the felon's car. 327 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir.2003). In that case, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that just because the officer intended to stop the felon's car, it does not follow that he therefore intended to stop any other car that could potentially become involved in a subsequent collision. Id. The Court held that the family's suffering was an "accidental and wholly unintended consequence;" because the family "was simply not the intended object" of the defendant officers' attempts to seize the fleeing criminal. Id. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated and could not provide the basis for a Section 1983 claim. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, Plaintiffs were not the intended object of the officers' attempts to seize Smith, and so the Fourth Amendment is not implicated here." Under the Fourteenth: The Court explained that "[O]nly the most egregious official conduct can be said to be 'arbitrary in the constitutional sense...." Bublitz, 327 F.3d at 490. When officers are faced with a "dangerous, fluid situation, in which they were forced to make decisions in haste, under pressure," their conduct does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment unless it "shocks the conscience." Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 797-98 (citing Lewis, 523 U.S. at 846-47). In these cases, "even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates the concerns of substantive due process." Id. "The sine qua non of liability" in these cases is "a purpose to cause harm." Id. In Schaefer, the defendant officers fired their weapons at a husband who was holding his wife hostage, and accidentally fatally shot the wife. Id. at 798-99. The Seventh Circuit held that the officers' conduct did not "shock the conscience" because the officers did not intend to shoot the wife. Id." The Court applied that same standard in this case where the officers "were in the type of "dangerous, fluid situation" to which the shocks the conscience standard applies. Smith had just pointed a gun at Officers Chatman and Collier, and the officers were giving chase. To "shock the conscience," the officers must have intended to cause harm to Plaintiffs. Schaefer, 153 F.3d at 798-99. Although the parties dispute whether the officers knew Plaintiffs were in the vestibule when the officers fired their guns, there is no evidence of any intention or purpose on the part of the officers to cause harm to Plaintiffs." After finding that no 4th or 14th amendment violation occurred from the shooting, Judge Castillo granted summary judgment on plaintiff's IIED claim explaining: "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence that they suffered sever emotional distress...the innocent bystander shot during Officers Chatman's and Collier's pursuit of Smith, is not a plaintiff in this case. In essence, all that remains are Plaintiffs' complaints of "fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, [and] worry," which are not sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress." However, Judge Castillo denied summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful detention claim and explained that a question of fact existed as to whether plaintiffs who were brought to the police station for questioning were free to leave. Trial will be set on the remaining unlawful detention and false imprisonment claims of the multiple plaintiffs. Eileen Rosen of Rock Fusco and Andrew M. Hale of Andrew M. Hale & Associates represent the CIty of Chicago and the police officers. Jon Loevy of Loevy and Loevy represent the plaintiffs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Michael Evans has lost in his final bid for a new trial. Evans sued ten former Chicago police officers claiming they framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans had spent 27 years in prison before being released based on new DNA results. A federal court jury rejected his claims and found in favor of the retired police officers. Evans appealed to the Seventh Circuit and lost there too. Evans then filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Seventh Circuit. That petition has now been denied as well. The retired police officers were represented by Benna Solomon, Myriam Kasper and Jennifer Notz during the appellate proceedings. Andrew M. Hale was lead counsel for the retired police officers at trial in the Northern District of Illinois before the Honorable David Coar. Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy represented Evans at trial and on appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a verdict in favor of the City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers and against Michael Evans, thereby denying Evans a new trial. Evans had filed suit seeking $60 million claiming the officers framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa in 1976. In August 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers and City of Chicago, finding there to be no police misconduct. On appeal, Evans was seeking a new trial. In a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit held that Evans received a fair trial and was not entitled to a new trial. At trial, the police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen, Kevin Horan and John Rock of Rock Fusco, LLC. On appeal, the police officers were represented by Benna Ruth Solomon, Jenny Notz and Myriam Kasper, attorneys with the Corporation Counsel's appellate group. Evans was represented at trial and on appeal by Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Evan Zimmerman, who served three years in prison for a murder conviction that was later overturned, has died of cancer at the age of 61. Zimmerman had been convicted of strangling his ex-girlfriend Kathleen Thomson in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. After being released from prison, Zimmerman filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming he had been framed by the police. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the the police officers and the City of Eau Claire. Zimmerman then appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was heard in April 2007. On July 1, 2007,  prior to the Seventh Circuit rendering a decision, Zimmerman died of cancer.  Zimmerman's attorneys have now dismissed their Seventh Circuit Appeal. Zimmerman was represented by Jon Loevy of the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Der-Yeghiayan has dismissed the civil rights lawsuit filed by plaintiff Jose Lopez, stating: "Plaintiff has filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has alleged that he was 'arrested and charged' sometime in 2002. (Compl. Par. 7). Plaintiff also alleged that '[a]fter serving several years in jail . . . Plaintiff was tried on the false charges in 2005, whereupon Plaintiff was acquitted of murder.' (Compl. Par. 9). Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Northern District of Illinois on November 15, 2006. Thus, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Kato, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (2007), the instant action is time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and we dismiss the instant action." Plaintiff Jose Lopez  was represented by Jon Loevy and Jon Rosenblatt from Loevy & Loevy. The defendants, the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Officers Robert Gliwa, James K. Sanchez, Adrian Garcia, Michael Pietryla and Thomas Flaherty, were represented by Andrew Hale and Eileen Rosen of Rock Fusco, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers have filed their response to Michael Evans' Seventh Circuit appeal. In August 2006, a federal court jury found in favor of the City of Chicago and the police officer defendants, rejecting Evans' claim that he had been framed for the rape and murder of Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans spent 27 years in prison before being released in 2003 when DNA found on a rectal swab did not match Evans. An eyewitness, Judith Januszewski, testified that she saw Evans and his friend Paul Terry abducting Lisa Cabassa on the evening she disappeared. In their appellate brief, the defendants argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony by police officers who fully complied with discovery. The defendants also argued that Evans' failure to ask the district court for additional time to conduct discovery waived any claim of prejudice. For example, the defendants' brief states "Tellingly, the primary relief Evans seeks is a remand to 'provide Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to take fact and expert discovery. Evans never sought this relief from the district court, although the officers suggested it. Evans wanted to go to trial as quickly as possible. Evans apparently now regrets this strategy, but his gamesmanship should not be rewarded with relief he never sought below. Indeed, because Evans never asked the district court for more time for discovery, this argument is waived." (Defendants' brief at p. 38). Defendants are represented on appeal by Benna Ruth  Solomon (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Myriam Zreczny Kasper (Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel), and Jane Elinor Notz (Assistant Corporation Counsel). Evans is represented on appeal by Jon Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy, who was also Evans' lead trial counsel. At trial, the defendants were represented by Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen and John Rock from Rock Fusco, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff Michael Evans has filed his appellate brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Evans had sued ten former Chicago Police Officers claiming they framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans was convicted of that crime in 1977 and spent 27 years in prison until being released in 2003 based on the results of DNA testing. Evans later received an innocence pardon from Governor Blagojevich. In August 2006, a jury found in favor of the ten Chicago Police Officers and against Evans. Evans had asked the jury to award him over $50 million in damages.The main issue raised in Evans' appeal is that several of the former Officers were allowed to give depositions shortly before trial after having previously asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. Evans claims he was prejudiced by these depositions, but did not ask District Court Judge David Coar to continue the trial date. The ten former Chicago Police Officers were represented by Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen and John Rock from the law firm of Rock Fusco, LLC. Michael Evans was represented by Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy, Flint Taylor from the People's Law Office and Locke Bowman from the MacArthur Justice Center.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jose Lopez has filed a federal court lawsuit against the City of Chicago and five Chicago Police Officers. Lopez alleges that the defendants violated his rights by framing him for a murder they knew he did not commit. Lopez spent two years in jail awaiting his murder trial. He was subsequently acquitted. Lopez is represented by Jon Loevy at Loevy & Loevy. The City of Chicago and the five Chicago Police Officers are represented by Andrew Hale and Eileen Rosen at Rock Fusco, LLC. The case is pending before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in the Northern District of Illinois.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Friday, a federal court jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the estate of Cornelius Ware, and against the City of Chicago, in the liability phase of plaintiff's civil rights trial. The damages phase was scheduled to commence this week. However, over the weekend, the City of Chicago settled with the plaintiff's estate, agreeing to pay $5.25 million in damages. During the week long trial, plaintiff's attorney Jon Loevy argued that the Chicago Police shot Cornelius Ware when his hands were above his head in a gesture of surrender. The City countered that Ware pointed a gun at the Police Officers, which lead to the shooting. A gun was recovered from Ware's vehicle. Loevy argued that the Police Officers planted the gun, noting that there was no blood on the gun and that there were no fingerprints suitable for comparison obtained from the gun. The nine-person jury heard closing arguments last Friday, and reached their verdict late Friday afternoon. Judge Joan Lefkow presided over the trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A ten-person jury began hearing testimony yesterday in the trial brought by Tammy Faye Grant, the mother of Cornelius Ware, who was shot and killed by Chicago police on August 18, 2003. In his opening statement, Jon Loevy, attorney for the plaintiff, told the jury Ware was shot as he sat in his vehicle with his hands above his head in a position of surrender. Margaret Carey, an attorney for the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Officer Anthony Blake, told the jury that Ware was shot after he pointed a gun at a Chicago Police Officer out the driver's side window . Carey told the jury that a gun was recovered from Ware's vehicle. The first witness called to the stand was Ms. Grant, who testified she saw her son with his hands above his head, and not holding a weapon. Upon cross-examination, Ms. Ware could not recall whether she gave a statement to Chicago Police when she arrived at the hospital to see her son. The second witness called, Richard Moore, was Ware's brother, and was 15 years old at the time of the shooting. Upon cross-examination, Moore testified that he heard Chicago Police yell "he's got a gun" before his brother was shot. He also testified that his mother told him she heard Chicago Police also yell "he's got a gun" before Ware was shot. Testimony is expected to last the remainder of the week.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jury selection commences on Monday, February 5, 2007 in the case of Cornelius Ware vs. City of Chicago, et al. Ware was shot and killed by Chicago police on August 18, 2003 after a high-speed chase and after Ware pointed a revolver at the police. The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow is presiding over the trial in the Northern District of Illinois. The estate of Cornelius Ware is represented by Jon Loevy. The City of Chicago is represented by Joseph Polick and Margaret Carey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks

On October 10, 2006, Dr. Gary Wells, Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff Alejandro Dominguez in his trial against the City of Waukegan. Dr. Wells testified that he is an expert in eyewitness memory and eyewitness identification. He claims that he has published more than anyone in the world on these topics. Dr. Wells testified that it was improper for the Waukegan police to conduct a "show-up" two days after the subject rape, despite the fact that the rape victim said she had seen her attacker before. He opined that the police should have conducted a line-up instead. He also testified that the police should have given a warning that "the offender might or might not be in the line-up" - which was not given. This is the third case that Dr. Wells has been retained by attorney Jon Loevy. Dr. Wells also testified for the plaintiff Michael Evans this summer in his suit against the the City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers. (The jury returned a verdict for all of the defendants in that case). Also, in 2005, Dr. Wells testified for plaintiff Steve Manning in his suit against two FBI agents, Robert Buchan and Gary Miller. (The jury awarded Manning $6.6 million in that case, but pending post-trial motions seek to overturn that award).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks