Brian Chesley was found guilty this afternoon on both counts.
There's a blog post from last year at http://www.illinipundit.com/2007/03/31/crash%2C-champaign-style . Kirchner and Wyman found it and decided to subpoena me, so I got served around 9 PM the night before I was supposed to testify. This didn't make much sense to me, and I pointed out that I hadn't even seen anything but the aftermath and most of the post was hearsay. But I had to come anyhow, and so did Gina Jackson and Mike LaDue, who hadn't seen any more than I did.
It seemed odd that there was no witness preparation - no interview, no discussion of what people were supposed to do in court, or anything. Gina and Mike said that there hadn't been any preparation with them either. While we were waiting out in the hall, we met another local attorney who had a pretty good reputation, and I described the situation to him and asked if this how defense lawyers normally operated. He said it would probably be best not to answer that question.
The second day we were there (the third for Mike LaDue), Wyman told us that they didn't actually need our testimony and we were released from our subpoenas. This didn't seem too professional, and I was curious whether they were doing any better inside the courtroom. I noticed that the defendant was wearing a T-shirt, baggy pants, and a hooded sweatshirt, and wondered whether they'd gotten around to discussing issues like courtroom attire with him. Someone told me that some of the defense witnesses were contradicting each other as well as the police, and Kirchner didn't seem too happy about that.
After Gina Jackson was released as a defense witness without testifying, the state called her. I talked to another attorney I knew that evening about the trial, and he explained some things to me. He said that jurors are sometimes impressed by sheer numbers of witnesses, so Kirchner and Wyman might have some testify and let the jurors believe that other witnesses who are not called would have said the same thing. So if that was the case, it wouldn't have mattered whether I'd actually seen anything - I would have just been subpoenaed to push up the number of defense witnesses.
What really bothered me about the whole case was that it seemed like the defendant might just be a pawn. Some other people I talked with expressed similar concerns. Someone told me that Kirchner was one of the people who'd urged the defendant to turn down the state's diversion offer. So the kid now has a misdemeanor conviction instead of a clean record.
What a mess. This kid just got shafted every step of the way. First by whoever taught him that it was okay to not stop when an officer demands you to stop (the debate on whether it is right or wrong of them to have such authority or what can be done to prevent abuse of that authority being a whole other matter). Then when he was given an out to avoid having a criminal record, by wanna-be Jesse Jacksons who try to turn everything into a catalyst for a civil rights march... no matter how irrelevant to race problems.
Pawn sounds like a good word for it. A "shame" seems like a good runner up.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Kirchner and Wyman should both be reported to the ARDC for their abuse of the subpoena power. They had no reasonable expectation that the host of a blog would be able to testify to anything admissible in this case. They are merely seeking to harass.
The main stream legal community is embarrassed for their behavior.
The jury would never learn the numbers of witnesses who were subpoenaed but never called. The cost of each of those subpoenas will be added to the court costs this poor pawn has to pay to boost Kirchner's twisted ego.
This kid could have had diversion and not faced a trial at all; but now he has a conviction thanks to the selfish advice given by Kirchner and Wyman.
The N-G story said that Kirchner and Wyman represented the kid pro bono. Of course, if he'd been eligible for a public defender, he wouldn't have had to pay for that either and he might have been better off.
If things happened as you reported them Wayward, there seems to me to be some serious malpractice involved. I looked at your blog post from a year ago. You conceivably could have had information useful to the defense. You were at the scene and saw the defendant on the ground; you talked to witnesses as well as the police. At the very least, the defense attorneys should have talked to you beforehand to see if you could help with leads to other direct witnesses who might have been helpful. To serve you with a subpoena the night before, never having talked with you to see what you did or did not know and then to never call you as a witness, all the time not knowing to what you would testify is inexcusable. Kirchner has a good reputation for going all out in representing someone, I don't understand how what you described could have happened in that way. As Glock put it, "pawn" sounds like a good word for it, if and that's a big if, it happened as you described.
Ruth Wyman did call me at home about 9 PM on Sunday, March 23 and initially wanted me to testify on March 25th related to my IP.com post. There was no interview, though I did try to explain to her (more than once) that I didn't even get there until the aftermath when the kid was being treated. The subpoena wasn't actually served until the night of March 25th and the date had been adjusted to March 26th.
Here is what I was emailed on Sunday night, though an emailed copy of a subpoena apparently didn't mean I had to appear. (Note the times and dates.)
Here's the email releasing me from the subpoena:
do Kirchner/Wyman ever win a case?
Kirchner has no conscience and Wyman has drank the Kirchner Kool-aid. Unfortunately, both will take nothing from this and both will be problem for the legal system in Champaign County for years to come.
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
I got called in for jury duty some time ago. The pool seemed to be a good cross section of the community. It certainly seemed to be a random process right down to the order that people were called to the jury box by the computer.
On March 28th, 2008 at 07:22 PM, wayward said:
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
Check out the March 26 2008 Open Thread, Brian Dollinar mentioned that "Another All White Jury was picked"
I'm surprised Jesse Jackson was not at the proceedings, Oh I forgot He only gets involved after the smoke has settled, Then He comes charging in with Al Sharpton! "The Justice Brothers"
I watched most of this trial and can honestly say that Chesley would have been much better served by the Public Defender's Office. Not only would he have been able to keep his record clean, but honestly, someone could have explained to him (and his supporters) that their "defense" was not a true legal defense based upon what actually happened to Brian. It does not matter whether one thinks a cop has a lawful reason to conduct a stop. If a cop orders you to stop, and he or she can articulate a reasonable basis for stopping you, then even if the officer is later discovered to have been wrong about his belief in that basis, by law a judge has to uphold the validity of the stop. If you walk away from him you are commiting an obstruction of his or her duties. Example: Cop sees you walking down the street and believes that you resemble someone he is looking for regarding a recent burglary. He thinks your shirt matches the description (black). He orders you to stop and upon closer inspection realizes that your shirt is blue. You not only must stop when he orders you to, but can be arrested for resisting/obstructing if you fail to. The fact that you KNEW you had not committed any offense is irrelevant. The cop had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that you had committed an offense. Turns out he was wrong but that doesn't change anything. And truthfully, we need cops to have this authority or no one would ever stop for them and cooperate with an investigation.....least of all criminals! I wish the public knew the law on this as much as I wish they knew that Kirchner almost certainly did before the trial ever began. Chesley should not have ever gotten a conviction of this, but nonetheless, according to his testimony he actually did commit the offense. Sorry folks, the law is pretty clear on this.
... and Kirchner will still sue the City of Champaign and the poor officers that were just trying to do their jobs. The city will settle for the nusiance value of the suit and Kirchner and Wyman will perceive that they were vindicated... Great system isn't it!!!!
yes he did turn down diversion... hopefully he will have to write a letter of apology to the officers involved in this incident. The officers were doing what the park district wanted... to make sure that no one was in the park at night. They did their job as that park has been the scene of many shootings/stabbings/fights over the years. Yet they were the ones who were raked through the proverbile coals over this. I often wonder how the folks that live around the park and dontwant kids in the park feel about having the police make sure that there are no kids in the park after dark. We have a park in our neighborhood and in the morning in the summer there are beer cans and vestigaes of "teen love" where I take my 10 yr old to throw a baseball. Somethings I dont think I need to explain to a 10 year old...............The officers involved should be commended. Sadly, this young man probably believes that when the police tell you to stop, that you dont have to.
To bhss73, I don't know if You live in Champaign or Urbana, but when I lived on the west side of Champaign several years ago,,I was told that on the midnight shift CPD had only one car for the area west of Prospect and south of University Ave. They can't cover the area properly. I know that Noel Park on Windsor is a popular drinking spot for the teens, RobesonPark is beer can city.
you are correct sir... Day shift has only one officer west of prospect to.....wait for it... wait for it.............Rising road south of University.
It is too bad that Ruth Wyman was once someone who stood up for the rights of crime victims, in particular rape victims. She must be admired for her work when active with Champaign County NOW. However, something has happened? What happened that Wyman will support the perpetrators of crime rather than the victims of crime? It can not be the money, its all pro-bono. Is it the moral superiority that the criminal is someone who can not afford legal representation. Has she gone bonkers? Note to Ruthie, not every poor black kid in the northend is innocent or a victim! But hey, principle can be suborned when it conflicts with ideology.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
I googled Brian Chesley and this is what came up. Funny.....
01-25-08 JRK/ADK RE: BRIAN CHESLEY
JRK/ADK Appearance of the State's Attorney. Defendant
JRK/ADK appears personally and by counsel. Matter allot-
JRK/ADK ted for TRIAL and for trial scheduling on
JRK/ADK 3/03/2008 at 3:00 PM in courtroom E.
Brian Chesley is a black youth who was illegally stopped, beaten, and sent
to the hospital
by Champaign police on March 30, 2007.
Come show your support for police accountability
by showing up in court Monday, 3pm in courtroom E.
BD
--
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
303 W. Locust St.
Urbana, IL 61801
briandolinar at gmail.com
PS, what does ARDC stand for?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
ARDC is an Illinois attorney review board responsible for disciplining wayward lawyers.
The zero-tolerance police inquiry into every possible technical violation that occurs in that neighborhood is the result of the community, led by council member Gina Jackson, wanting all the potential criminals "checked out".
So a minor violation (like being in the park after dusk) that would go unnoticed in Morrissey Park is an excuse to shake down a kid in Douglass Park. But it happens because folks like Gina Jackson want it to happen.
The damage to police/community relations occurs because 9 out of 10 of the persons questioned are totally innocent, just walking through the park. But 1 in 10 has a city warrant, some cannabis, alcohol, maybe a rock of crack.
The innocent 90% learn to hate the cops. The minority community is targeted because they live in the high crime neighborhood. I have no doubt that a cop would stop and question a white teen in Douglass Park after dusk, probably more quickly, because the dusk closing rule gives the cop the right to do so and there is a 1 in 10 chance the kid is violating some other law.
We do this not only with parks that close at dusk, but with burned out license plate lights, and hanging air fresheners. If we want to eradicate crime wherever it occurs then we are on the right course.
If we want to let some crime go unnoticed or unpunished in order to have the minority community have the same warm and fuzzy feelings for the cops that upper class white folks have, then we need to back off on the aggressive police tactics.
It is an interesting and legitimate public policy discussion this community needs to have.
I was unable to attend the court proceedings and I strongly disagree with the verdict. That being said I'm not here to debate the merits of the case. "What really bothered me about the whole case was that it seemed like the defendant might just be a pawn" Do you really care about the welfare of this young man? I doubt it.
I have to admit, unlike his attorneys or some of his witnesses, Chesley handled himself with dignity throughout the whole trial. He seemed very honest on the stand (even to the point of admitting the offense) when he could have embellished his story and possibly gotten off. He absolutely was a pawn in this case. I doubt it ends with the verdict.
Where was Alfred Ivy [former candidate for CCSA] champion of the the poor and misused in the Court system?? or Harvey Welch?
Why did the black community not get behind this kid and find a qualified black lawyer?
As for Kirchner and Wyman's Pro Bono... You get what you pay for.
Like it was mentioned above They "Gina Jackson" wanted the neighborhood cleaned up and when it was they cried foul.
I have a hard time understanding why there is so much discussion involved with this case. The facts are clear: the park was closed, the youth was in violation, he refused to stop when legally required to do so for a standard "Terry Stop".
This is only a social justice issue if you want to question where the child learned such blatant disregard for the law so you can blame them (whoever they may be) instead.
It also illustrates that, while Mr. Dolinar and Ms. Wilkinson should be praised for their concern for the community, they know nothing of the law. Dolinar keeps screaming that this was an illegal stop. It was not. He would better serve the community he is trying to assist if he had some factual basis instead of leading astray those gullible enough to give him a forum.
Bob Kirchner and Ruth Wyman did an admirable thing volunteering their valuable time to represent this youth for free, no matter the outcome. Additionally, Mr. Chesley still has his full appeal rights intact.
On March 28th, 2008 at 07:22 PM, wayward said:
Wonder how long it'll be before I see stuff from some local activists blaming the whole situation on the "all-white jury."
From Today's News-Gazette on line: www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/03/29/racial_bias_alleged_in_outcome_of_trial
Gregg,
Listen, you need to get your facts straight. Gina Jackson never 'cried foul' about this. She was supportive of the police, as she usually is. You really need to quit spouting off so much about things that you obviously haven't taken the time to actually research. It's getting old, man.
This is only a social justice issue if you want to question where the child learned such blatant disregard for the law so you can blame them (whoever they may be) instead.
Or if you've had even a small handful of experiences to help you understand why the disparity in perception of law enforcement between parts of the community is not just due to one group being stupid and hating law and order.
I like the idea of the police. I even like more of the individual police I've met.
I don't like being made to wait 6 hours when someone breaks into my house and then have them accused my roommates of breaking into their own house and refusing to check points of entry.
I don't like being stopped for an alleged traffic violation and having the officer change the details of the ticket when I point out that what he has described on the ticket is completely impossible.
I don't like being told that if I demand any sort of accountability from the police as public servants that "police officers shouldn't protect people like you".
I don't like being stopped in front of my house while I am getting the paper because I supposedly don't belong in the neighborhood in which I live.
My parents taught me well, "Don't trust the police, but if you run it gives the racist ones cause to do more damage to you."
I don't think that "Run from the pigs!" is a useful lesson to teach your kids and it will probably hurt them. But you should be able to see where it comes from, as every single time the police started to engage me for NOTHING (I have NEVER been stopped for any crime of ANY kind) a large part of my being wanted to run.
My parents taught me well, "Don't trust the police,
I would argue that your parents obviously didn't teach you very well
Xian, I have been stopped by the police merely for taking a walk. When I cooperated with them, they checked my Drivers License, I was on my way. I was new to the neighborhood and they wanted to make sure that I was cool. As long as you cooperate with the police, usually, they will be a lot nicer to you.
As far as the neighborhood that you are in, you, Xian, made the choice to live in that neighborhood. Maybe for ideological reasons of wanting to stand in solidarity with "oppressed people", I don't know. However, you made that choice.and you should live with its consequences. That kid should not have run from the officers. All that he needed to do was politely deal with the situation instead of shouting profanities and running.from the police. However, he was probably raised in a culture that hates the police and any type of authority, mainly from the hip-hop/rap culture. Plus, it does not help him out when bleeding heart white liberals are constantly pandering to him as a victim. Where is Bill Cosby when we need him? The number one cause of these problems are the lack of parental involvement with these children. Particularly, the lack of strong, responsible male role models needs to be more addressed. Im sorry if the radical feminists hate the fact that I bring up fatherhood, but it needs to be brought up. The assault on the family has hit poor communities the hardest. They are the ones who can not afford anymore the thousands of illegitimate children whose only role model is some guy living in a luxurious penthouse talking about getting rich quick. No one is there to tell them about the real world of getting an education, establishing a strong work ethic. On top of this, liberals are constantly pandering to these folks, selling the newest government program to "help them out."
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
I never said Gina Jackson cried foul, She wanted the hood cleaned up and that's what was going on, the"they" I was referring were the activists and preachers that are crying racism. You do have to stop when asked by the Police. If you have a problem with the way you are treated go to the Mayor or Chief of Police or the Illinois State Police and file complaints. Clean up your own neighborhood so the Police don't have to.
Stereotypes, much?
*boggle*
boggle cosign.
How can they blame the jury when the defendants outstanding attorney's Kirchner and Wyman can reject the jurors during the pre-trial phase?
xian, This isn't about you.
Ok, what the hell is "boggle." Mr. Dunn was pointing out an obvious fact.about the horrific state of the black community. Sarcasm does nothing to foster discussion. What are you adding Akibare and IP beyond insults and typical leftish PC claptrap? Let me guess? Boggle?
So now I'm a PC leftist, huh? Interesting - I guess now I've been called everything.
I'm boggled by the amazing number of stereotypes he can cram into a single comment that really didn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
Plus, he managed to take an unjustifiable shot at Xian.
I apologize. I wasn't trying to make the thread about myself. My entire point was that there is a perspective gap in how the police are regarded and I thought some real personal anecdotes might help people see the other perspective. I was wrong. There is probably nothing that could accomplish that.
But I suppose my general point has been demonstrated quite strongly--people have trouble with empathy and then seek to demonize those who don't make the exact same choices that they do.
With different experiences, we are obviously going to disagree on some of this stuff. However, when Mr. Dunn tries to say that it's the same when a police officer stops him for walking around as when I am told that I don't belong in my neighborhood that certainly doesn't make me sympathize with his argument. When he implies that if the police tell a kid that he doesn't belong in his own neighborhood that that kid should have chosen to live somewhere else.
When he ignores huge chunks of American history in which law enforcement has lynched, murdered and tortured minority folks (please don't say this is in the distant past--surely you have heard of the current problems in Chicago) and blames "hip-hop music" for mistrust of law enforcement, one doesn't know whether to laugh or boggle.
I mean, some people believe that there is a giant comet coming to Earth and we need to kill ourselves to get on board, and others believe that hip-hop music and whiny minorities are to blame for mistrust of the police.
Both are welcome to their opinion, but I hope people will regard them critically-regardless of their general feelings about the African American community. Certainly Gordy and Akibare have done so.
Just imagine what the reaction would be if somebody talked about the atrocities done to him and his family by blacks and why he has a general distrust of black people. Why can't Xian have empathy for police officers instead of demonizing them? How do Xian's childhood experiences have anything to do with the reaction of a boy in Champaign-Urbana? Why does every incident that turns out to not have anything to do with racism always lead to liberals talking about the larger issues of racism etc. in this country? Isn't that a clever way of insulating your opinion from reality? Am I asking too many questions?
there is no doubt that IP is way to the left of traditional conservativism, but so what?
What has been accomplished in this case?
A young black man "minding his own business" (in truth) was harassed by the local police for playing b-ball after dark with his friends. He didnt want to be stopped by the police. Its reasonable enough. Remember the poor bastard in Casablanca whose papers were expired? What has this country become? Now we know for sure that those who go into law enforcement are not the sharpest knives in the box. But even the average Blackwater-wannabe Barney Fife/Officer Obie/Roscoe P Coltrane dipstick ought to have enough common sense to tell what a group of kids are up to. What was the use in pursuing the kid? Was there any evidence of wrongdoing? What is the point of escalating this into pepper spraying an innocent young man and criminalizing him? What ever happened to kindness? Getting along with people?
Now what is the result? I am mad as hell and a little bit frightened too. A lot of people in this community feel the same way as me. This event sure enough aint over.
To put it in very simple terms - there is something important about being "everyman," the "default human," or not. When you are one of the majority, when you are "everyman," you are free to be yourself. Whatever you do, your behaviors, will be assigned to you only, and any clues for "what could cause your problems" will be looked at in your own personal life only.
But when you are a member of a minority group, not "everyman," you are never only yourself, you are expected to be the representative of your whole exotic "other" community. Whatever you do, reflects on all the other members, and if you do something stupid or wrong, people don't only look at your life for clues, they scrutinize the entire community, and even silly stereotypes of what they only IMAGINE are influences on that entire community, the boundaries drawn by them, the majority. Someone might assume that you listen to certain kinds of music and that your thoughts are defined by such things.
Let me know, if you ever hear some crime report on TV, and the first thing you think is "please don't let the perp be one of my group" because you KNOW that the ripples of it will be pinned on YOU. Let me know when there is some humor character on TV from your group and everyone at work instantly thinks you're similar to that character because hey, well, that's what you guys are like, right? Oh wait, maybe YOU are different, but, at home, like, you're crazy like that guy right? Right? Haha, let's make fun of how we all think you should speak English too, because it's funny, you know? Bad t-shirts, and all that? Haha?
As for police, why should anyone trust them automatically? That seems particularly American to me, the fetishizing of authority. As with any other job, some will be good, some won't, judge each guy on his behavior. The police I've known laughed at the idea that people would think somehow that due to the uniform people should think they were as their parents, that they are always looking out for you. Such marks! Why do you let your guard down? Everyone is so quick to talk of revolution when it comes to the rest of the government.
I agree that it's wisest to obey the letter of the law and protocols when dealing with police. The law is what it is, you cross it, you get the penalties. But when it comes later to if someone is trustworthy, how is their word, all of that sort of thing, it's all up to the individual, and humans are human. All sides get equal benefit of the doubt, in my book. Sometimes I empathize with the police, and sometimes I don't, it depends on the circumstances.
That, and of course the law, and what is right, are not necessarily related. So, perform the appropriate dance. I certainly can't speak for Xian but in my view it's more "do what is asked, be as polite as required, put on the correct performance, but as for what I think, that's something else."
I agree entirely. I'm happy to empathize with police officers and on some days it's probably the job that shares the most with my own. However, empathizing and as you correctly put it, "fetishizing of authority" are not and should never be confused for being the same thing. I have never approached any member of law enforcement with anything but the highest level of outward respect. But to give them the benefit of the doubt and out of self-preservation. I have been let down again and again.
Somewhere there might be someone thinking, "What does this guy's experience growing up in Champaign have to do with Champaign?" Because it seems unlikely that what goes on in Champaign would have anything to do with what goes on in Champaign.
In all seriousness, I appreciate your post Akibare. I don't know if those are your own experiences, or simply empathy you are showing through the experiences of others, but you are right on about my sentiments.
Ok, IP, I think you are way wrong for saying that I am stereotyping. I am just telling folks the plain truth. Im sorry it hurts folks feelings. Im really sorry that a Republican is so teary eyed about stereotyping. Why is it not stereotyping when folks like Xian lecture me about "how privileged I am." If these do-gooder, change the world types would walk at least a half-mile in my shoes, maybe they would not be so quick to tell me how privileged I am. I did not come from wealth, never got a handout. In fact, I came from downright poverty. No one marched on my behalf. I had to learn that if you want something in life, you fight like hell for it, because you can not take anything for granted. No one gave me any sympathy for my plight. It was up to me to get out of it. That was the lesson I had to learn. As someone who lived in Section 8 housing, i have to tell you, it sucks! All of the stuff I described is no flipping stereotype, but the truth. Im sorry, that I do not speak in post-modern, post-colonial mumbo-jumbo. I just speak from experience.
Im tired of being told that Im stereotyping and other crap. I grew up in these neighborhoods, ive seen the stuff. Its wrong. You do not need a PHD in Gender Studies to know the reality of life in "poor-America."
Its not stereotyping IP, its simple truth and commonsense!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Support your local fuzz.
Huh? Local fuzz???
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
When someone brings up the lack of fatherhood in African-American communities in relation to a case and a young man for whom they don't know his relationship with his father, that's meaningless stereotyping, and I'm going to object.
Same with the "influences of hip-hop culture." Neither I nor Robert know if they apply here. So painting the young man in this case with that particular brush doesn't seem appropriate to me.
Same with government handouts. Section 8. And a whole host of other things.
I don't object to discussing those issues, even in conjunction with race relations (I don't object to discussing pretty much anything, as long-time readers know...) But I don't have any knowledge of whether they apply to this case, and neither does Robert. In this case and this discussion, without knowing more, injecting these statements is meaningless stereotyping. If pointing that out makes me a "teary-eyed leftist," so be it. I've always believed that when the namecalling starts, it's pretty easy to figure out who's losing the argument.
"there is no doubt that IP is way to the left of traditional conservativism, but so what?"
Thank you, I think. But I'm pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment and anti-tax and pretty much think that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the free market. How does that put me "way to the left of traditional conservatism?" Are you basing that on my early support of Rudy Giuliani? Genuinely curious, as it's come up several times in this thread.
"Genuinely curious, as it's come up several times in this thread."
Actually this thread just seemed to be the perfect opportunity for a public intervention. We've been discussing it at the weekly hidden agenda meetings, and we all think that it's time for you to come out of the closet and set free your inner liberal. In fact, we voted on it, and we've decided that you should legally change your name to "Teary-Eyed Leftist" and run for Urbana City Council. I might even move back to Urbana for that one...
Robert, I'm not really sure what you are referring to. You are recycling stereotypical arguments, so it would be pretty easy to stereotype you are a "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps" aversive racist American and it's unclear from your account if you did or not, but that's an entirely different discussion.
I wasn't stereotyping. If you read my post, what I said is that based on your description, you have no clue what you are talking about. Your response is tantamout to this exchange:
Xian: Someone set my hair on fire.
Robert: Someone lit my cigarette on fire once. I got over it.
Xian: Those aren't the same thing.
Robert: Stop stereotyping me. I haven't had it easy. Stop using big words.
Xian: What?
Anyway, you are right. You certainly don't need a PhD in gender studies to understand "poor America". You do need a measure of empathy to understand that not everyone's experience is the same as yours, and ridiculously as it might seem, neither class, nor race, nor gender,, nor sexual orientation, etc. are the only issue--they all interact to form a reality.
Robert, how dare you use statistics to suggest the kind of background that this individual "probably" had. The better thing to do is draw on your personal experiences and then assume that this individual has had similar ones, and moreover has the same emotional and intellectual reaction to them as you did. As IP clearly pointed out in his scold, you have no idea what this young man's background is. How dare you use statistics to suggest what they "probably" are. Xian apparently grew up in Champaign, and he's a minority, and his parents told him to not trust the police. This young man is a minority and is in Champaign. Don't you get it? Their minds are one, and Xian is justified in speaking for this kid. As akibare so astutely and non-stereotypically pointed out, there is a qualitative difference between people who are "everyman" and those who are minorities. Moreover, akibare hints at why it is ok to stereotype police as racist power abusers - we *should* be skeptical of them, and God knows we don't want to be guilty of the "fetishizing of authority". Hope you learned your lesson Robert. Hopefully now you won't offend liberals and people who want liberals to like them.
Horrified,
Let's do this again, in direct answer to your questions.
"A young black man "minding his own business" (in truth) was harassed by the local police for playing b-ball after dark with his friends."
He wasn't "minding his own business". He was in a public park, after dark, after it was closed. He was, in fact, trespassing.
"He didnt want to be stopped by the police."
It wasn't his choice. You don't get a choice when the police tell you to stop. None. If you have doubts, please see the US Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio.
"But even the average Blackwater-wannabe Barney Fife/Officer Obie/Roscoe P Coltrane dipstick ought to have enough common sense to tell what a group of kids are up to. What was the use in pursuing the kid?"
Not necessarily. While the Supreme Court has ruled that simply fleeing from the police is not enough probable cause to initiate a stop, combine that with the underlying offense of trespassing and the officer was simply doing his job. In a part of town, and in the immediate proximity, where numerous shootings, robberies, assaults and open drug dealing have occurred, stopping a fleeing youth is the better part of discretion. Any day of the week you can travel to that neighborhood and observe open drug dealing and consumption of alcohol in the parking lot of that little strip mall just to the west of the very same park. Just to the east of the elementary school located on the southeast corner of the park, there is open drug dealing on the very same street, just east of Wright. Now, you tell me, why shouldn't the officer have stopped the kid?
"Was there any evidence of wrongdoing?"
Yes. Trespassing. See above.
"What is the point of escalating this into pepper spraying an innocent young man and criminalizing him?"
The young man criminalized himself by trespassing, refusing to stop and then assuming a fighting stance when the other officers attempted to stop him. The police did not criminalize him. He did that himself. And why not pepper spray? Would you rather they shot him in the leg to get him to stop?
"What ever happened to kindness? Getting along with people?"
Exactly. And while you're at it ask what ever happened to respect for the police and doing as you're told? The officers were only reacting to the situation as it presented itself.
"Now what is the result?"
Well, hopefully you're a little better educated about your rights and obligations when dealing with the police and hopefully you can avoid being pepper sprayed in the future. Hopefully, you'll also understand that when the sign says the park is closed, well, the park is closed.
"I am mad as hell and a little bit frightened too. A lot of people in this community feel the same way as me."
You should be. How dare that young man allow a whole community to be painted negatively by his disrespectful actions. I think he owes his family, friends and neighbors a sincere apology.
It doesn't seem like Brian Chesley is a bad person. From what I heard, he hadn't been having the best day, and when the police told him to stop, he thought that he shouldn't have to because he didn't believe that he'd been doing anything wrong. This was a mistake, and things quickly got a lot worse for him. The State's Attorney apparently figured that he'd already been punished enough and offered him adult diversion. But local activists got involved. Some of them sincerely meant well, and I think that others wanted to make a statement even if it was at Chesley's expense. At any rate, Chesley turned down the diversion offer, apparently at others' urging and now has a couple of misdemeanor convictions.
Sure, he has the right to appeal. IMHO, he might have a good case if he used "ineffective counsel" as the basis for this appeal, but I don't see that happening.
So the citizens of NE Champaign around the park complain that there are people in that park at night. They make it a point to complain to their councilperson. She asks the police to make sure that there is no one in the park after dark. The police then decide ( gasp) to enforce the Park Districts sign that says... dont be in the park after dusk......they stop one kid who decides that he is not going to stop. He runs, he gets chased and he gets tackled. Then after all that, he decides to resist. He get sprayed----and this is some how the officers fault? What would you like the police to do? Not listen to the wishes of the people who live in the neighborhood? Not be pro active in the park so that the shootings and fights and stabbings that have occured there on a regular basis can continue? Exactly what would you prefer that the police do? the ball is in your court..... I am waiting to be enlightened.
Ok, i am stopping this because all I am being accused of is stereotyping. I was just trying to share some reflections in this case. However, all that ended up happening is that i was accused of stereotyping, NOT TRUE! Plus, Xian has proofed my worst stereotype of liberals. Xian's snobbery in the comment about my not knowing big words is tantamount evidence of the elitism of the Left!
IP, you are not a man of the Left. But, you do happen to go the RINO direction every now and then. Can we say Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee! No, you are not a man of the Left. I can give it to you that you are slightly to the Right of Carl Estabrook, but so is Ruth Wyman!
Other evidence that your conservatism is lacking sometimes is when someone makes a perfectly legitimate conservative arguments about poverty and race in America, and I get attacked vehemenously. A Republican is the last person I would suspect that would get a bleeding heart about stereotyping. After all, it was a "racial stereotype" that we consider to be an honored symbol. By IPs, logic, the Chief should not have just been retired, but taken out and stoned to death!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
Dunn,
Have you lost it completely? Everything you have posted in this thread is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the far right of the Republican party.
He was NOT trespassing. Those who claim he was know neither the facts nor the law. Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor claimed he was trespassing. He was leaving open gym with 2 other boys. There was no less than 10 other people in the park near the library just south of where Andre Davis parked and initiated this encounter. There were still more than a dozen kids inside still playing basketball and more coming for the 9-11 event- m180. The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking. Their assignment that night however - according to Officer Bridges was to stop, identify, run warrant checks and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities. Those who post here can continue to claim he was trespassing, they can claim the park was closed - although even andre Davis admitted that Bryan had no way to exit open gym and leave the park except by going through it- but those who continue this spin are simply ignorant of the facts. No officer denied there were others still in the park and in the gym. Those who post can claim he should have stopped , been subjected to this interrogation of who his is and why he is there, but perhaps they should ask why he should have less rights than every other law abiding citizen of a different skin color and why police knowingly retaliate against someone who simply did what the United States Supreme court says all people have a right to do. Finally - no one denies that as Bryan was leaving the park ,he told the officer that he was just coming from open gym. And BTW this incident-assault, handcuffing, etc- did not occur in the park he was well away from the park when he was first confronted by Bridges and Clinton - walking to the store down Tremont street. When those who post here are stopped by the police do you EXPECT there to be a legitimate reason or would you be satisfied with the officer saying he just wanted to know who you are and what you are doing so they can track you in their database? Bob Kirchner
He was NOT trespassing. Those who claim he was know neither the facts nor the law. Neither the Judge nor the Prosecutor claimed he was trespassing. He was leaving open gym with 2 other boys. There was no less than 10 other people in the park near the library just south of where Andre Davis parked and initiated this encounter. There were still more than a dozen kids inside still playing basketball and more coming for the 9-11 event- m180. The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking. Their assignment that night however - according to Officer Bridges was to stop, identify, run warrant checks and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities. Those who post here can continue to claim he was trespassing, they can claim the park was closed - although even andre Davis admitted that Bryan had no way to exit open gym and leave the park except by going through it- but those who continue this spin are simply ignorant of the facts. No officer denied there were others still in the park and in the gym. Those who post can claim he should have stopped , been subjected to this interrogation of who his is and why he is there, but perhaps they should ask why he should have less rights than every other law abiding citizen of a different skin color and why police knowingly retaliate against someone who simply did what the United States Supreme court says all people have a right to do. Finally - no one denies that as Bryan was leaving the park ,he told the officer that he was just coming from open gym. And BTW this incident-assault, handcuffing, etc- did not occur in the park he was well away from the park when he was first confronted by Bridges and Clinton - walking to the store down Tremont street. When those who post here are stopped by the police do you EXPECT there to be a legitimate reason or would you be satisfied with the officer saying he just wanted to know who you are and what you are doing so they can track you in their database? Bob Kirchner
Anon8:51 says: "Moreover, akibare hints at why it is ok to stereotype police as racist power abusers - we *should* be skeptical of them, and God knows we don't want to be guilty of the "fetishizing of authority"."
Don't put words in my mouth, please. What I am saying is, there is no reason to automatically trust the police, any more than there is a reason to automatically trust all members of any other profession. They are humans, doing a job, some will be good, others won't. Don't let the uniform blind you, is what I'm saying. Engage the brain.
I will say that I find a lot of the automatic trust of uniforms in the US. Obviously, this is only my experience, I should make that clear. But comments that elsewhere people don't remark on, here will often get a "what? Why do you hate the police?" type response. I don't hate the police. I just don't automatically trust the police or expect them to be my parents.
Mr. Kirchner,
With all due respect, if the park is closed and there is access to leave the gym to the south without entering the other parts of the park, how is it not trespassing if he is in the closed portion of the park and not the open facility? Do facilities users have blanket permission from the Parks Department to cross through the closed part of the facility in order to leave?
If the officer didn't have probable cause for his Terry Stop, why wasn't the case thrown out? Would this not be a constitutional issue?
I'm sorry if my questions belabor the issue, but your defense does not seem to be borne out by the results of the case. Are you implying that Judge Kennedy, the State's Attorney's office and the Champaign Police Department do not recognize they comitted a serious constitutional error?
Thank you for taking the time to clarify matters.
The trespass statute is at 720 ilcs 5/21-3. No one claims Bryan was trespassing. The notion first appeared at trial when Andre Davis was called on to justify his actions. He did not claim he was trespassing that night; did not claim that in the report he wrote that night; did not tell Bryan he was under arrest for trespassing; did not submit charges to the States Atty office for trespassing; did not claim that in his second report; and in fact testified that he first came up with that notion when he was preparing to testify and how to respond to Bryan's anticipated offenses. The park was not closed. The gym is part of the park. And, there were others in the park right behind the circle drive where andre davis parked. There were still others in the gym. And still others coming for the open gym that ran from 9-11. There is no basis for claiming the park or any area used to exit the park was the gym was closed. The legality of the actions taken by the police that night will continue to be addressed in post trial motions, and if necessary on appeal- perhaps then there will be answers to your last 2 questions.
Bob;
It didn't work in the court room, why are you making your appeal here. The facts where tried and the jury, in which you in part approved, found him guilty. You over estimated your defense and lost. The kid was stopped because he was in the park after dusk and is prohibited, you know it and by making the "He was NOT trespassing" argument continues to show your failure of logic that lost you a trial in front of 12 reasonable people. Stopping digging, you are only getting deeper.
and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities
Bob, you're making yourself look really foolish
I am not making an appeal. I am responding to the disinformation being put out there by people who are ignorant of the facts elicited and the applicable law. Your response however confirms all of the reasons why I hesitated in posting anything. Often , discussions here are not fact based, or reasoned but simply efforts to attack and divert from substance. Since you wish to be anonymous no one will ever know if you have any knowledge of this case or if you are just choosing to express opinions. We were precluded at trial from arguing to the jury that he was not breaking the law, nor were we permitted to argue what the law is, nor was the jury permitted to see what the trespassing statute says and judge for themselves, nor were we permitted to argue that he was free to walk away from andre davis and did not have to stop. There will be post trial motions and if necessary an appeal. Your comment will however end my involvement here.
Bob Kirchner
Perhaps you know something the officers who testified don't. They admitted to keeping such a data base. Do you have some factual basis to believe they testified untruthfully.
Bob Kirchner
Probable cause to make an arrest, for trespassing or anything else, has no bearing on this case. The officer was making a Terry Stop. Terry Stops have a long and clear history in the Criminal Process and Kirchner again is making a public argument that is groundless in a court of law. Again, the defense of Brian seems to be public opinon rather than a legal based defense. He knows the officer did not have to articulate grounds for an arrest, nor did he have to have probable cause to make an arrest. He only had to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion. " The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." Bob also knows that the term resisting "arrest" is only part of the entire statute Brian was charged under. The definitive term is "obstructing" as in obstructing the investigation that Davis was attempting to perform. That seriousness of that investigation is insignficant. It could be murder or a violation of a park district rule, Brian still would have to stop for the officer to conduct the investigation and to do otherwise is a violation of the Illinois statutes.
Anonymous - 1:30
You cannot be a lawyer. Your opinions about the law as applied in this case are simply inaccurate. No offense existed. No basis for a Terry stop existed. It was a stop and ID mission they were on that night. That is impermissible.
Bob Kirchner
Mr. Kirchner,
Thanks for the information. I have one question that I'm sure you know the answer to. If a police officer asks someone to stop and talk to them, does the law require that they do it? Regardless of whether they have done anything wrong or are even suspected of having done something wrong? If the law says you have to stop, then didn't the boy break the law by not stopping? I'm not suggesting that justifies the rest of what happened, but want to make sure I understand the issues here.
"and then the data would be entered into the cpd database where they track african american youth activities"
Are you saying that the officers testified that the police keep a data base specifically to track only african american youth activities? Or do they keep a data base of people stopped? Keep in mind Bob, there were numerous people who attended this trial and your claim of getting factual information out there might go both ways.
It is permissible for a police officer to interact with a citizen in a public place at any time with or without suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a criminal offense. It is equally permissible for that citizen to choose to not interact with the officer and walk away. If the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed, is about to commit, or is committing a criminal offense a temporary (TERRY) stop is permitted. This is codified in 725 ilcs 5/107-14. The short answers to your questions are NO, unless its a valid terry stop. NO. and NO-because there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. This was an ID,run warrants,submit contact info for the database operation that went bad when Bryan chose to keep walking.
Bob Kirchner
Mr Kirchner,
So, you're saying there is a data base that says: Track African-American Youth? As opposed to one that just says, Contacts; or one that says Contacts of people in a certain patrol area; or Contacts with people in certain geographcal area that is being tracked due to specified or obvious on-going problems? Or are you coloring the nature of information storeage and retrieval to fit conspiratorial goals?
Anonymous 1:41 raises a different but related issue. Apart from the law generally applicable to stops by police it is never permissible to selectively enforce the law against a specific racial group, or to administer the law in a discriminatory fashion. An officer cannot choose to "id" only african-americans or only "id" persons in the african-american areas of town. Both federal and state statutory and constitutional law prohibit that. That issue is at play as well but unrelated to the trespass, terry stop discussion which preceeded that.
BTW -All you anonymous posters should feel free to launch your personal attacks- to voice your opinions about the law- to claim you know facts that you dont know - and to spin your positions knowing no response will be forthcoming.
Bob Kirchner
"there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. "
So how does an officer decide who should be stopped over another? Doesn't someone have to be the first contacted? If there are five people and none of them stop does the officer have to catch them all for one to be a legal stop? After one did not stop, is the officer required to go back and arrest all the other for one to be legal? Thanks for your help Bob in explaining legal procedures in the law.
Mr. Kirchner,
Again, thanks for your response. It was my understanding that the green areas of the park closed at dusk and were so posted, despite the differing hours of the indoor facilities. If this is not so or Mr. Chesley was never in the green areas prior to Officer Davis' attempt to stop him, thanks for your clarification.
Anonymous 1:30, what legitimate investigation, if Mr. Chesley was not trespassing or suspected of trespassing, could the officer have been conducting to prompt the Terry Stop? Albeit, it is a very low standard, there still is one. Mr. Kirchner may well have a very good point if the officer cannot articulate a clear reason behind his "reasonable suspicion" to stop Mr. Chesley. A black youth simply walking at night, no matter what part of town, does not meet that threshold. And certainly, we could consider Hiibel and state the youth did not have the right to not identify himself, but that is still predicated upon there being "reasonable suspicion" for the Terry Stop. Please accept my apology for misusing "probable cause" in place of "reasonable suspicion" earlier. After all, IANAL nor do I play one on TV.
Thank you Mr. Kirchner for taking the time to discuss the case. There are people here incapable of thoughtful discussion, but I ensure you that there are quite a number of us who appreciate you providing information.
Prairie Biker;
No reason for an apology. I wouldn't be so quick to accept the notion that Bob is correct that the area of the park that Brian was in was not closed. That is a disputed fact that the jury obviously rejected and Bob obviously disagrees. You are correct that if no volation could be articulated then no arrest or stop could occur , however, the charge is resisting arrest. The jury heard and apparently agreed that Brian was resisting the officers efforts to place him into custody based on him being in the park after dusk and disobeying a legal order to stop and THEN resisting the attempt to place him into custody. Also, keep in mind that the jury would also hear, correctly, that even if the arrest or stop is found invalid or illegal, one cannot resist arrest unless certain circumstances exist. Those circumstances were not accepted by the jury, apparently, and a conviction was rendered. The notion as well, that the park must be open because of the Douglas Center was disputed by the park district as well. Entry and exit into the Center can be accomplished by not crossing the park to say otherwise is simply not correct and again was factually disputed to the satisfaction of the jury. I only ask that you consider ALL reasonable facts that were presented to the jury, not just the defense side. By the way, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Ok, Prairie Biker, aren't you engaging in the exact stereotyping of "far-right-wing Republicans" as I am being accused of stereotyping? Talk about pure hypocrisy. I just disagree with you folks on this. Im sorry, im not a legal expert. In Xian's eyes, that makes me a dumb yahoo who needs to be enlightened!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
xian;
I agree that the discussions regarding your experiences being right or wrong are simply non productive and thoughtless. However, I would hope that you do not oppose other opinons that might be offered that different from the young man's defense attorney. As long as they were productive and not personal, of course. As an open forum, as I assume this is, I would hope that citizens who are not teachers, lawyers or politicians be able to discuss education, law or politics.
Mr. Kirchner, I am not some anonymous person. I have one question for you and Ruth Wyman. Why are you two so involved with every single case involving some police officer? It seems like you two have an agenda. Just admit it! It's a far left agenda that you two are trying to acheive. Whether its shaking down innocent police departments or purging our local Democratic Party of those who do not cowtow to the far-left wing. You tried to crucify Brendan McGinty and failed miserably. The fact that you guys are so intent on getting rid of Democrats who might be slightly more moderate than you are is laughable, but sick. Remember, in 2000, certain moderate Republicans were treated the exact same way by the far-right of the local GOP. Because of that, Democrats won the County Board. Hmmm, maybe its a good thing that you folks are doing this, divide the Democrats and give the County Board back to the Republicans.
On second thought, keep up the good work Bob. It really is horrible that you want to support criminals, but you are doing a wonderful thing by trying to get rid of moderate Democrats. I pray that Ralph Langenheim is not on your next target list.
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"Mr. Kirchner, I am not some anonymous person"
Ok xian, you are correct, I surrender.
Check out the March 26 2008 Open Thread, Brian Dollinar mentioned that "Another All White Jury was picked"
I guess there is no prejudice, racial or otherwise, implied in this statement.
Is it to be presumed as fact that no white jury from "rural Champaign County" (as was stated in a different blog), can be fair? Clearly, there is no prejudice in that statement. Maybe if the goal is jury nullification based on some supposed racial consciousness, then there is no supposition of some other race's consciousness built in to that thinking, is there. Or maybe some people heard whatever facts were presented to them based on all of the legal legerdemain that controls evidence and came to a conclusion based on what they heard and the law they were asked to apply. Juries here and elsewhere have done some pretty odd things, but most of the time they are quite diligent. Both the state and defendant are known to benefit from legal rulings that bar certain facts that would have significant impact on a potential decision. One of the opening thought lines here was about Chesley being a pawn in other people's bigger game. From the get-go I know he was surrounded by people that had larger agendas than just his, but he also bore some responsibility. I'll go out on limb here--I'm guessing that at the moment this incident started he was not running the legal issues through his mind. His thinking was more visceral than that. He feels/hears/believes that the cops can't stop him, so he is entitled to any response he wants to make. He ran afoul of that initial thinking. He could have stopped, been a perfect jerk the whole time but answered the basic questions, and been released. Then he could have used the stored information about the contact to present the same arguments about proper stops and lawsuits and society....but he didn't. Now we have a protracted legal issue that is entwined with many other people's fates. People are hanging their reputational hats on what issues they can make of this situation, spinning it to meet their larger goals.
Ok, anon 3:28PM, whats that supposed to mean?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
So the lesson should be that we should stay out of trouble or else people with political agendas will represent us in a court of law! Great idea!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
So the lesson should be that we should stay out of trouble or else people with political agendas will represent us in a court of law! Great idea!
I'd say that it's a good idea to stay out of trouble, and also to choose your legal representation carefully.
The law is clear- absent a reasonable and articulable basis to believe BRYAN had committed, or was committing a crime the officer was required to let him keep walking.
Bob, the court records indicate that your client's name is actually spelled "Brian," just in case you care.
anon 3:03,
Thanks. I am not taking Mr. Kirchner's word at face value, but I am more than willing to defer to his knowledge of the case in which he is actively involved and to his formal training and number of years of practice.
As I said, my understanding is that the youth was originally in one of the green areas of the park when he was asked to stop. If that is not correct, I would hope that Mr. Kirchner states so unequivocably. The buildings at the park have their own hours posted but the park in general had a sign that stated "Park Closed at Dusk". To me this means that he should not have been in the green areas regardless of reason unless of course the parks department specifically allowed it for people participating in organized activities at the indoor facilities. Therefore, whether charged or not, the youth was trespassing if he was in one of the green areas and the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop is sufficient. I read the statute definition of trespassing and posted it before Mr. Kirchner gave it to me. It seems pretty clear. The argument that others were not singled out also does not hold water since just like speeders on the highway, an officer can only stop so many people at a time and just because others are not stopped does not make you not guilty. I also reject that the officer was singling out black youths as a class and not white youths because I very strongly doubt that there were any white youth in Douglass Park after dark for the officer to NOT single out.
Right now I am still convinced that Mr. Chesley was correctly stopped and correctly convicted. I could change my mind if Mr. Kirchner tells me that Mr. Chesley was never in one of the green areas of the park.
Additionally, since I don't understand, could you please explain how Mr. Chesley could be guilty of obstruction if his stop wasn't legal in the first place? It seems to me that is what you are stating. I was also thinking that perhaps 720 ILCS 5/31-1 was rather vague, but then I found IL v Meister and see that the IL Supreme Court had previously ruled on it, albeit with a very low threshold which Mr. Chesley's actions easily meet.
While we're at it, does anyone else think Robert Dunn's behavior meets the threshold to be Baker Acted? It seems he may be off his meds (again).
Dunn, your comments to Mr. Kirchner, who is kindly taking his time provide us yahoos with some clarification, are way off the mark. Additionally, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are simply rude.
I too appreciate Kirchners comments. This is from Waywards orignal post above, "seemed odd that there was no witness preparation - no interview, no discussion of what people were supposed to do in court, or anything. Gina and Mike said that there hadn't been any preparation with them either. While we were waiting out in the hall, we met another local attorney who had a pretty good reputation, and I described the situation to him and asked if this how defense lawyers normally operated?" Bob would You comment on that?
PB, I thank you for your approach to this situation as it has help enlighten us all.
I would say that the fact that there were unlikely to be white youth in Douglass Park at dusk is a problem unto itself. It may be difficult to speculate whether the particular police officer in question was more likely to stop the youth because he was black, or "looked like he might have listened to too much hip-hop music" (hee-hee just kidding), but it is certainly worth asking why some parks are more integrated than others and whether enforcement and treatment of youth is equal in each park.
I have my suspicions of what we'd find based on my own experiences and the experiences of others, but that's not the point--the point is that we should all be interested in not justifiable enforcement, but equal enforcement.
Similarly, the knee-jerk indignation we see above at the mere questioning of an all-white jury is deeply troubling. After all, we all want representative, fair juries, right? And it's certainly been the case that DA's have been caught in the past excluding potential jurors on the basis of race.
Probably just a freak of statistics, but since registering to vote at 18, I have never been called for jury duty once. Not a single time. My wife, who is two years younger, has been called eight times.
Does that mean that the jury selection process is utterly racist? No, but it is something worth studying. If we don't, what are we afraid of?
Prairie Biker;
The statute you refer to can have numerous counts. The obstructing can result from the inpedment of the performance of the police. It appears that the two counts came from the physcial resistance (resisting the cuffing during apprehension) and failing to stop to allow Davis to perform his duty investigating the trespassing. Mary Schenk reports in the News Gazette that:
"Officer Andre Davis testified he asked Chesley and the others to stop so he could identify them and talk to them about why they were in the park. He said he didn't want to arrest them for trespass but that was his reason for stopping them."
So it appears in fact, Davis was conducting a trespassing investigation even if his intentions were not to arrest them for it, but merely investigate WHO was trespassing. The fact that this investigation was obstructed by the actions of Chesley fail to stop could result in a count under the resisting charge.
I think I indicated that Chelsey could be charged with "resisting" even if, and it does not appear so in this case, that the original reasons for the stop was deemed illegal or invalid. Case law allows for resistance of an arrest only in situations of excessive force. That defense was used and rejected here according to news articles. I used the term illegal or invalid, a better description would be even if the arrestee were later found not guilty of the original crime he was suspected of committing.
You were correct in your original assertion that all of this could be avoided by stopping, giving your information, and addressing the validity of the stop in the proper manner. The courts have always found that the streets are not the proper venue for the redress of improper police procedure.
Gregg-
Witnesses who are intended to be called for limited purposes - ie impeachment or on a particular point - whose anticipated testimony you believe to be known - ie based on that persons writings (blog) or statements at city council meetings which we have on video and were prepared to display if contradictory testimony was offered by the witness- may later not be called because others offered the same intended testimony and therefore their testimony would be cumulative. Any lawyer who interviews a witness as Wayward suggests another local attorney suggested either knows that witness will testify exactly as they discussed (ie a friendly witness) OR has to accept the fact that if the witness testifies differently than anticipated the lawyer has just committed a critical error because the lawyer cannot get up on stand and impeach that witness while acting as the lawyer in the case. I doubt any good lawyer would have suggested the technique claimed to be suggested by wayward if he/she knew the details of what Wayward, Jackson, LaDue were being subpoened to testify to. On balance , a hostile witness, with limited testimony to offer, but perhaps necessary depending on other testimony is best left without contact excepting scheduling information unless you want to get yourself in an irreparable mess in the middle of a trial of needing to be an impeachment witness while being the atty in the case. Thats primarily why investigators interview important witnesses. BTW poor people don't have the police department to do their interviews or the money to hire investigators, and small law firms dont have investigators or lawyers to spare to do interviews. Just a fact. Not complaining.
Bob Kirchner
race issue?? Not sure, I know bridges is white, but isn't officer andrae davis black? If so, I laugh at the barney fife...comment way up
...as Wayward suggests another local attorney suggested...
Fascinatingly convoluted. The other attorney didn't suggest anything - he merely stated that he preferred not to answer when I asked if it was normal for attorneys to subpoena witnesses without interviewing them first.
whose anticipated testimony you believe to be known - ie based on that persons writings (blog)
I don't know if I'd assume that someone's testimony would be known based on a blog post like that. Most of it was hearsay anyhow. Anyhow, what if you called someone as a witness based on a blog post, didn't bother to interview them at all, and then they got up on the stand and said, "Well, I was really drunk when I saw the incident and blogged about it, so I'm not too sure what happened?" Or what if they blurt out something inadmissible because nobody's told them what's excluded? Seems like you might have a harder time getting a mistrial if it comes from someone who's supposed to be your witness.
Xian-
My parents are +80. They have been called ONE TIME in the past SIXTY years. I am PLUS 50 along with my brothers. We have been registered for VOTE since we were 21. We have been called ONE TIME for jury duty. My wife is about the same age.. She has been called ONE TIME> Now... what investigation did you want to call for?
xian; I wrote: "I agree that the discussions regarding your experiences being right or wrong are simply non productive and thoughtless." After reading this again, let me offer an apology. My intent was to agree that some of the "responses" to your discussion regarding your experiences of race and the police being right or wrong are non-productive and thoughtless. It was not to insinuate that YOUR experiences have no merit in this discussion. Sorry.
It is permissible for a police officer to interact with a citizen in a public place at any time with or without suspicion that the person has committed or is committing a criminal offense. It is equally permissible for that citizen to choose to not interact with the officer and walk away. If the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed, is about to commit, or is committing a criminal offense a temporary (TERRY) stop is permitted. This is codified in 725 ilcs 5/107-14. The short answers to your questions are NO, unless its a valid terry stop. NO. and NO-because there was no basis to stop him over the 2 kids he was with, or the numerous other kids within15 feet of Andre Davis who were never approached at all. This was an ID,run warrants,submit contact info for the database operation that went bad when Bryan chose to keep walking.
Bob Kirchner
Question: was he (Brian) in that area of the park that closed at dusk? yes or no? if so, then the officers did have a right to stop him or are you saying that he was not tresspassing?
Who is going to handle his appeal? Who is going to pay for his fine that he now has to pay, rather than if he took the diversion route, he would not be fined?
My parents are +80. They have been called ONE TIME in the past SIXTY years. I am PLUS 50 along with my brothers. We have been registered for VOTE since we were 21. We have been called ONE TIME for jury duty. My wife is about the same age.. She has been called ONE TIME> Now... what investigation did you want to call for?
My investigation was that I would like to see transparency in exactly how jury duty is handled in each area. The idea is not that there is specifically untoward going on, but it's a process that is so utterly vital for our basic constitutional rights, that it ought to be complete transparent.
Does anyone know the general make up of the Jury?
Retirees
Doctors
School Teachers
Construction Workers
U of I workers
Farmers or what occupations?
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Each side has X number of challenges. Are you saying that the county circuit clerk is not allowing minorities to be called to the jury pool in the first place by manipulating the computer that selects who gets called?
I'm saying that the Supreme Court decided on a case, I don't, about four years ago where there was documented evidence of DAs using their challenges to specifically disqualify minority jurors.
I'm saying that the computer system should be transparent because it is vital.
So I can be clear on this... your wanting to make an investigation into the Champaign County SA office excluding minorities from this case ? You want ( and I dont think that its a bad idea) to have a story on how jurors are picked? I know how they are, but perhaps alot of folks have no clue or have forgotten.
I think this was briefly covered in a post a while back, To be called for jury duty you have to have a valid Illinois drivers license and or current voter registration card. I am 54 years old and been registered to vote since I was 18 and never have been called for duty. Would someone explain the calling and the picking of the jury pool? and the seating of a jury ?
There have been studies about racial biases in juries. From what I recall, it was found that blacks tend to not show up when called. That was found to account for at least the bulk of the perceived racial disparities.
The jury pool for this case was approximately 45 people. They included one African American, and one Asian. The percentage of people of color in the jury venire was then approximately 2 %. The population of African Americans in Champaign County is 15%. In a misdemeanor case, each side has 5 peremptories. The defense used all of our peremptories. The State did not. Not a single juror whose number was called, and then was questioned, was a person of color.
-Ruth Wyman
Ruth;
While the county might be made up of 15% African Americans, what is the percentage of the demographics that qualify as jurors? Excluding children, people who do not possess drivers license or are registered voters, my guess the number for all races would be less than the census numbers. While 2% seems low, it might be closer to the actual demographics to those qualified to serve on jurys, rather than total demographics. And by qualified I mean those who would show up on the jury pool computer. This is a sincere question, I am not exactly sure what is required to be a juror.
"My investigation was that I would like to see transparency in exactly how jury duty is handled in each area. The idea is not that there is specifically untoward going on, but it's a process that is so utterly vital for our basic constitutional rights, that it ought to be complete transparent."
There is a rather comprehensive ongoing study of Champaign County juries being run by Law professors Steve Beckett and Tina Gunsalus and their students. I wrote about it here about a year-and-a-half ago. There was a follow-up here, but I don't remember hearing anything about it recently.
So............what are you saying? That the current method of picking the pool is wrong? How then would you change it? ID cards, voter registration, IL DL and tax records are all used. What additionally would you use to get a fair and impartial jury picked?
There is a clear overstepping of police authority. When will the police be brought to justice?
To increase race in a jury pool there would have to be someway to identify race. Voter registration does not indicate race, nor does a drivers license or Illinois ID. Given that the factor of race is not put into a computer to randomly draw from, it has no way of correcting for census demographics. The question is, should it? And if it should, then should race be indicated on all relevant forms of selection IE: ID's, Driver license, voter registration?
705 ILCS 305/1 describes who gets on a list of potential jurors: those who are legal voters, those with an Illinois driver's license, Illinois Identification Card, and Illinois Disabled Person Identification Card in the County. I think the lack of people of color in juries (the Chesley case and others) in Champaign County merits serious review.
-Ruth Wyman
I'd like to add some comments based on my experience attending Mr. Chesley's trial.
Some anonymous person stated "Entry and exit into the Center can be accomplished by not crossing the park to say otherwise is simply not correct and again was factually disputed to the satisfaction of the jury", which is incorrect. Officer Davis testified this in court, you HAVE TO go through the park to get in/out of the park's civic centre.
Also, prairie biker asked whether or not Mr. Chesley was in the "green" areas of the park and that if then indicated that "the youth was trespassing if he was in one of the green areas and the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop is sufficient."
The park rules indicate that the parks close at dusk or 11pm (and it seems that there is a sign indicating so, but I have no personal knowledge of whether this is true or not). However, the park's civic center was open, so the park cannot be closed. You have to go through the (supposedly) closed park to participate in the activities (open gym) organized by the Park District at the park (the civic center is part of the park, just like the ball field and the soccer field). Mr. Chesley and his two companions at the time, were coming out of an activity organized by the Park District in the civic center, and were walking out the park (although they were still inside the park) when officer Davis saw them. There were, however, other people simply standing in the park (near the statue), with no intention of leaving the park.
So, as far as whether or not, Mr. Chesley was trespassing, he was not. In order for him to commit trespassing, officer Davis had to have asked him to leave the park, and then Mr. Chesley had to refuse to leave. However, Mr. Chesley, his two companions at the time, and officer Davis himself, testified that they (Mr. Chesley and his companions) were walking when he first saw them, and that they were walking in a direction to get out of the park after he first approached them. So, there was no trespassing committed by Mr. Chesley.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the park was indeed closed (which it wasn't, as is obvious from the activities organized by the Park District). Then I would have thought (and I think most people do) that in this case Mr. Chesley was committing trespassing simply by being in the park when it was "closed". But the law says otherwise, and officer Davis (who testified to being in the Champaign police force for at least 3.5 years) should know this. If not, well then we're in trouble if the people who're supposed to enforce the law don't actually know the law! Therefore, there should have been no reasonable suspicion for a Terry Stop. All evidence presented in trial prove that trespassing was not the reason why officer Davis approached Mr. Chesley and his two companions. There is no reference to trespassing in his reports, nor on the other officers' reports. Davis' own testimony was that he HAD NOT mentioned this to anybody before he testified. So, if trespassing was indeed the reason for which he stopped Mr. Chesley and his two companions, and which could have been the reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop, then, officer Davis failed to express this to Mr. Chesley and his two companions. So, in Mr. Chesley's (and his two companions') perspective, there was NO reasonable suspicion for the Terry Stop. In or