The Chicago Police Torture Scandal
Web PDF • Imposed PDF• Raw TXT (OCR)
![story, chose not to pursue a motion to suppress the confession but instead wied the case before a veteran Cook County judge who, like so many of his judicial colleagues, was formerly a Cook County prosecutor.” The judge rejected Holmes’s defense—that there was 1o corroboration for the confession—and convicted him of mur- der. Thirty years later, Holmes was released on parole.* Burge and the Area 2 midnight crew of white robbery detec- tives continued to torture selected African American suspects throughout the 1970s, and their elevated success rate in clearing serious felony cases and obtaining confessions earned Burge a pro- motion to sergeant in 1977 and to lieutenant in 1980.° Burge" electric shock device, which he referred to as the “nigger’” box,” was sometimes on display on a table in the Robbery office, and continued to be a signature of their interrogations in high profile cases." On one occasion, a Black Area 2 detective named Bill Parker walked in on a Burge torture scene, but when he reported it 10 a supervisor, he was reprimanded and transferred out of Area g L Tue Wison CRiviNaL Case In the early 1980s, the Chicago Police Department reorga- nized its detective division, and Burge was put in charge of Area newly created Violent Crimes Unit. At about the same time, Rich- 7 One of Holmes’s attorneys, Lavrence Suffiedin, who later went on o become a well-known Cook County commissioner, tesificd as a government witness about these ents a1 Burge’s criminal prosccution in 2010. See Transcript of Proceedings on May 2010 — Trial Vol. 24, United States . Burge, No. 08 CR 846 (N.D. L) (dircct examination of Lawrence Suffredin) & The Mlinois Appellate Court, followings previous Hlinois precedent, reversed Holmes’s conviction, holding that corroboration was requircd, but the linois preme Court reversed and reinstated Holmes’ conviction. People v. Holmes, 317 NE2d 407 (Il App. CL. 1976), sev’d. 67 Il 2d 236 (1IL 1977). Testimony of Jon Burge, United States v. Burge, No. 08 CR 846 (N.D. TIL Junc 17, 2010) 40" {Editor-in-chisfs note: To accurately reflect the racist roots upon which, among other things, the horrors of the Chicago police torture scandal were founded, this Article contains some verbatim quotes with derogatory references o Black people Out of respect for, and in solidasity with, the numerous victims of police torture de. tailed here—both recognized and wnrecognized—CUNY Law Revia belieses that it s of utmost importance to not obscure this reality and thus has chosen to leave the quotes as is.] 11 Affidavit of Melvin Duncan, Patterson v. Burge, 326 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. L 2004) (No. 03 G 4433): Swom Statement of Tony Thompson at 20-26, Patterson v Burge, 528 F. Supp. 2 878 (ND. IIL 2004) (No. 05 C 4433). 1 Syvorn statement of Willium Parker at 7-12, 16-17, Patterson v. Burge, 325 F. upp. 2 878 (N.D. IIL 2004) (No. 03 C 4433)](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 5.png)
![ard M. Daley, the son of Chicago’s legendary mayor, was elected the State’s Attorney of Cook County. In February of 1982, after two white Chicago gang unit officers were shot and killed on the South ide, Police Superintendent Richard Brzeczek and Mayor Jane Byrne launched the largest manhunt in the history of the City, and Burge was placed in charge of the operation. Police kicked down doors and terrorized scores of African Americans in what Jesse Jackson of Operation PUSH and Renault Robinson of the Afro American Police League condemned as “martial law” that “smack[ed] of Nazi Germany."* Suspected wit- nesses were smothered with bags and threatened with bolt cutters and Burge and his detectives took several young men—whom they wrongly suspected to be the killers—to police headquarters, where they tortured them.’* After five days of wanton brutality, two brothers, Andrew and Jackie Wilson, were arrested for the crime. Andrew, who was identi- fied as the shooter, was arrested by Burge and his Area 2 associates, and brought back to the Area, where he was initially bagged, beaten, and bumed with a cigarette lighter.”” Burge and Yucaitis then took over the torture, handcuffing Wilson across a ribbed steam radiator and repeatedly shocking him on the nose, ears, lips, and genitals with Burge’s shock box. The shocks, which were trans- mitted from a hand crank generator through wires and alligator clips, jolted Wilson against the radiator and seriously burned his face, chest, and leg."® The torture was repeated throughout the day, and when Wilson at first refused to give a formal confession and instead told the Felony Review prosecutor that he was being tortured, the prosecutor sent Wilson back to Burge for more abuse.’” Wilson and his brother Jackie, who was also tortured, both ulti- mately confessed, but Andrew’s injuries were so pronounced that the police lockup keeper refused to accept him into lockup. Med cal personnel documented his injuries and the public defender who was appointed to represent him took graphic pictures.’ The 13 See Cops Accused of Bratality, Cra. o, Feb. 18, 1982, at 3; Chinta Police, Bar Group Ask Manunt” Probe, Cott Disioe, Feb. 18, 1952 at 3. 11 Deposition of Donald G. White at 2653, Wilson v. City of Chicago. 900 F. Supp. 1015 (N.D. 1L 1995) (No. 86 G 2360): Affidavit of Anthony Williams, Logan v. Burge No. 09 C 5471 (N.D. Il Mar. 7, 2011) 5 John Conroy, House of Scrcoms, readér.com/chicago,/house-ofscre Iyn I iy wherg, . 1990), huip:/ /v chicago s/ Contentioid-§75107.](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 6.png)
![director of medical services at the Gook County Jail, Dr. John Raba, examined Wilson, heard him describe his torture, and wrote a let- ter to Police Superintendent Bizeczek describing Wilson’s injuries and demanding a full investigation.™ Brzeczek—who would later admit that he upbraided several of his high level deputies for being present at Area 2 and permitting Wilson to be tortured—delivered Dr. Raba’s letter directly to State’s Attorney Daley, accompanied with a cover letter confiding that he would not investigate Wilson’s alleged torture unless Daley directed him to do s0.2° After consult- ing with his first assistant, Richard Devine, and another top level assistant, William Kunkle, Daley decided not to investigate; instead, he and Brzeczek both publicly commended Burge, proceeded to prosecute Andrew Wilson and his brother Jackie. The Wilson brothers moved to suppress their confessions, and an extensive hearing was held at which Burge and his men all denied that they abused the Wilsons. The trial judge denied the motions, both Wilsons were convicted, and Andrew was sentenced to death, while Jackie received a life sentence. Andrew’s case was directly ap- pealed as of right to the llinois Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction* The court recounted Wilson’s testimony of how he was repeatedly electricshocked and burned, and detailed “some 15 separate injuries that were apparent on the defendant’s head, chest, and right leg” Two cuts on the defendant’s forehead and one on the back of his head required stitches; the defendant’s right eye had been blackened, and there was bleeding on the surface of that eye. Dr. Korn also observed bruises on the defendant’s chest and sev- eral linear abrasions or burns on the defendant’s chest, shoul- der, and chin area. Finally, Dr. Ko saw on the defendant’s right thigh an abrasion from a second-degree burn; it was six inches long and 11/2 to 2 inches wide ** The Court then held: [T]he defendant’s injuries in this case cannot be disputed, and only several facial injuries were explained by the State. Because 19 Letter from Dr. John Raba, Med. Dir., Cook Caty. Jail, to Richard Brzcczck, wendent, Chi. Police Dep’t (Feb. 17, 1982) (on 6lé with author) Richard Brzeczek, Superintendent, Chi. Police Dep’t, to Richard omey of Cook Gty (Feb. 25, 1982) {on file with author); of Richard Braeczek 1o the Special Prosecutor (Mar. 9, 2005) (on fle with author) 21 Personnel Order No. 82369, Chicago Department of Police Unit Meritorious Performance Award (Sept. 1, 1952) (on file with author); Daley Hails 11 in Crime War, G Tian., May 20, 1985, 22 Peaple v. Wilson, 506 N.E2d 571 (Il 1957). = It 573,](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 7.png)
![Brzeczek had written the state’s attorney that he would do noth- ing further unless the state’s attorney assured him that doing something would not interfere with the prosecution of Wilson: the letter was not answered, so true o his word Brzeczek did nothing further. Brzeczek had downplayed the gravity of the problem in Area 2 in discussions with [B]lack police officers. He had even signed a commendation for Burge, though it had been prepared by others for his signature and he may not have no- ticed Burge’s name. While the court further found that “a rational jury could have inferred from the frequency of the abuse, the number of officers involved in the torture of Wilson, and the number of complaints from the [B]lack community, that Brzeczek knew that officers in Area 2 were prone to beat up suspected cop killers,” it nonetheless absolved the City because his steps to eliminate the practice, no matter how ineffectual, established that he was not deliberately indifferent: He referred the complaints to the unit within the police depart- ment that is responsible for investigating police abuses. It was the plaintiff’s responsibility to show that in doing this Brzeczek was not acting in good faith to extirpate the practice. That was not shown. At worst, the evidence suggests that Brzeczek did not respond quickly or effectively, as he should have done; that he was careless, maybe even grosly so given the volume of com- plaints. More was needed to show that he approved the practice. ng o climinate a practice cannot be equated 1o approving it. Otherwise every inept police chief in the country would be deemed to approve, and therefore become answerable in dam- ages to all the victims of the misconduct of the officers under command. .. ** IV, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORTS While the trial judge would not permit the other acts of tor- ture by Burge to be introduced as evidence, it was instrumental in compelling the CPD’s Office of Professional Standards to reopen its disciplinary investigation in the Wilson case and also to open a parallel investigation into the alleged pattern and practice of tor- ture at Area 2. In the fall of 1990 the OPS, in a detailed report authored by investigator Francine Sanders, recommended that Burge, Yucaitis and a third detective, Patrick O’Hara, be fired for g0 15 Wilson v Gity of Chicago, 6 F.34 1233, 1240 (7th Cir. 1993).](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 12.png)
![their torture of Andrew Wilson.*! The Superintendent concurred, and they were suspended from the force pending a termination hearing before the Chicago Police Board.* The parallel OPS investigation into the systemic nature of Area 2 torture was conducted by OPS investigator Michael Gold- ston, and its damning findings were approved by the OPS Chief Administrator. Goldston’s report found that suspects held in cus- tody at Area 2 had been subjected to “systematic” and “methodical” “abuse,” that the abuse included “planned torture,” and that Area 2 command personnel were “aware of the systematic abuse” and encouraged it by “actively participating” or failing to take action to stop it."” CPD Superintendent Martin, who had previously been Burge’s commander at Area 2, suppressed the report™ until lawyers from the People’s Law Office obtained it under a protective order. In February 1992, U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur ordered that the report could be publicly released, and the report’s findings re- ceived widespread local, national, and international coverage. In response, Martin and Mayor Richard M. Daley, who had been elected in 1989, publicly condemned the findings, calling them “only allegations . . . rumors, stories, things like that.™* V. Tue Firine oF Jox Burce Burge, Yucaitis, and O’Hara were put on trial before the Chi- cago Police Board for the torture of Andrew Wilson only days after the Goldston Report was made public. In pleadings filed by the Gity in the Police Board casc, its lawyers admitted for the first time that there was “an astounding patiern or plan on the part of [Burge and Yucaitis] to torture certain suspects . . . into confessing 11 Pt Sasxs, OFICE of PRoFL Wilson Case 63-66 (Scpt. 26, 1990). 15 Ofpics oF PRort. StaxbakDs, Citt. PoLics DET, RECOMMENDATION FOR SEPARA Tox 1-2 (Oct. 11, 1991) 16 Michabi. Golpston, i, Poucs D’t Ovice o PRoFL Stasoass, History 0F ALLEGATIONS OF MiscoNbUCE B AREA Two Prssoxsi. (Nov. 2, 1990) 7 14 a0 % Sor Expert Opinion of Anthony Bouza, Orange v. Burge, No. 04 C 168, 2005 WL 742641 (ND. Il March 30, 2005); Declaration of G. Flint Taylor fled March 22, 2011, Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C 2192, 2011 WL 4361529 (N.D. IIL Sep. 19, 2011) ’ David Jackson, 13 Years of Cop Torture Alleed, Daly, Martin, Rip Internal Polce Reports, Cu. Toan. (Feby 8, 1992). hutp:/ /articles.chicagotribune.com,/1992.02.08 news/9201120603_1_jon burge-torture-chicago-police-board, 50 The hearing began on Feb. 10, 1992, and was completed on March 20, 1992, S generally Transcript of Proceedings Before the Ghicago Police Board, Jn 1 Chasges Filed Against Burge, Nos. 1856-1858 (Jan. 22, 1992) AwbAbs, Cit, POLICE DEF’E, ANALysis OF](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 13.png)
![and whether those issues are identical to the issues in the instant case. They argue that because the Board’s decision contains such language as “and/or,” there is a question as to what spe- cific conduct the Officers were found to have engaged in. The court disagrees. The findings of the Board provide that Burge did: (1) *strike and/or kick and/or othervise physically abuse or maltreat [plaintff] . .. and/or cause or aggravate physical or injuries to the person of [plaintiff]”; (2) “after having knowl- edge or reasonable basis to believe that other police officers were physically abusing or maltreating [plaintiff] ... improperly failed o take any action (o stop such physical abuse or maltreat- ment .. . The findings are equally specific as to Yucaitis and O’Hara with respect to their knowledge of and failure 0 pre- vent such abuse or provide for or secure medical care for plain- Gif. The court concludes that such findings are sufficiently specific for purposes of collateral estoppel. Given the fact that the Police Board decision was then on ap- peal to the Hllinois Appellate Court, Judge Gettleman entered a stayed summary judgment against Burge and his Area 2 coefend- ants pending final appellate resolution of the Police Board case. Wilson then agreed to settle his claims against Burge and O’Hara for a total of $1 million in damages and attorneys’ fees. The City refused to pay the setdement, the judge entered judgment, and the City appealed to the Seventh Circuit.” On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. It rejected the City’s argument that the District Court did not have jurisdiction, finding that the principle of ancillary jurisdiction permitted Wilson’s re- joinder of the City after the Monell claim was lost”* The court de- fined the controlling issue to be “whether Burge was acting within the scope of his employment by the City when he tortured Wil- son,"® and held that he was: Burge . .. was not pursuing a frolic of his own. He was enforcing the criminal law of llinois overzealously by extracting confes- sions from criminal suspects by improper means. He was, as it were, 100 loyal an employee. He was acting squarely within the scope of his employment.” 02 Wilson, 900 . Supp. at 1026, 3 Wilson requested dismissal for the case against Yucaitis, who had died. bty for the settlement was then divided equaly between Burge and O’Ha appeal was taken on the portion of the seulement against Burge only. with the City agrecing to pay O’Hara’s portion. The total amount ultimately collecied by Wilson and his lawyers, after appeal, amounted 1 $1.1 million. 04" See Wilson v. City of Chicago, 120 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 1997). I an 681, 6 1d a1 655,](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 16.png)
![IX. Tue Cannon CriviNaL Case Darrell Cannon was arrested for murder only days after Banks and Bates by a contingent of Area 2 officers who placed him in a detective car where Dignan told him that they had a “scientific way of questioning niggers.” When Cannon refused to talk, Byrne, Dignan, and Grunhard took him to a remote site on the far south- east side of Chicago, where Dignan forced the barrel of a shotgun into Cannon’s mouth and pulied the trigger.”” He repeated this mock execution twice more, after which he and Byrne pulled down Cannon’s pants and repeatedly shocked him on the genitals with a cattle prod. After a subsequent round of electric shocking, Cannon gave a statement implicating himself as accountable in the murder. Cannon’s motion to suppress was denied by a judge who, would later go to federal prison for taking bribes.* Cannon even- tually appealed; his conviction was reversed, and he was retried in 1994 after a successor judge denied him the right to re-litigate his motion to suppress.” He again appealed, armed with a record that included numerous other cases where Byre and Dignan were ac- cused of torturing and abusing other African American suspects.** The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a new motion to suppress hearing. The court, following People v. Banks and Wilson v. City of Chicago, held that the other torture allegations were relevant to show motive, plan, intent, and course of conduct, and to impeach Dignan and Byrne. In so doing, the court also held that the newly discovered evidence defeated principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and reiterated that the admission of a co- erced confession can never be harmless error: No citation of authority is required for the proposition that in a civilized society torture by police officers is an unacceptable means of obtaining confessions from suspects. The use of a de- fendant’s coerced confession as substantive evidence of his guilt 6 Transeript of Darrell C Motion to Suppress Hearing at 17 People v. Cannon, No. 8311830 (Cir. ‘ounty Mar. 27, 1984) (hereinafier Gannon Testimony]: see also KosWorks, Palce Torture Chicago Styl: Damell Cannon, Anthony Holmes and Flint Taylor Sprak Out, YouTuse. (Jan. 10, 2012), hutp:/ /wiw.you e com/watchv-AGCZ-qciFo. Cannon Testimony, sufra note 86, at 37-38, Peaple . Cannon, No. 8311530 ook County March 27, 1984); se also KOsWokks, supra note 86. anon Testimony, supra note 86, at 4348, S also KosWomks, supra note 86 ing bis torture) 9 See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 US. 599 (1997) 9 People v. Cannon, 658 N.E2d 693, 696 (IIL App. C o1 I a1 695, 107](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 20.png)
![jecting several ineffective assistance of counsel arguments, the court, in an opinion written by Justice Rathje, found that funda- mental fairness defeated the yes judicata effect of its prior Patterson decision,® and held that Patterson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of newly discovered torture evidence. Rejecting the State’s reliance on a number of the court’s prior de- cisions, including People v. Wilson, People v. Hobley, and People v. Or- ange, the court modified the physical injury rule: [T]he fact that the defendant has suffered a physical inju only one of many factors 1o consider when determining whether evidence of prior allegations of police brutality are admissible. The question of relevancy is a determination to be made by the trial court after a consideration of, inter alia, the defendant’s al- legations of torture and their similarity to the prior allegations The court detailed the newly discovered evidence, including, sixty incidents of torture that implicated Burge and the detectives who tortured Patterson, the OPS Goldston and Sanders Reports, and several judicial and administrative decisions, and evaluated their relevance in light of the decisions in People v. Cannon, People v Banks, Wilson v. Burge, and People v. Hobley. The court found that the sixty incidents, some of which were contained in a proffer of- fered in the Wilson civil case, were not unduly remote: Many of the claims detailed in the plaintiff’s proffer are remote in time from defendant’s claims. The amount of time separating the incidents is a relevant consideration when determining ad- missibility. . . . Even incidents that are remote in time can be- come relevant, however, if the party presenting the evidence can present evidence of other incidents that occurred in the in- terim. Thus, a single incident years removed has litle relevance. However, a series of incidents spanning several years can be rel vant 0 establishing a claim of pattern and practice of torture. Consequently, we believe that the claims detailed in the proffer should be considered new evidence, but only if defendant can establish the later discovery of other torture allegations linking defendant’s claims to those contained in the proffer.’ In conclusion, the court found that all of this evidence was relevant and should be considered by the trial court: After reviewing the new evidence relied upon by defendant, we 196 Paterson, 610 NE.2d a1 16. 7 Patterson, 735 NE.2d 616 (Il 2000) 108 74 a0 6145, 100 74, at 612443,](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 23.png)
![The defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied in almost all respects,’™ and discovery proceeded in the cases. People’s Law OF- fice lawyers, who represented Orange and Patterson, embarked on an investigation that yielded numerous statements that they ob- tained from recently discovered torture victims and five African- American detectives who had retired from the force. The former detectives, no longer living in fear of the police code of silence and official retaliation,’™® for the first time revealed a wealth of evi- dence that corroborated that the pattern and practice of torture under Burge was an “open secret at Area 2."%* These former detec- tives revealed that they had seen what appeared to be Burge’s tor- ture box,"** had walked in on torture scenes,’* had overheard discussions concerning the use of plastic bags, telephone books, and the “Vietnamese treatment” to obtain statements,”™ and had heard screams coming from the interrogation room.™” They fur- ther asserted “the [B]lack box . . . was running rampantly through the little unit up there,”* that Burge enforced the “code of si- lence” with threats of violence,’*” and that Burge was an avowed racist’!” who was rumored to be a Ku Klux Klan member. ! During discovery, the torture victims® lawyers took scores of depositions and posited hundreds of interrogatories, and on al- sion Claims, 7 Pouici: Miscoxpuct & G Ricarts Law Revorsex, No. 13, Jan.—Feb, 014, et 152 Sor, e, November 9, 2004 Sworm v. Burge, 525 F. Supp. 24 §78 (N.D. IIL 138 10, a 11 151 Afidavit of Melvin Duncan on May 20, 2004, at 11 5-10, Patterson v. Burge, 528 E. Supp. 24 878 (N.D. [IL 2004) (No. 03 C 4133): Statement of Walter Young on November 2, 2004 at 6-7, Patiesson . Burge, 528 F. Supp. 2 878 (N.D. Tl 2004) (No. 03 C 4433). 155 Sor November 9, 2004 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd, supra note 132, at 13-14; catement of Wiliam Parker on Oct. 12, 2001 at 7-16, Patterson v. Burge, 328 F. ipp. 24 878 (N.D. 11l 2004) (No. 03 C 4439); Statement of Waltes Youns, supra note 131, a1 9-10. 136 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd, supra note 132, at 10-12; Affidavit of Melvi Duncan, supra note 134, a0 11 1,4, 5-10; Statement of Walter Young, supra note 134, aso, 157 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd at 9, Patterson v. Busge, 528 F. Supp. 24 878 (NLD. 1L 2004) (No. 03 C 4435). 1 4 a0 10211 139 74, a0 6-7. 10 14 atement of Walter Young on November 2, 2004, at 30-31, Pates son v Burge, 328 . Supp. 24 §78 (N.D. IIl2004) (No. 03 C 4439): Statement of Sammy Lacey on October 12, 2004, at 0-21, 28, Pauterson v. Burge, 528 F. Supp. 24 78 (N.D. 1L 2004) (No. 03 C 443%). i Statement of Walter Young, supra note 154, at 31-5: Byrd, supra note 152, a1 27. tatement of Doris Byrd ac 41-43, Paterson 004) (No. 03 C 443%) worn Statement of Doris](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 29.png)
![led to a landmark change in the law."’" In 2005, the anti-torture movement, frustrated by the pace and tenor of the ongoing investigation by the Special Prosecutors’ Of- fice, petitioned for and obtained a hearing before the Inter Ameri- can Commission for Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States.*” At this hearing, held in Washington, D.C. in October 2005, a Burge torture survivor, lawyers from the People’s Lay Office, and several activists testified and presented evidence to the Commission.’** The movement next turned to the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT). The Midwest Committee for Human Rights and lawyers from the People’s Law Ofice, together with nu- merous national human rights organizations, presented the issue of Chicago police torture to CAT as part of a broader picture of systemic U.S. human rights violations that also included torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib."* A lawyer from the People’s Law Office appeared before CAT in Geneva, Switzerland to argue the case for U.S. prosecutions of Burge and his men."” In May 2006, the CAT, in its “principal subjects of concern and recommen- dations concerning the United States” section of its report found: The Committee is concerned with allegations of impunity of some of the State party’s [US’s] law enforcement personnel in respect of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treat- ment or punishment. The Committee notes the limited investi- gation and lack of prosccution in respect of the allegations of torture perpetrated in areas 2 and 3 of the Chicago Police De- partment. (article 12) The State party should promply, thor- oughly and impartially investigate all allegations of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punish- 116 Sor Reply Bricf and Argument for Defendan son, 610 N.E2d 16 (IIL. 1993) (No. 82711). 17 Approximately fifty organizations and individuals, including the Midwest Com- mittee for Human Rights (MCHR), the National Lawyers Guild, the National Conter. ence of Black Lawyers, the NAACF, the ACLU, and 1 on Urban Affins sgned the pridon, S Leters ur Justice at the Univ. of Chi. Law Sch, 10 the. Comivn on Tiinan Kihts otk Aug 36,2005 and Sept. 6 2005 on He v st (alleging that the pattern and practice of torture violated the American Declaration of the Rights and Dutics of Man and requesting a general interest hearing) Appellant at 37, People v. Patier- 148 Dennis Conrad, Panel Hears Claims of AniiBlack Cop Brutality Hers, Cht. Sux- 2005 Toas, Oct. 1 9 Sor of, Moy um from Midwest Comm. for Human Rights (MCHR) 1o the Torture Crucl, Inhuman or Degrading Treat Sept. 30, 2005) wker, UN. Inuestigates Alleged Torture, WBEZ. Chicago Public Radio. 006 (tanscript on il with author) broadeast, May](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 31.png)
![ment by law enforcement personnel and bring perpetrators to justice, in order to fulfill its obligations under article 12 of the Convention. The State party should also provide the Gommitiee with information on the ongoing investigations and prosecution relating to the above-mentioned case. ! XVL ThE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS’ REPORT In July 2006, after a fouryear investigation that cost Cook County taxpayers $7 million, Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle returned no indictments, but rather issued a report that absolved Richard M. Daley, Richard Devine, and all but one of the numer- ous high-level Chicago Police officials who had been implicated in the decades-long scandal. "™ In the report, the Special Prosecutors did make a number of findings that would prove to be of signifi- cance in subsequent legal proceeding © The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Burge committed aggravated battery, obstruction of justice, and perjury when he abused Andrew Wilson and later testified falsely about it.’** « The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Area 2 Midnight detectives Ronald Boffo and James Lotito physically abused Philip Adkins and committed aggravated battery against him. 1 « The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Area 2 detectives Anthony Maslanka and Michael McDermott physi- cally abused Alphonso Pinex and committed aggravated bat- tery, perjury, and obstruction of justice.’” © There were “many other cases” in which the Special Prosecutors believed that the persons, including Melvin Jones, Shadeed Mu’min, and Michael Johnson, were abused but “proof beyond 151 UN. Comm. Against Toruure, Consideration of Reports Submitied by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commitiee Against Torture, 36h Sess., May 1-19, 2006, at 7, CAT/C, (May 18, 2006). In May 2008, similar evidence was presented (o the UN. Rapporteur on Racism at 2 hearing conducted in Chicago. See MidvwestHumanRights, Jory Mogul’s Testimony to UN Speial Rapporteur on Racism, YouToms. (May 29, 2008), hutp’/ /s you tbe.com/watch?v=00dH2ZWOL v 52 Sor Report of the Gook County Special State’s Attorney, In re Appointment of ‘Special Prosceutor, No. 2001 Misc. 4 (July 19, 2006) [hereinafier Special Prosccutors’ Report] 15504 a0 16, 65. 154 74, 16. The evidence established that Adkins was br Mashlight, causing him to defe dirceted at him. 4. at 266-75. SA/CO/2 ly beaten shout his e on himself, and that racial head and body with epithets we 155 14 a0 16.](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 32.png)
![a reasonable doubt” was absent.’* « Burge, the “commander of the Violent Crimes Section of Detec- tive Areas 2 and 3, was “guilty [of] abus[ing] persons with im- punity,” and that it therefore “necessarily follows that a number of those serving under his command recognized that if their commander could abuse persons with impunity, so could they. « Chicago Police Superintendent Richard J. Brzeczek was guiliy of a *dereliction of duty” and “did not act in good faith in the investigation of the claim of Andrew Wilson,” because Brzeczek “believed that officers in the Violent Crimes unit of Detective Area 2 had tortured Andrew Wilson,” and that Brzeczek “kept Burge in command at Area 2, and issued a letter of commenda- tion to all of the detectives at Area 271" « Brzeczek “received and believed evidence that a prisoner [An- drew Wilson] had been brutalized by the Superintendent’s sub- that the prisoner had confessed; that those subordinates had testified under oath on a motion to suppress and before a jury, and he [Brzeczek] had to believe, they [Burge and Yucaitis] testified perjuriously; that the prisoner had been Sentenced to death, and that that Superintendent still re- mained silent for over twenty years « The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in its 1993 consideration of the City’s liability in the Wilson civil case, was misled concerning Superintendent Brzeczek’s contemporane- ous knowledge that Burge and his subordinates tortured Wilson because Brzeczek concealed those views until afier the case was concluded.’™ « The Chief of Felony Review of the Cook County States Attor- ney’s Office, Lawrence Hyman, gave “false testimony” when “he denied that Andrew Wilson told him he had been tortured by 156 14_at 12-13. The evidence established that Busge electrically shocked Jones on his penis, thigh, and foot, struck him in the head with a stapler, threatencd him vith 1 revolver, and theatened to “blow [his] [BJlack brains out:” that Burge suffocated Mu’min with a plastic typewriter cover, threatened him with a revolver, subjected him to Russian Roulette, and repeatedly wsed racial epithets; and that Burge clectrically shocked and beat Johnson. Se Testimony of Melsin Jones, United States v. Burge, No. 08 CR 846 (N.D. Tl May 27, 2010); Testimony of Shadecd Mu’min, United Staies v Burge, No. 08 GR 846 (N.D. [1L_June 15, 2010); Special Prosecutors Report, supra note 13, 87. ccial Prosceutors’ Report, supra note 1 1 0 a0 17, 199 14 a0 8657 (s 160 14, at 8758, at 16, sphasis in original).](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 33.png)
![detectives under the command of Jon Burge.”’*" « No meaningful police investigation was conducted, nor any po- lice witness questioned either in the Wilson case, or in the Michael Johnson electric shock case, which occurred a few months afier Wilson, and had “glaring similarities” to the Wil- son allegations. ’ * “[S]omething should have been done about the ‘disgrace and embarrassment’ [at Area 2] 24 years ago” by the Chicago Police Superintendent. ! « Ifaction had been taken against Jon Burge at the time of the Andrew Wilson case, or even shortly thereafter, the appoint- ment of the Special Prosecutor would not have been necessary. ’™ « This action should have included, “at the very least,” the Super- intendent’s removal of Burge from any investigative command and a “complete shake-up at detective Area 2."1% XVIL RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS’ REPORT The lawyers for the torture victims, human rights activists, and much of the African-American community were outraged by the Special Prosecutors’ failure to indict for perjury, obstruction of jus- tice, and conspiracy, and their failure to properly assess blame. Their anger was fueled by the discovery that Special Prosecutor Egan had nine relatives who were Chicago Police officers, one of whom served under Burge at Area 2 in the 1980s and participated in the arrest of torture victim Gregory Banks.’* As a result, lawyers from the People’s Law Office, together with Northwestern Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, drafted a Shadow Re- port that was signed by more than 200 organizations and individu- als from the human rights, criminal justice and racial justice movements."” The Shadow Report, which was released in April 2007, found that the Special Prosecutors « Did not bring criminal charges against members of the Chicago 1014 a0 54, 102 14, a0 12413, §7-88 103 Special Prosecutors’ Report, supra note 152, at 89 104 10 a0 88, 165 10 166 Aldon M. Pallasch & Frank Main, Torture Report and Faily Ties: Top Investigator Had Nephea on Buoge’s Staff. Civ. Sus-Titis, Aug. 5, 2006, at A7. 107 Repokr ox Tiik FAILURE oF SEcia. PRosscuzons Eowan J. EGa axo Romexr D. Bovis 10 Py Iasmicars Sisresnc Povice ToRIURE ix Cricaco at 2 (April 24, 2007).](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 34.png)
![The Cook County Board of Commissioners fully supports any action taken by the United States Attorneys of the Northern District of Illinois in the investigation and prosecution of any and all federal crimes allegedly committed by Burge and his men. « The Cook County Board of Commissioners recommends that the Tllinois Attorney General initiate new hearings for the twentysix Chicago Police torture victims who were wrongfully convicted and remain incarcerated in the State of Illinois. « The Cook County Board of Commissioners recommends to the legislature of the State of Illinois and the Congress of the United States the passage of legislation explicitly proscribing the crime of torture as defined by Article 1 of the United Na- tions Convention Against Torture and Other Gruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment and provide that there be no statute of limitations for this crime.’” During the City Council proceedings, numerous Council members, including Daley stalwarts Ed Burke, the longtime power- ful Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Ike Carrothers, the chairman of the Police and Fire Committee, made strong state- ments condemning the pattern and practice of torture under Burge as “embarrass(ing],””" “heinous crimes,”’” “scurrilous,”" “atrocities,””* the “worst [disgrace]” in the history of the Chicago Police Department,”™ and akin to the torture at Abu Ghraib. " Another Daley Alderman, Tom Allen, who had previously served as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender, summed up the pro- fessed sentiment of the Council This was a serial torture operation that ran out of Area 2 The pattern was there. Everybody knew what was going on Now, everybody in this room, everybody in this building, ever body in the police department, everybody in the Si i Cxv Bo. or Covni’is Res. 07 290 (July 10, 2007). The Board had requested that Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle appear at the hearing, and when they refused to do so, it passed an additional Resolution that called for the C discontinue any future payments 1o the Special Prosecutors’ Office. Cook or Coun’is Res. 07R312 (Sept. 6, 2007). 71 Transcript of Proceedings from Chicago City Council Fire nent of Alderman Edvard Burke (July 19, 2007). 17 Transcript of Proceedings from Chicago City Council Committee on Police Fire, Discussion of Special State Attorney’s Findings at 4549 (July 21, 2007) (statc- of Alderman Joc Moore) 7 14 at 3534 (statement of Alderman Tom Allen). 74 4 au 3435 (statement of Alderman Isaac Carothers) 7 14 at 1541 (statement of Alderman Ed Smith). 76 14 at 104 (statement of Alderman Sandi Jackson) 1Y B, Committee on Police](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 36.png)
![The jury retired to deliberate in late June 2010, 37 years after Burge tortured Anthony Holmes. While the jury was out, Burge, still unrepentant, allegedly asked a courtroom observer whether he thought the jury would “believe that bunch of niggers?™™* The next day the jury brought back its verdict of guilty on all three counts. In January 2011, trial judge Joan Lefkow conducted a two-day sentencing hearing, at which Anthony Holmes spoke movingly about the meaning of the conviction and sentence to the survivors of torture, and African-American history professor Adam Green ar- ticulated their importance to Chicago’s African-American commu- nity."™* The judge then sentenced Burge to four-and-a-half years in the federal penitentiary, finding that she, like the jury, did not be- lieve Burge when he denied torturing suspects; that certain victims of his torture were “terrified” and had to leave the City; that there was a “mountain of evidence” that supported the testimony of the torture survivor witnesses; that she inferred that coerced confes- sions under Burge were “widespread,” and thereby “defiled” and “irreparably” “undermined” the justice system; and that Burge committed perjury to avoid “exposing [his] long history of miscon- duct, undermining [his] long history of denial that these events occurred.”” The judge further found that “too many times I have seen officers sit in the witness box . . . and give implausible [testi- mony] to defend themselves or a fellow officer against accusations of wrongdoing:” she decried the “dismal failure of leadership in the [Chicago Police] Department” and the long time failure to act by “others, such as the United States Attorney and the State’s Attor- ney.” In March 2011, Burge reported to Butner Federal Peniten- tiary in North Carolina to begin serving his sentence.’™ Former Police Chief Wanis (o Take the Fifth, WBEZ Cit. Pun. Ranio, (June 15, 2010) hitps/ /snww.wbez.ong /jeonroy,/2010/06/burge-triabformer-police-hicEwants to-take. thefith/26215. 155 G. Flint Taylor, Racism, Torture and Inpunity in Chicago, Nxrios;, March 1118, 2013, 56 Transeript of Testimony of Professor Adam Green at 131-32, United States v Burge, No. 08 CR 846, 2011 WL 13471 (N.D. IIL July 1. 2011), available af hutp:// peopléstavoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1.20 11 Tesimony-of-Adan Greenin-USv.Burge.pdf: ww also G. Flint Taglor, Judge Sentences Chicago Police Com: mander Jon Burgein Torturs Case, 10 Povice: Misconpict & Civit. Ricaits Luw RepoxTex Apr. 2011 tencing Transcript at 4-5, 10, United WL 13471 (N.D. L Jan. 21, 2011). 158 14, 199 As Bunge Heads to Prison, Torture Quistions Linger, Co. Taan., M At of Justice informed some of Burge tes v. Burge, No. 08 CR 816, 2011 b 15, 2011, In victims that he](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 38.png)
![Judge Biebel to replace the Attorney General’s Office in Burge re- lated post-conviction cases, ™ appealed the case to the Tllinois Su- preme Court on the grounds that admission of Wrice’s confession at wial, even if it were the product of torture, was harmless error. The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, rejected this argu- ment in no uncertain terms, finding that the police misconduct_alleged in this case—beatings perpe- trated by two police officers [Byrne and Dignan] who figured prominently in the systematic abuse and torture of prisoners at Area 2 police headquarters . . . constitutes an egregious violation of an underlying principle of our criminal justice systeml[.]’** The court therefore held that the harmless-error rule did not apply to “coerced confessions . . . such as the one now before us, involving alleged police brutality and torture.”*® On remand, the trial judge recused herself, because of her connection to unnamed witnesses in the case, witnesses who were thought to be the trial prosecutor and former State’s Attorney Daley. The case was then sent to Judge Richard Walsh, who was randomly selected from a list of judges who had no connection to the State’s Attorney’s Office during Daley’s tenure there. In De- cember 2013, Judge Walsh vacated Wrices conviction and ordered a new trial after an evidentiary hearing at which both Dignan and Byrne asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrim- ination and refused to answer any questions concerning their tor- ture and abuse of Wrice."”” Concluding that Wrice’s statement was coerced and that his rights under Brady v. Manyland’** were vio- lated, Judge Walsh found that there was “no doubt” that detectives were torturing suspects at Area 2, that it was unrebutted that Dignan and Byme tortured Wrice, and that Byrne and Dignan committed perjury at Wrice’s trial when they denied that they tor- tured him and witness Bobby Joe Williams.’* On December 12, 2013, the Special Prosecutor finally gave up his vindictive crusade and dismissed the charges against Wrice. 199 In his order, he rejected the argament that the State’s Attorney’s conflic was cured by Richard Devine’s retirement and his replacement by Anita Avarcz. So Mem- orandum Opinion and Order, People v. Smith, 83 C 769 (Ci. Ci. Cook County Apr. 8. 2009). 195 Peaple v. Wrice, 962 N. 196 14, a0 953, 197 Transeript of Court’s Order at 2.3, People v. Wrice, No. 82 G 8655 (03) (Gir. G Gook County Dec. 10, 2013) 19% 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 199 Teanscript of Court’s Order, supra note 197, at 2-5. 24934, 9 . 2012)](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 40.png)
![ment? I do not, I cannot see how this is different. T try—I cannot see how this is different 27 Judge Rovner then rebutted the City lawyer’s assertion that the police defendants simply denied that they tortured Cannon, stating that “they didn’t just deny, they lied, they cheated, they committed fraud, they committed cover-ups . . . "% Calling the City’s “no fraud” argument “unavailing” .. . which she made “to be kind,” Judge Rovner summarized the facts in the record: Here are the facts on summary judgment. These officers take a man with a prior murder conviction. Then they lic, then they torture him into making a statement that leads to a second mur- der conviction, then they lie about it, then they destroy evi- dence, then they engage in this incredibly lengthy cover-up with other city officials. You’ve got to help me. [On] [w]hat planet does he have a meaningful redress in the courts under those circumstances? I mean, of course he was forced to settle unfavor- ably because the officers and perhaps the Gity have made it vir- tally impossible for him to prove his case. You would have us enforce a settlement procured by defendants who so rigged the deck that no Plaintiff could have proven a legitimate claim and that to me seems to be the bottom line here " Judge Rovner then dismantled the City’s argument that Can- non’s lawyer was required to ask the defendants during his initial case if they had tortured other suspects: Judge Rovner: That astonishes me, that argument because, in other words, he is supposed to have asked in discovery, “By the way, have these officers tortured anyone else? Is the Gty helping these officers coverup other criminal acts?* Was he obliged to ask them if they were committing additional criminal acts? How do you suppose they would have answered? City’s Lawyer: Your honor, I don’t know how they would have answered. Judge Rovner: “Yes, yes we are criminals?” Of course you know.210 Judge Sarah Barker, sitting by designation from the Southern District of Indiana, then suggested that “where it’s completely fu- tile, because of corruption basically, you’ve deprived him of access to the courts, haven’t you?"*!! Judge Rovner then returned to the 07 14t 17351508, 208 1 21114 213621148,](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 43.png)
![While the district court judge in Kitchen dismissed Daley,** Re- becca Pallmeyer, who was the district court judge in Tillman, de- nied Daley’s motion to dismiss.** In her lengthy opinion, Judge Pallmeyer summarized Tillman’s allegations of torture and abuse: [Burge detectives] Boffo and Dignan questioned Plainiff while he was handeuffed to a wall, and Boffo struck Plaintiff on the head. At another point, [detective] Hines struck Plainff in the head and the stomach, causing him to vomit, and drove Plaintiff t0 a secluded location, forced Plaintiff to his knees, held a gun to his head, and threatened to kill him “like you killed that wo- man.” . . . Hines struck Plaintff on his back and head with a telephone book, causing his nose to bleed on his clothing and in the interrogation room, then forced Plaintiff to clean up the blood with paper towels. Defendant Boffo kicked Plainiff in the leg, and [detectives] Boffo, Dignan, Hines, and Yucaitis used their thumbs to push against Plaintffs ears, pushed his head back, and poured 7-Up into his nose. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Yucaitis and Dignan repeatedly subjected him to nearsuffocation by placing a plastic bag over his head, and that Defendant Dignan hit Plaintiff on the leg with his flashlight and waved the flame from a cigarette lighter under his arm. During the course of this interrogation, Plaintiff was not allowed to speak with a family member or an attorney. Plaintif ultimately agreed 1o cooperate, and Defendant Yucaitis later testified that Plaintiff made oral admissions concerning his involvement in the crime.2* With regard to Daley, Tillman alleged a course of conduct that began in the early stages of Daley’s eight year term as State’s Attor- ney of Cook County and continued throughout his twenty-year reign as Mayor. In summary, Tillman alleged that Former Mayor and State’s Attoney Richard M. Daley and for- mer Chicago Police Superintendent LeRoy Martin refused and failed to investigate a pattern of torture carried out at Area 2 prior o Plaintiff’s arrest, proximately causing Plaintiffs torture and wrongful conviction. Plaintff claims that Daley, Martin, for- mer Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard, former aide to the Chicago Police Superintendent, Thomas Needham, and case 10 add a RICO claim that trial judge. Soe Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C. 2007). 232 Kitchen v. Burge, 781 F. Supp. 24 721,735 (X.D. I 2011). 253 Tillman v Burge, 813 F. Supp. 2d 946, 968 (N.D. 11 2011) 234 1. 956 sor KosWorks, Michasl Tillman: The Torture and Wrongful an_Inocont Man, YouTume (Nov. 7, 2011), hup:/ /wwyou #u-SLEKGTscaRA. cluded Daley, but the amendment was rejected by the 192, 2007 WL 2278265 (N.D. Il Aug. 8, wiction of com/watch](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 48.png)
![former Office of Professional Standards Director Gayle Shines all conspired to suppress evidence of police torture that Plaintiff claims would have been exculpatory.*** The Court later further detailed the allegations against Daley Plaintiff’s Complaint includes allegations regarding the torture of other individuals in Arca 2, including the high-profle case of Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants in this case, along vith others, engaged in this practice, failed t0 intervene to end it, and suppressed information regarding this nsive pattern of abuse. Plaintiff alleges that as Mayor and State’s Attomey, Defendant Richard Daley had personal knowl- edge of the alleged abuses perpetrated by Burge and other De- fendants at Area 2, Plaintiff aserts that, had Daley and Martin investigated the allegations of abuse at Area 2 prior to his arrest, he would not have been tortured and would not have been wrongfully convicted. Plaintif further alleges that as a result of a conspiracy between Daley, Martin, Hillard, Necdham, Shines and others o suppress information about torture at Area 2, “Plaintif’s wrongful prosecution was continued, his exoneration was delayed and his imprisonment lasted far longer than it oth- erwise would have.” According to Plaintff, between 1989 and 1992, Daley and Martin were given “additional actual notice that Burge was the leader of a group of Chicago detectives that sys- tematically tortured and abused African’ American suspects through an Amnesty International report and public hearings. Plaintiff alleges that in 1996, despite his knowledge that findings of torture and abuse had been made against Defendant Dignan, Daley promoted Dignan to lieutenant. Plaintiff also alleges that Daley, against the advice of his senior adsisers, “personally in- sisted” throughout his tenure that the City of Chicago “continue to finance the defense of Burge, Byme, Dignan, and other Area 2 detectives, despite his personal knowledge that Burge commit- ted acts of torture. 2% While the judge dismissed Daley from Tillman’s § 1983 sup- pression of evidence claim, finding that his actions while State’ Attorney were covered by prosecutorial immunity and his actions as mayor did not constitute suppression of evidence—and also e cused him from Tillman’s § 1983 coercive interrogation claim— she held that Tillman had sufficienty pleaded § 1983, § 1985, § 1986, and state-law conspiracies against all of the defendants, in- cluding Daley: [Tillman’s] allegations uggest that Plaintiff’s torture was more 295 Tilnan, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 95354, 250 1 938,](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 49.png)
![than just an isolated incident, and suggest, further, that the sup- pression of the truth about what occurred at Area 2 was the re- sult of coordinated efforts that continued for some time. . . As discussed above, the Defendant Officers are alleged to have par- ticipated directly in the torture, as did Burge; [Assistant State’s Attorney] Frenzer allegedly did so as well, by attempting to take a statement when he knew the torture was ongoing: Martin and Daley are said to have undermined and obstructed findings of torture; Shines allegedly suppressed findings of torture; and Plaintiff claims that Needham and Hillard continued to sup- press findings and undermine investigations into torture at Area 2 after they took office. Plainiff has listed a litany of actions at Area 2 furthering and concealing the abuse that took place there . . . and has also provided specific allegations regarding acts of torture performed on this Plainff and on others. These allegations are sufficient to allege a § 1983 conspiracy 7 Upholding the § 1985 and § 1986 conspiracies, the court de- termined that “[Tillman] has alleged that all or nearly all of the victims of the alleged conspiracy were members of the same class, and that racial epithets were commonly used during the course of this torture. Those allegations lend sufficient credence to Plain- Gil’s claims at the pleading stage.” Finally, the court also upheld Tillman’s state-law conspiracy claim, restating the alleged conspir- acy, and Daley’s role in it, in broad and powerful terms: Though he does not again outline the specifics of these actions in Count X, the allegations are the same—that Defendant Of- ficers, Burge, and Frenzer participated in the torture itself and that Daley, Hillard, Martin, Needham, and Shines covered up and suppressed evidence of that pattern and practice of torture of which Plaintiff was a victim *** XXIIL LeGistarive INmiaTives In 2009, the Ilinois Legislature created the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC)*” in response to demands from community groups and lawyers for the torture victims, and it continues to review more than 100 complaints filed by Hlinois pris- oners who allege torture and abuse. Under its mandate, it has re- manded sixteen cases to the Cook County courts for evidentiary 571 976, 258 1 97778, 250 1 75, 210 Ser Mlinois To Anx. 40/45 (West 2000). Inquiry and Relief Commission Act, 775 111 Coxr, Stat](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 50.png)
![direct charges of police brutality against Burge. Eventually, the Gty of Chicago began to face a series of civil lawsuits from vie- tims seeking damages for the abuse they endured 2% Judge Williams summarized the “horrific™ evidence that the govérnment introduced against Burge at trial: At wial, the government called multiple witnesses 1o testify about the methods of torture and abuse used by Burge and others at Area 2 in order to establish that Burge lied when he answered the interrogatories in the Hobley case .. [T]he wit- nesses at trial detailed a record of decades of abuse that is un- questionably horific. The witnesses described how they were suffocated with plastic bags, clectrocuted with homemade de- vices attached to their genitals, beaten, and had guns forced into their mouths during questioning. Burge denied all allega- tions of abuse, but other witnesses stated that he bragged in the 19805 about how suspects were beaten in order to extract confes- sions. Another witness testified that Burge told her that he did not care if those tortured were innocent or guilty, because as he saw i, every suspect had surely committed some other offense anyway?” The court then went on to dismiss Burge’s assertions of trial and sentencing errors, which it summarized as follows: Burge raises several challenges 1o his convictions on appeal, which we do not find persuasive because the evidence shows that he lied when he answered the interrogatories, his false statements impeded an official proceeding, and they were mate- rial (o the outcome of the civil case. Overall, we conclude that no errors were committed by the court and Burge received a fair trial. Finally, Burge objects (o the district court’s reference to a victim impact letter at his sentencing, but it is well established that hearsay is admissible at sentencing hearings, so we affirm 20 XXV. SETTLEMENTS 1N THE Civie, CASES Since 2007, the amount of taxpayer money paid to private law- yers to defend Burge and his alleged co-conspirators, including Daley, in torture-related cases has more than doubled to over $21 million." In the Tillman and Kitchen cases, as the deposition of 208 1 807, 249 1 808, 250 1 506, 231 These numbers have been compiled by the People’s Law Office from figures. obtained from the City through Frecdom of Information Act requests and from othe public information. See PLOPLE’S Lw OFFcE, SUMMARY 0F DOCUMENTED CITY AND.](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 53.png)
![Daley approached, settlements with the Ciy totaling $11.5 million were reached, and, as of September 2014, the City had paid out $64.1 million in settlements in the torture cases.*** When the amounts expended by the City to pay Burge’s pension, by the county to pay Special Prosecutors and settlements against county prosecutors, and by the State to fund the Hllinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission and to compensate wrongfully convicted torture victims under the Illinois Court of Claims Act*™* are in- cluded, the total exceeds $100 million.>* Factoring in the more than $22 million paid to Burge’s confederates in pension money over the years*** and the money expended by the federal govern- ment to investigate and prosecute Burge, the ever-mounting total is estimated at $125 million. CoxcLusion Over the decades since the Chicago police torture scandal first became known, much has been accomplished. Men have been freed from prison and death row, and many of them have been compensated for their torture and wrongful convictions; Burge, once a highly decorated police commander, has been fired and, much later, convicted and sent to prison to serve four-and-half years with fellow prisoner Bernie Madoff; a Torture Commission has been created, is reviewing many additional torture complaints, and has recommended hearings in a number of them; a special master has been appointed to search for additional imprisoned tor- ture victims; Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle reluctanty ac- knowledged that crimes were committed by Burge and his men; the role of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has been rec- ognized by a federal judge; and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has offered a begrudging public apology for Burge’s crimes. 2 As sig- nificant as these victories, hard won by lawyers and activists, is the fact that the legal, political, and public perception of the allega- County Exvexprrsis i Burk Torruse Scawost (st updated [hereinafier Bukce Exvexoruns] (on file with author). 52 1 253705 L. Gow. STAT. Axw. 503/1-29 (West 2014), 254 Bugce. EXPENDITURES, supra note 251 255 S PrOvLE’s Law ORFICE, PENSIONS PAID 10 AREA 2 AND § OFFICERS ACCUSED OF Tokruke Usoek Jox Bukce. (through Serr. 2014) [hereinafier Torrume Pexsions] (on file with autior). 236 Ser Fran Spiclman & Tina Stondeles, Rabm Somy” For Burge Crimes, Cia. SUx- Tists, Sept. 12, 2013; Flint Taylor, Ralm Emanuel Apologies for Police Torture. Now What?, Nariox (Sept. 18, 2013), hup:/ /www.thenation.com/article/ 176247/ ra emanueLapologizespolice-torture-nowwhat Sept. 30, 2014](the-chicago-police-torture-scandal-flint-taylor-peoples-law-office 54.png)
4
”~\
f The Chicago Police
?. Torture Scandal
;; A Legal and Political History
| Flint Taylor, People’s Law Office
-~
’,
}
THE CHICAGO POLICE TORTURE SCANDAL:
A LEGAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY
G. Flint Taylort
Coxrents,
INTRODUCTION . -~
LTt Witson CRisinaL Case ..
IL Tre ANpREW Witson Civic. Case
L Tute Axoxvous Lerrens rros “Desr Bace™
IV. OFFIGE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORTS ...
V. Tre Firin or Jox Bure
VI Wilson Civil Suit on Remand ...
VIL Area 2 TORTURE BY BURGE'S MipNic
VIIL Ti BANks AND BATES Cast
IX. Tie CANNON CRIMINAL CASE
X. Tae Deatt Row CAses ...
XI. AreA 3 DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS
XIL GUBERNATORIAL PARDONS
XIIL AprorNment oF TiE Cook COUNTY
PECIAL
XIV. Crvir. Surrs v 1iik PARDO
XV. THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN
XVL THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS” REPORT
XVIL RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS' REPORT
XVIIL ThE PROSECUTION OF JON BURGE
XIX. MoRE EXONERATIONS AND Law
XX. THE STantey WRicE Case
XXL Tae Caxnox Civie Surr .
XXIL Tiimas ano Kircues Civir
DErFENDAN
XXIIL Lecis .
XXIV. BURGE CONVICTION AFFIRMED ...
XXV. SETTLEMENTS E Civi Cases
CONCLUSION ...
+ Founding partner, People’s Law Office (PLO). Taylor has represented survivors
of police torture in Chicago for more than twentyfive years. These surivors include
Andrew Wilson, Dasrell Cannon, Gregory Banks, David Bates, Mascus Wiggins, Leroy
Orange, Michacl Tillman, Ronald Kitchen, Victor Safforld (Cortez Brown). Aaron
Patterson, Anthony Holmes, Alonzo Smith, Oscar Walden, and Shawn Whirl, Other
PLO attorneys who have worked on the torture cases over the years include Jeffrey
Haas, John Stainthorp, Joey Mogul. Tim Lohwall, Ben Elson, Sarah Gelsomino,
Deutsch, Jan Susler, Erica Thompson, and Shubra Ohri. Ms. Mogul i 4
¢ of CUNY School of Law:
320
INTRODUCTION
In 1969, a military police sergeant named Jon Burge returned
from his tour of duty at a prisoner of war camp in South Vietnam
and soon thereafter became a Chicago police officer. Assigned to a
Southside District, he soon began working with several other Viet-
nam veterans who would later form the backbone of a crew of al-
most exclusively white Chicago police detectives who would torture
at least 118 African American criminal suspects.'
In the spring of 1972, Burge was promoted to detective, and
assigned to the midnight shift at Area 2 police headquarters.
Months later, in a highly sensational case where a young white boy
was brutally beaten by several Black burglars, Burge and several of
his fellow detectives beat several suspects, taking one seventeen-
year-old to a deserted area to beat him.* The coordinated brutality
yielded confessions, the four suspects pled guilty, and their claims
of abuse were never fully litigated.
The next May, Burge and his midnight crew escalated their
brutality, employing torture tactics that Burge had most likely
learned from his fellow soldiers in Viemam.* After executing an
earlymorning raid, Burge and fellow detective John Yucaitis trans-
ported arrestee Anthony Holmes back to Area 2, administered re-
peated electrical shocks from a device housed in a box, and nearly
suffocated Holmes by placing a bag over his head.* Holmes was
overcome with pain so intense that he thought he was dying; he
passed out, and he subsequently gave a detailed stationhouse con-
fession to an assistant Cook County Felony Review prosecutor i
plicating himself in a murder that he later insisted he did not
commit.”
Holmes told his aunt about his torture when she visited him at
Area 2 later that morning, and subsequently told the assistant pub-
lic defenders who were assigned to represent him on the murder
case.” The lawyers, no doubt skeptical about such a draconian
1118 Known Burge Avea 2 and 3 Torture Victims 1972.1991 (Chiart), Prons’s L
Ovwics, available at_hutp://peoplestawoffice.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/01/
16.14.Documented TortureSurvivorsunderBusge.pdt
worn Statement of Rodney Mastin at 13, Patterson v. Burge, No. 03C433
(ND. L. July 24, 2004)
3 Ser John Conroy, Tools of Tortur, Cin. Rexvew (Feb. 3, 2005), hup://
i chicagoreader.com/ chicago,/tools-of orture/ Content?0id-91 7876
4 Peaple’s Law Office, Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and his Victims, YouTuue.
(Jly 2007), hitps/ /v youtube.com, wach?y-Tjo2ZAUQuis.
> 1.
© Unsworn Statement of Anthony Holmes at 9, Patterson v. Burge, No. 03C4H33
(ND. T Apr. 19, 2004)
story, chose not to pursue a motion to suppress the confession but
instead wied the case before a veteran Cook County judge who,
like so many of his judicial colleagues, was formerly a Cook County
prosecutor.” The judge rejected Holmes's defense—that there was
1o corroboration for the confession—and convicted him of mur-
der. Thirty years later, Holmes was released on parole.*
Burge and the Area 2 midnight crew of white robbery detec-
tives continued to torture selected African American suspects
throughout the 1970s, and their elevated success rate in clearing
serious felony cases and obtaining confessions earned Burge a pro-
motion to sergeant in 1977 and to lieutenant in 1980.° Burge"
electric shock device, which he referred to as the “nigger'” box,”
was sometimes on display on a table in the Robbery office, and
continued to be a signature of their interrogations in high profile
cases." On one occasion, a Black Area 2 detective named Bill
Parker walked in on a Burge torture scene, but when he reported it
10 a supervisor, he was reprimanded and transferred out of Area
g
L Tue Wison CRiviNaL Case
In the early 1980s, the Chicago Police Department reorga-
nized its detective division, and Burge was put in charge of Area
newly created Violent Crimes Unit. At about the same time, Rich-
7 One of Holmes's attorneys, Lavrence Suffiedin, who later went on o become a
well-known Cook County commissioner, tesificd as a government witness about these
ents a1 Burge’s criminal prosccution in 2010. See Transcript of Proceedings on May
2010 — Trial Vol. 24, United States . Burge, No. 08 CR 846 (N.D. L) (dircct
examination of Lawrence Suffredin)
& The Mlinois Appellate Court, followings previous Hlinois precedent, reversed
Holmes's conviction, holding that corroboration was requircd, but the linois
preme Court reversed and reinstated Holmes' conviction. People v. Holmes, 317
NE2d 407 (Il App. CL. 1976), sev'd. 67 Il 2d 236 (1IL 1977).
Testimony of Jon Burge, United States v. Burge, No. 08 CR 846 (N.D. TIL Junc
17, 2010)
40" {Editor-in-chisfs note: To accurately reflect the racist roots upon which, among
other things, the horrors of the Chicago police torture scandal were founded, this
Article contains some verbatim quotes with derogatory references o Black people
Out of respect for, and in solidasity with, the numerous victims of police torture de.
tailed here—both recognized and wnrecognized—CUNY Law Revia belieses that it s
of utmost importance to not obscure this reality and thus has chosen to leave the
quotes as is.]
11 Affidavit of Melvin Duncan, Patterson v. Burge, 326 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. L
2004) (No. 03 G 4433): Swom Statement of Tony Thompson at 20-26, Patterson v
Burge, 528 F. Supp. 2 878 (ND. IIL 2004) (No. 05 C 4433).
1 Syvorn statement of Willium Parker at 7-12, 16-17, Patterson v. Burge, 325 F.
upp. 2 878 (N.D. IIL 2004) (No. 03 C 4433)
ard M. Daley, the son of Chicago’s legendary mayor, was elected
the State’s Attorney of Cook County. In February of 1982, after two
white Chicago gang unit officers were shot and killed on the South
ide, Police Superintendent Richard Brzeczek and Mayor Jane
Byrne launched the largest manhunt in the history of the City, and
Burge was placed in charge of the operation.
Police kicked down doors and terrorized scores of African
Americans in what Jesse Jackson of Operation PUSH and Renault
Robinson of the Afro American Police League condemned as
“martial law” that “smack[ed] of Nazi Germany."* Suspected wit-
nesses were smothered with bags and threatened with bolt cutters
and Burge and his detectives took several young men—whom they
wrongly suspected to be the killers—to police headquarters, where
they tortured them.'*
After five days of wanton brutality, two brothers, Andrew and
Jackie Wilson, were arrested for the crime. Andrew, who was identi-
fied as the shooter, was arrested by Burge and his Area 2 associates,
and brought back to the Area, where he was initially bagged,
beaten, and bumed with a cigarette lighter.”” Burge and Yucaitis
then took over the torture, handcuffing Wilson across a ribbed
steam radiator and repeatedly shocking him on the nose, ears, lips,
and genitals with Burge’s shock box. The shocks, which were trans-
mitted from a hand crank generator through wires and alligator
clips, jolted Wilson against the radiator and seriously burned his
face, chest, and leg."® The torture was repeated throughout the
day, and when Wilson at first refused to give a formal confession
and instead told the Felony Review prosecutor that he was being
tortured, the prosecutor sent Wilson back to Burge for more
abuse.'”
Wilson and his brother Jackie, who was also tortured, both ulti-
mately confessed, but Andrew's injuries were so pronounced that
the police lockup keeper refused to accept him into lockup. Med
cal personnel documented his injuries and the public defender
who was appointed to represent him took graphic pictures.' The
13 See Cops Accused of Bratality, Cra. o, Feb. 18, 1982, at 3; Chinta
Police, Bar Group Ask Manunt” Probe, Cott Disioe, Feb. 18, 1952 at 3.
11 Deposition of Donald G. White at 2653, Wilson v. City of Chicago. 900 F. Supp.
1015 (N.D. 1L 1995) (No. 86 G 2360): Affidavit of Anthony Williams, Logan v. Burge
No. 09 C 5471 (N.D. Il Mar. 7, 2011)
5 John Conroy, House of Scrcoms,
readér.com/chicago,/house-ofscre
Iyn
I
iy
wherg,
. 1990), huip:/ /v chicago
s/ Contentioid-§75107.
director of medical services at the Gook County Jail, Dr. John Raba,
examined Wilson, heard him describe his torture, and wrote a let-
ter to Police Superintendent Bizeczek describing Wilson's injuries
and demanding a full investigation.™ Brzeczek—who would later
admit that he upbraided several of his high level deputies for being
present at Area 2 and permitting Wilson to be tortured—delivered
Dr. Raba’s letter directly to State’s Attorney Daley, accompanied
with a cover letter confiding that he would not investigate Wilson's
alleged torture unless Daley directed him to do s0.2° After consult-
ing with his first assistant, Richard Devine, and another top level
assistant, William Kunkle, Daley decided not to investigate; instead,
he and Brzeczek both publicly commended Burge,
proceeded to prosecute Andrew Wilson and his brother Jackie.
The Wilson brothers moved to suppress their confessions, and an
extensive hearing was held at which Burge and his men all denied
that they abused the Wilsons. The trial judge denied the motions,
both Wilsons were convicted, and Andrew was sentenced to death,
while Jackie received a life sentence. Andrew's case was directly ap-
pealed as of right to the llinois Supreme Court, which reversed his
conviction* The court recounted Wilson's testimony of how he
was repeatedly electricshocked and burned, and detailed “some 15
separate injuries that were apparent on the defendant’s head,
chest, and right leg”
Two cuts on the defendant’s forehead and one on the back of
his head required stitches; the defendant’s right eye had been
blackened, and there was bleeding on the surface of that eye.
Dr. Korn also observed bruises on the defendant’s chest and sev-
eral linear abrasions or burns on the defendant’s chest, shoul-
der, and chin area. Finally, Dr. Ko saw on the defendant’s
right thigh an abrasion from a second-degree burn; it was six
inches long and 11/2 to 2 inches wide **
The Court then held:
[T]he defendant’s injuries in this case cannot be disputed, and
only several facial injuries were explained by the State. Because
19 Letter from Dr. John Raba, Med. Dir., Cook Caty. Jail, to Richard Brzcczck,
wendent, Chi. Police Dep’t (Feb. 17, 1982) (on 6lé with author)
Richard Brzeczek, Superintendent, Chi. Police Dep't, to Richard
omey of Cook Gty (Feb. 25, 1982) {on file with author);
of Richard Braeczek 1o the Special Prosecutor (Mar. 9, 2005) (on fle with author)
21 Personnel Order No. 82369, Chicago Department of Police Unit Meritorious
Performance Award (Sept. 1, 1952) (on file with author); Daley Hails 11 in Crime War,
G Tian., May 20, 1985,
22 Peaple v. Wilson, 506 N.E2d 571 (Il 1957).
= It 573,
the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that
the confession was not the product of coercion . . . the defen-
dant’s statement should have been suppressed as having been
involuntarily given. The use of a defendant’s coerced confession
as substantive evidence of his guilt is never harmless error, and
the cause must therefore be remanded for a new trial.2*
After remand, Wilson was re-tried without his confession and
was again convicted. When one juror refused to vote for the death
penalty, Wilson was sentenced to two natural life sentences >
IL The Axprew Witsox Civis Case
In 1986, while Andrew Wilson was sitting on death row, he
filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Hllinois, alleging that he was tortured
by Burge and several of his detectives. After a series of appointed
lawyers withdrew, lawyers from the People’s Law Office took on
Wilson's representation in 1987 and filed an amended complaint,
which added a Monell** policy-and-practice claim against the City of
Chicago and former Police Superintendent Brzeczek. Burge and
the then-current Superintendent of Police, Leroy Martin, con-
vinced the Chicago City Council's Finance Committee to retain
William Kunkle, who was formerly a high-level State’s Attorney
under Daley, to represent Burge and his fellow officers at the tax-
payers’ expense. Kunkle had personally prosecuted Wilson and
had subsequently gone into private practice at a law firm where
Richard Devine, Daley's former first assistant, was a partner.
The case survived the City and Bizeczek’s motion to dismiss,*”
and later, on summary judgment, District Court Judge Brian Bar-
nett Duff found there to be enough evidence in support of Wil-
son’s claims against those same defendants to require a trial on the
merits.®* The key Monell allegation upheld by the court was that
24 I at 576,
2 Jackie Wilson's case was originally reversed by the Hlinois Appellat
the bss that & constitutionally mandated woir dir question was not asked,
V. Wilson, 487 N.E2d 1015 (Il App. Ci, 1985). The Hlinois Supreme Court reversed
and remanded o the Appellate Gourt, People v. Wilson, 513 N.E2d 844 (Il 1956).
which then rev ickic Wilkon's conviction on the separate basis that his case
should hase bee d from Andren’s. People v. Wilson, 515 N.E.2 812 (Il App.
GL1987). Jackie Wilson was re-ried separately, was re<comicted of one of the two
iwders and sentenced 1o natral life
26 Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1975).
27 Wilkon v. Gity of Chicago, 681 F. Supp. 982 (N.D. IIL1989) (denying motion (o
dismiss).
¢ Wilkon v
iy of Chic
(0, 707 F. Supp. 379, 384 (N.D. Il 1959).
[there existed in February 1982 in the City of Chicago a de
facto policy, practice and/or custom of Ghicago Police Officers
exacting unconstitutional revenge and punishment against per-
sons who they alleged had injured or killed a fellow officer. Thi
revenge and punishment included beating, kicking, torturing,
shooting, and/or executing such a person, both for the purpose
of inflicting pain, injury and punishment on that person, and
also for the purpose of forcing that person to make an inculpa-
tory statement.*
Wilson's civil-rights case went to trial in February 1989.% While
torture at Area 2 had long been an “open secret” there,” both Wil-
son’s lawyers and the public at large were ignorant of the depth
and breadth of the decadeslong pattern and practice of torture
under Burge.
HL Tie ANovMOUS LETTERS FROM “DEEP BADG
During the trial, Wilson’s lawyers received several anonymous
letters from a police source who was close to Burge. The source
asserted that the torture was deeply racist and systemic. The
source, who was dubbed “Deep Badge" by the lawyers, named nu-
merous of Burge’s “asskickers,” implicated State’s Attorney Daley
and Mayor Jane Byrne in the scandal, and specifically identified
another torture victim, Melvin Jones, who, he asserted, was tor-
tured by Burge with electric shock only days before Wilson.**
The lawyers located Jones in the Cook County Jail, confirmed
his story, and obtained a transcript of his testimony at his 1982 mo-
tion to suppress hearing where he first detailed his torture.> None-
theless, Judge Duff would not permit Jones to testify at the trial,
holding that although the evidence was “explosive,” the “surprise
and prejudice of the testimony to the defendants was manifest.”
In contrast, Judge Duff permitted Burge’s Gityfinanced law-
ey
%0 Sor Mary Ann Willims, Torture in Chicago, Cut. Luwvbs, Mar. 1989, at 1, 13-15,
3 Nov. 9, 2001 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd at 11, Patterson v. Buge, 525 F.
Supp. 2 878 (ND. IIL 2004) (No. 03 C 4433).
5 Sor Leters from “Ty.” Anonymous, o Flint Taylor (Wilson's counsel) (post-
ke Feb. 2, 1950, Mar . 1980, M. 15, 198, s June 16, 1989) on fle it
thor). See alio Transcript of Testin hicago Policc
Board at 844, In e Charges Filed Against Burge, Nos. 1856-1858 (Jan. 22, 1992).
% The wial judge had granted the motion, but not on the grounds of physical
1 Wilkon v. Gity of Chicago, No. 56 C 2360, 1959 WL 65159, at *5. (N.D. Il Ju
5. 1989). The Jones breakthrough would open the door 1o the discovery and docu-
mentation, over the next two decades, of nearly 120 viedms of torture by Burge a
his men. Soe 118 Known Burge Area 2 and 3 Torture Vietins 1972.1991
yers to present weeks of highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence
about the police murders for which Wilson stood convicted. After
eight weeks of trial, the racially mixed jury hung, and a mistrial was
declared. The Jones evidence had led Wilson's lawyers to a number
of additional victims of Area 2 torture, and they presented them to
Judge Duff in an unsuccessful attempt to have this evidence
presented at the retrial under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), as
well as to further establish the City's pattern and practice. Frus-
trated by his refusal to permit the admission of the newly discov-
ered evidence, and his extreme bias in favor of Burge and his
fellow defendants, Wilson's lawyers moved to recuse Dulf, pursuant
10 28 US.C. §§ 144 and 455, but he unceremoniously denied the
motion after a rancorous hearing.**
At the retrial, which commenced in the summer of 1989,
Judge Duff permitted Burge's lawyers to again present weeks of evi-
‘dence about the police murders for which Wilson stood convicted
He repeatedly cited Wilson's lawyers for contempt when they at-
tempted to introduce the newly discovered evidence of torture and
protested the unremitting admission of the plethora of police mur-
der evidence.* Remarkably, the all-white jury, which was selected
after the Judge gave the defendants twice as many peremptory
challenges as the plaintiff, nonetheless returned a split verdict, ab-
solving Burge from violating Wilson's constitutional rights, but
finding that the police department had a policy of abusing persons
accused of killing police officers, and awarding zero damages.”
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Duff and or-
dered a new trial. It found that Duff had erroneously admitted a
“massive amount of highly inflammatory evidence” concerning the
police murders and that the theories upon which the judge admit-
ted the evidence were not “remotely plausible.” The court went
on to find that the barring of the Jones evidence was also error:
While the judge was far 00 generous in allowing the defendants
to present evidence, he was far too chary in allowing the plaintiff
to present evidence. He kept out on grounds of relevance the
plainly relevant testimony of Melyin Jones, who claimed to have
been subjected to electroshock by Burge and other officers nine
Law Oeice, availabl at btps/ / peoplestawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/
L6.14-Documented TortureSurvivorsunderBusge.pdt
% Wilson v, (0, 710 F. Supp. 1168 (N.D. Il 1959)
% 13 Joun Staisionr & G. FUNT TaLog, LinicatinG Pouice Tokruse ix Ci
1 Ricarrs Liic, & Arroxsiy Fexs ANUAL Haxosook (1997).
57 10,
Wilson v
iy of Chic
(0, 6 F3d 1233, 1237 (7th Cir. 1993).
days before the interrogation of Wilson. If Burge had wsed an
electroshock device on another suspect only a few days previ-
ously, this made it more likely (the operational meaning of “rel-
evant’) that he had used it on Wilson. Another excluded
defense witness, Donald White, would have testified that he was
arrested as a suspect in the murder of the two police officers
shortly before Wilson’s arrest and was taken to a police station
where he was beaten for several hours by Burge and other de-
fendant officers. Although evidence of prior bad acts is inadmis-
sible to prove a propensity o commit such acts, it is admissible
for other purposes, including intent, opportunity, preparation,
and plan. . . . Jones's evidence would have served all four of
these purposes. White’s all but the third (preparation); and,
since Burge had denied under crosvexamination that he had
ever had or used an electroshock instrument, Jones’s evidence
could also have been used to impeach that denial.”
The court then held that Judge DufT's errors were not harm-
less but rather required a new trial
The plaintiffs case was strong, as evidenced by the dec
the Supreme Court of Hllinois and the Police Board of Chicago.
The torrent of inflammatory evidence and argument that the
judge allowed the jury to consider may well have been decisive.
Evidence that the jury was in fact confused is found in its verdict,
which declared that Wilson’s rights had been violated but not by
any of the individual defendants or even by the city's policy (as
the jury found it to be) of authorizing the abuse of suspected
cop killers. By whom then3*
The court then turned to Wilson's policy-and-practice claim
Alfter reluctantly accepting the City's concession that Superinten-
dent Brzeczek was the final policymaker for the City, the Court
asked whether he had “formulated, announced, approved, en-
couraged, acquiesced in, or otherwise adopted a policy of physical
abuse of suspected cop killers.™! Answering its own question, the
court first found that
Brreczek had received many complaints from members of the
[Black community that officers in “Area 2 Violent Crimes,” the
police unit in which Wilson was tortured, were abusing suspects;
such abuse was in fact common in Area 2. Brzeczek had referred
the complaints to the office in the police department that is re-
sponsible for investigating complaints of police misconduct, but
the office had done nothing except lose a lot of the complaints.
14 a0 1235,
0 10
24 1240,
Brzeczek had written the state’s attorney that he would do noth-
ing further unless the state’s attorney assured him that doing
something would not interfere with the prosecution of Wilson:
the letter was not answered, so true o his word Brzeczek did
nothing further. Brzeczek had downplayed the gravity of the
problem in Area 2 in discussions with [B]lack police officers. He
had even signed a commendation for Burge, though it had been
prepared by others for his signature and he may not have no-
ticed Burge’s name.
While the court further found that “a rational jury could have
inferred from the frequency of the abuse, the number of officers
involved in the torture of Wilson, and the number of complaints
from the [B]lack community, that Brzeczek knew that officers in
Area 2 were prone to beat up suspected cop killers,” it nonetheless
absolved the City because his steps to eliminate the practice, no
matter how ineffectual, established that he was not deliberately
indifferent:
He referred the complaints to the unit within the police depart-
ment that is responsible for investigating police abuses. It was
the plaintiff's responsibility to show that in doing this Brzeczek
was not acting in good faith to extirpate the practice. That was
not shown. At worst, the evidence suggests that Brzeczek did not
respond quickly or effectively, as he should have done; that he
was careless, maybe even grosly so given the volume of com-
plaints. More was needed to show that he approved the practice.
ng o climinate a practice cannot be equated 1o approving
it. Otherwise every inept police chief in the country would be
deemed to approve, and therefore become answerable in dam-
ages to all the victims of the misconduct of the officers under
command. .. **
IV, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REPORTS
While the trial judge would not permit the other acts of tor-
ture by Burge to be introduced as evidence, it was instrumental in
compelling the CPD’s Office of Professional Standards to reopen
its disciplinary investigation in the Wilson case and also to open a
parallel investigation into the alleged pattern and practice of tor-
ture at Area 2. In the fall of 1990 the OPS, in a detailed report
authored by investigator Francine Sanders, recommended that
Burge, Yucaitis and a third detective, Patrick O'Hara, be fired for
g0
15 Wilson v Gity of Chicago, 6 F.34 1233, 1240 (7th Cir. 1993).
their torture of Andrew Wilson.*! The Superintendent concurred,
and they were suspended from the force pending a termination
hearing before the Chicago Police Board.*
The parallel OPS investigation into the systemic nature of
Area 2 torture was conducted by OPS investigator Michael Gold-
ston, and its damning findings were approved by the OPS Chief
Administrator. Goldston’s report found that suspects held in cus-
tody at Area 2 had been subjected to “systematic” and “methodical”
“abuse,” that the abuse included “planned torture,” and that Area
2 command personnel were “aware of the systematic abuse” and
encouraged it by “actively participating” or failing to take action to
stop it."”
CPD Superintendent Martin, who had previously been Burge’s
commander at Area 2, suppressed the report™ until lawyers from
the People’s Law Office obtained it under a protective order. In
February 1992, U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur ordered that the
report could be publicly released, and the report’s findings re-
ceived widespread local, national, and international coverage. In
response, Martin and Mayor Richard M. Daley, who had been
elected in 1989, publicly condemned the findings, calling them
“only allegations . . . rumors, stories, things like that.™*
V. Tue Firine oF Jox Burce
Burge, Yucaitis, and O’Hara were put on trial before the Chi-
cago Police Board for the torture of Andrew Wilson only days after
the Goldston Report was made public. In pleadings filed by the
Gity in the Police Board casc, its lawyers admitted for the first time
that there was “an astounding patiern or plan on the part of
[Burge and Yucaitis] to torture certain suspects . . . into confessing
11 Pt Sasxs, OFICE of PRoFL
Wilson Case 63-66 (Scpt. 26, 1990).
15 Ofpics oF PRort. StaxbakDs, Citt. PoLics DET, RECOMMENDATION FOR SEPARA
Tox 1-2 (Oct. 11, 1991)
16 Michabi. Golpston, i, Poucs D't Ovice o PRoFL Stasoass, History
0F ALLEGATIONS OF MiscoNbUCE B AREA Two Prssoxsi. (Nov. 2, 1990)
7 14 a0
% Sor Expert Opinion of Anthony Bouza, Orange v. Burge, No. 04 C 168, 2005 WL
742641 (ND. Il March 30, 2005); Declaration of G. Flint Taylor fled March 22,
2011, Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C 2192, 2011 WL 4361529 (N.D. IIL Sep. 19, 2011)
' David Jackson, 13 Years of Cop Torture Alleed, Daly, Martin, Rip Internal Polce
Reports, Cu. Toan. (Feby 8, 1992). hutp:/ /articles.chicagotribune.com,/1992.02.08
news/9201120603_1_jon burge-torture-chicago-police-board,
50 The hearing began on Feb. 10, 1992, and was completed on March 20, 1992, S
generally Transcript of Proceedings Before the Ghicago Police Board, Jn 1 Chasges
Filed Against Burge, Nos. 1856-1858 (Jan. 22, 1992)
AwbAbs, Cit, POLICE DEF'E, ANALysis OF
to crimes.” Wilson, Melvin Jones, and a third Burge torture vic-
tim, Shadeed Mu'min, all testified for the City during the six-week
hearing”* William Kunkle, who had made approximately $1 mil-
lion defending Burge, Yucaitis, and O'Hara in the civil case, was
retained by the Fraternal Order of Police to represent the charged
officers before the Police Board.
A year later, in February 1993, the Police Board released its
written decision, finding that Burge physically abused Wilson, and
that Burge, Yucaitis, and O'Hara all failed to stop the abuse and
provide medical care. The Board then ordered that Burge be fired
and Yucaitis and O'Hara suspended for 15 months* The lengthy
decision did not brand the officers’ conduct as torture nor specifi-
cally find that Wilson was electricshocked, burned, or bagged, but
it was nonetheless considered to be a significant victory by the anti-
torture movement.”
VL Wison Civie Surr ox Resasn
When the Wilson case came back to the District Court from the
Seventh Gircuit, it was reassigned to Judge Robert Gettleman, a
judge with a background in civilrights law who took a decidedly
different approach to the case than Judge Duff.* Wilson's lawyers
amended the complaint to rejoin the City, alleging that it was di-
rectly liable for defendants Burge, Yucaitis, and O'Hara’s actions
under chapter 743, section 9102 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes,
while the defendant officers filed a third-party complaint against
51 City's Memorandum in Opposition 1o Motion to Bar Testimony Concerning
Other Alleged Victims of Police Misconduct at 1, In 1 Charges Filed against Burge
Nos. 1856-55 (Jan. 22, 1992).
5 Transcript of Testimony by Andrew Wilson at 104, fn re Charges Filed against
Burge, Nos. 1856-1858 (1992); Transcript of Testimony of Melvin Jones at 844, In e
Charges Filed Against Burge, Nos. 18561858 (1992): Transcripi of Testimony of
‘Shadeed M min a1 1055, In re Charges Filed Against Burge, Nos. 1836-1858 (1992).
59 n e Charges Filed Against Jon Burge Nos. 91.1856-1838, at 33-39 (Chi. Police
Bd Feb. 11, 1993) (ruling). The decision was affirmed in 1994 by Cook County Judge
Thomas O'Brien, and in December 1995 by the linois Appellate Court. Ser Order at
8, Burge v. Chi. Police B, Nos. 1940999, 1942462, 1942475 (consolidated)
{1 App. Ci. Dec. 15, 1995)
54 One of Wilkon's lavyers was quoted as saying that ustice had finally been
done.” that “the person in charge of the systematic torture had been fired,” but that
the department should “clean house,” and “implement” the Goldston Report. Chasles
Nicodemus, Cop Loses Job Over Tortur, Cis. SU-Tives, Feb. 11, 1993, ac
5 Dulf subscquently resigned from active service, reportedly after the U, Depart.
of Justice filed 3 disciplinary complaint connected to his continuing crratic be-
havior in other cascs. So Maurice Possley & Matt O'Connor, Gontroversial U.S. Juge
Steps Down from US. Bench, G Tuan. (Oci. 11, 1996), hup:/ farticles chicagotribune
com /19961011 /news/9610110249_1_Tucircuit-complain
the City alleging their right to indemnification* The City, while
still paying for their of defense, moved to dismiss, claiming
for the first time that their officers’ actions in abusing Wilson were
outside the scope of their employment and thereby did not come
within the statute.”” After finding that the court had supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and that the parties had
standing to assert these claims, Judge Gettleman denied the mo-
tion to dismiss, holding that whether the officers’ actions were
within the scope of their employment was a question of fact:
[Wihether the City will be obligated to indemnify the Officers
(or will be directly liable to plaintiff) depends on the Officer
actions when arresting and interrogating plaintiff. If those ac-
tions go beyond the scope of their duty as police officers, or
could be classified as willful, then perhaps the City will not be
found liable. That factual question, however, is obviously inter-
twined with the factual question in the underlying federal
action”
Wilson also moved for partial summary judgment, arguing
that pursuant to principles of collateral estoppel, the administra-
tive findings of the Police Board, made after a six-week evidentiary
hearing, established the officers’ liability for “excessive use of
force” by Burge, failure to prevent abuse by all the officers, and
failure to provide prompt medical attention.”” The court first set
forth the legal standard established by the United States Supreme
Court in University of Tennessee v. Elliott™ In Elliot, the Supreme
Court stated:
When a State agency acting in a judicial capacity . . . resolves
disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have
had an adequate opportunity to litigate, federal courts must give
the agency's fact finding the same preclusive effect to which it
would be entitled in the State’s courts”
Judge Gettleman found that the Police Board's determination
met the Elliot standard:
The Officers assert, however, that the Board's decision is too
vague to determine exactly what factual issues were actually de-
cided, whether the issues decided were essential 1o its decision,
50 745 It Cowr. S1at. Axx. 10/9-102 (West 2002).
57 The City had previously admitted in its answer to the original complaint that
Burge and Vucaitis were acting with ployment.
5 Wilson v. ity of hicago, 1995 U 05, at *10-11 (N.D. Il Jan. 5,
1995).
5 Wilson v. Gity of Chicago, 900 F. Supp. 1015, 1024-25 (N.D. TIL1995)
@ 475 US. 785, 799 (1956)
o
and whether those issues are identical to the issues in the instant
case. They argue that because the Board's decision contains
such language as “and/or,” there is a question as to what spe-
cific conduct the Officers were found to have engaged in. The
court disagrees. The findings of the Board provide that Burge
did: (1) *strike and/or kick and/or othervise physically abuse
or maltreat [plaintff] . .. and/or cause or aggravate physical or
injuries to the person of [plaintiff]”; (2) “after having knowl-
edge or reasonable basis to believe that other police officers
were physically abusing or maltreating [plaintiff] ... improperly
failed o take any action (o stop such physical abuse or maltreat-
ment .. . The findings are equally specific as to Yucaitis and
O'Hara with respect to their knowledge of and failure 0 pre-
vent such abuse or provide for or secure medical care for plain-
Gif. The court concludes that such findings are sufficiently
specific for purposes of collateral estoppel.
Given the fact that the Police Board decision was then on ap-
peal to the Hllinois Appellate Court, Judge Gettleman entered a
stayed summary judgment against Burge and his Area 2 coefend-
ants pending final appellate resolution of the Police Board case.
Wilson then agreed to settle his claims against Burge and O'Hara
for a total of $1 million in damages and attorneys’ fees. The City
refused to pay the setdement, the judge entered judgment, and the
City appealed to the Seventh Circuit.”
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. It rejected the City's
argument that the District Court did not have jurisdiction, finding
that the principle of ancillary jurisdiction permitted Wilson's re-
joinder of the City after the Monell claim was lost”* The court de-
fined the controlling issue to be “whether Burge was acting within
the scope of his employment by the City when he tortured Wil-
son,"® and held that he was:
Burge . .. was not pursuing a frolic of his own. He was enforcing
the criminal law of llinois overzealously by extracting confes-
sions from criminal suspects by improper means. He was, as it
were, 100 loyal an employee. He was acting squarely within the
scope of his employment.”
02 Wilson, 900 . Supp. at 1026,
3 Wilson requested dismissal for the case against Yucaitis, who had died.
bty for the settlement was then divided equaly between Burge and O'Ha
appeal was taken on the portion of the seulement against Burge only. with the City
agrecing to pay O'Hara's portion. The total amount ultimately collecied by Wilson
and his lawyers, after appeal, amounted 1 $1.1 million.
04" See Wilson v. City of Chicago, 120 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 1997).
I an 681,
6 1d a1 655,
VIL Area 2 Torture By BURGE's MpNiGHT Crew
In 1982, after State’s Attorney Daley refused to investigate and
prosecute Burge and his confederates for the torture of Andrew
Wilson, Burge installed his boyhood friend, John Byrne, as the ser-
geant in charge of the midnight shift at Area 2 Violent Crimes.
This crew of white Burge loyalists soon became known internally as
Burge's Asskickers,” and proceeded to continue the practice of
torturing selected African American suspects who were arrested for
particularly violent crimes. Among the scores of documented cases
of torture and abuse by the midnight crew that followed Daley
inaction over the next six years were those of co-defendants Greg-
ory Banks and David Bates, Darrell Cannon, co-defendants Stanley
Wrice and Lee Holmes, co-defendants Michael Tillman and Steven
Bell, and Eric Caine. All these men were convicted on the basis of
confessions tortured from them, as were ten other men, including
Leroy Orange, Stanley Howard, Aaron Patterson, and Madison
Hobley, all of whom were sentenced to death.
VIIL Tie Baxks aND BATES Cases
Gregory Banks and David Bates were arrested in late October
1983 for the murder of a drug dealer and brought to Area 2 Vio-
lent Crimes for interrogation. The midnight crew, led by Byre
and his trusted associates, detectives Peter Dignan and Charles
Grunhard, took over the questioning, and obtained confessions to
the crime from both men. Banks later alleged that he confessed
after Byme put a revolver in his mouth and Dignan took out a
plastic bag, said that they had “something for niggers,” and pro-
ceeded to place the bag over his head ™ The tactic, known as *dry
submarino,” simulates suffocation, and Byrne and Dignan exacer-
bated the torture by kicking and punching Banks while he could
not breathe and thought he was about to die.” Bates indepen-
dently described a similar experience, including repeated bag-
gings, at the hands of Byrne and Grunhard. While Banks suffered
physical injuries, Bates did not.”
7 See Letter from Ty
file ith author)
0% People . Banks, 549 N.E2d 766, 768 (IIL App. Gt. 1959)
9 See geneally Masha Lisitsyna, The “Dry Submarino”™ Police Torture in Kazaklstan,
Orex Soc'y Foun. (Apr. 27, 2010). bitp:/ /wwnv.opensocietyfoundations org /voices/
diy-submarino-police-torture kazakhstan.
70 Banks, 549 NE2d at 768,
71 T4 at 769; Testimony of Gregory Banks, U
(N.D. T June 10, 2010,
Anonymous, 1o Flint Taylor (postmarked Mar. 6, 1989) (on
ited
States v. Burge, No. 08 CR 816
Banks and Bates moved to suppress their confessions and
sought to call Lee Holmes, who alleged that he was “bagged” by
Byrne and Dignan thirteen months before Banks and Bates were
tortured, but the Judge denied both this request and the motions
to suppress. Both men appealed, and in December 1989, the Tlli-
nois Appellate Court, in the wake of the Wilson civil trials, reversed
Banks' conviction. Citing Miranda v. Arizona™ and Brewer v. Wil-
liams™ the Court first admonished that
[Tlhe trial judge must keep in mind that ours is an adversary
criminal justice system, and there must not be any naiveté that it
is otherwise. The stark realities of our adversary criminal justice
system are such that what occurs within the confines of a police
station during custodial interrogation when there is no attorney
present is not always what the unsophisticated would expect.”
Following the decision in People v. Andrew Wilson, the court
found that the State had not established “by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant’s injuries were not inflicted as a means of
producing the confession.”™ Noting that “in our system of govern-
ment, the use of a defendant’s coerced confession as substantive
evidence of his guilt cannot be considered harmless error,”™ the
court remanded the case for a new trial while making a powerful
condemnation of police torture in support:
We bel another reminder of the grave re-
sponsibility that trial judges have and must be willing to exercise
when ruling on motions to suppress based on charges of police
brutality and racial intimidation. If our constitutional rights and
guarantees are to be in fact enjoyed equally by all our citizens,
trial judges must ensure that those suspected of erimes do not
relinquish their constitutional rights and guarantees solely be-
cause they become matched up against an uncaring or overzeal-
ous law enforcement officer who may be bent on obtaining a
confession without regard to the suspect’s constitutional rights
and guarantees. In this regard, trial judges must bear in mind
that while we no longer see cases involving the use of the rack
and thumbscrew to obtain confessions, we are seeing cases, like
the present case, involving punching, kicking and placing a
plastic bag over a suspect’s head 10 obtain confessions
When trial judges do not courageously and forthrightly exercise
eve that this case
384 US. 436, 41558 (1966).
130 US. 387, 399 (1977).
Banks, 549 N.E2d at 766, 770
People v. Wilson, 506 N.E.2d 571 (Il 1987)
People v~ Banks, 549 NE.2d 766, 770 (1l App. C. 1959).
1
their responsibility (o suppress confessions obtained by such
means, they pervert our criminal justice system as much as the
few misguided law enforcement officers who obtain confessions
in utter disregard of the rights guaranteed to every citizen—in-
cluding criminal suspects—by our constitution. Moreover, trial
judges must be most circumspect when it appears that a right
guaranteed to every citizen by our constitution may have been
violated by police brutality or racial discrimination, for those af-
fected are invariably the poorest, the weakest and the least edu-
cated, who are not sophisticated enough or do not have the
resources (o see and ensure that they are not denied the protec-
tions afforded by the rights and guarantees of our
constitution.™
On remand, the state dismissed the charges rather than retry
Banks, and he was released after serving seven years in prison. He
later filed a civil suit and received a $96,000 setlement.™ Bates also
appealed, claiming that his confession was a product of an illegal
arrest and physical coercion. The court distinguished Bates's case
from Banks's on the basis that Bates had no physical injury, and
affirmed the trial court's determination that Bates's confession was
not physically coerced.* The court did find that Bates's arrest was
without probable cause and remanded the case on the question of
whether his confession was a product of his illegal arrest* On re-
mand, the trial judge refused to consider the Goldston and Sand-
ers OPS Reports, and found that the confession was sufficiently
attenuated from the arrest to make it admissible.™* Bates again ap-
pealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the reports
were relevant to “the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct,”
astandard which the U.S. Supreme Court had established in Brown
. llinois™ as part of the attenuation test.* The State proceeded to
retry Bates, but could present no competent evidence, and the
judge dismissed Bates's case in December 1995, Having spent
eleven years in jail, Bates then brought a civil suit that he settled for
approximately $66,000.%
7 14t 771. The court also fou
beaten thirtcen months prior to
time. I, at 771-72.
7 Banks v. Burge, No. 91-C-6470 (N.D. L Aug. 18, 1993).
50 People v. Bates (Bats ), 578 N.E.2d 240 (L App.
s
52 People v. Bates (Bats 1), 642 N-E2d 774, 776 (Il App.
53422 US. 590, 604 (1975)
4 Bates 1, 642 N.E2d at 774,
55 See Bates v. Byrne, No. 96-C-7061 (N.D. I May 5, 1997),
< testimony that he was bagged a
anks was clearly relevant and not too remote in
1901),
1994)
IX. Tue Cannon CriviNaL Case
Darrell Cannon was arrested for murder only days after Banks
and Bates by a contingent of Area 2 officers who placed him in a
detective car where Dignan told him that they had a “scientific way
of questioning niggers.” When Cannon refused to talk, Byrne,
Dignan, and Grunhard took him to a remote site on the far south-
east side of Chicago, where Dignan forced the barrel of a shotgun
into Cannon’s mouth and pulied the trigger.”” He repeated this
mock execution twice more, after which he and Byrne pulled down
Cannon’s pants and repeatedly shocked him on the genitals with a
cattle prod. After a subsequent round of electric shocking, Cannon
gave a statement implicating himself as accountable in the
murder.
Cannon’s motion to suppress was denied by a judge who,
would later go to federal prison for taking bribes.* Cannon even-
tually appealed; his conviction was reversed, and he was retried in
1994 after a successor judge denied him the right to re-litigate his
motion to suppress.” He again appealed, armed with a record that
included numerous other cases where Byre and Dignan were ac-
cused of torturing and abusing other African American suspects.**
The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a new
motion to suppress hearing. The court, following People v. Banks
and Wilson v. City of Chicago, held that the other torture allegations
were relevant to show motive, plan, intent, and course of conduct,
and to impeach Dignan and Byrne. In so doing, the court also held
that the newly discovered evidence defeated principles of collateral
estoppel and res judicata, and reiterated that the admission of a co-
erced confession can never be harmless error:
No citation of authority is required for the proposition that in a
civilized society torture by police officers is an unacceptable
means of obtaining confessions from suspects. The use of a de-
fendant's coerced confession as substantive evidence of his guilt
6 Transeript of Darrell C Motion to Suppress Hearing at 17
People v. Cannon, No. 8311830 (Cir. ‘ounty Mar. 27, 1984) (hereinafier
Gannon Testimony]: see also KosWorks, Palce Torture Chicago Styl: Damell Cannon,
Anthony Holmes and Flint Taylor Sprak Out, YouTuse. (Jan. 10, 2012), hutp:/ /wiw.you
e com/watchv-AGCZ-qciFo.
Cannon Testimony, sufra note 86, at 37-38, Peaple . Cannon, No. 8311530
ook County March 27, 1984); se also KOsWokks, supra note 86.
anon Testimony, supra note 86, at 4348, S also KosWomks, supra note 86
ing bis torture)
9 See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 US. 599 (1997)
9 People v. Cannon, 658 N.E2d 693, 696 (IIL App. C
o1 I a1 695,
107
never is harmless error.”
In finding the other allegations of torture relevant, the court
powerfully rejected the State’s argument that the torture employed
in the other cases was too dissimilar to Cannon’s to be admissible:
To say, as the State does, that there is a qualitative distinction
between shocking one suspect’s genitals with a catle prod and
beating another with a flashlight, or inserting a shotgun in a
suspect’s mouth as opposed to a handgun, i to trivialize estab-
ished principles for decent law enforcement. Under that view,
accepted standards descend to banality. Minor differences in
technique do not alter the nature of the torturer’s work **
On remand, Cannon’s lawyers presented evidence of other
acts of torture by Byme and Dignan, and documentation of the
pattern and practice of torture that included the Goldston Report
and its findings that Byme and Dignan were “players” in Burge's
pattern and practice.” Cannon’s lawyers also offered a long-
suppressed 1994 OPS report that specifically found that Cannon
had been tortured by Byrne, Dignan, and Grunhard,” as well as
expert psychological evidence that further corroborated Cannon’s
claims of torture. In 2004, the State dismissed Cannon’s case with-
out presenting Byrne and Dignan as witnesses in the still pending
motion to suppress hearing, but the Illinois Parole Board refused
to release him because of a parole hold that was premised on the
dismissed case. Finally, in 2007, after two parole hearings and an
order from a Cook County judge, Cannon was released from
prison after serving twenty-four years.*
X. Tue Deatn Row Cases
In the early 19905, the legal and political struggle began to
focus on the torture victims who had been sent to death row. These
prisoners joined together and formed the Death Row Ten.*” Pri-
92 1 at 696,
9 1 at 697,
99 See Micatast. Gownsto, Cant Pouice DEv'r, Os¥ice oF PRor’t. Staxoains, His.
ToRY oF ALLEGATIONS 0F MiscoNbucr iy Akt Two Persosse. (Nov, 2, 1990):
PoLICE DET, OFICE 0F PROF'L STANDARDS, SUPLEMENTAL REPORE (April 30, 1991)
9 Declaration of G. Flint Taylor fled March 22, 2011, Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C.
2192, 2011 WL 4361520 (N.D. Il Sept. 19, 2011); Veronica Tiaux, i, Povice
Dt Orck OF PROFL STANDARDS, SUPHLEMENTARY SUMMARY REPORE, COMPLAINT
Recasti No. 134723 (Jan. 1994); report also Hled in Cannon, 2011 WL 4361520,
96 Cannon v. I Prisoner Review B, No. 04-CHL16620,slip op. at 13, 15, 19 (G
ook County Nov. 22, 2006)
97 See Flint Taylor, Police Torture and the Death Penalty in Hiois: Ton Years Later,
mary among them were Aaron Patterson,” Madison Hobley,” Le-
roy Orange,'” and Stanley Howard.” Orange had been
repeatedly electricshocked by Burge, while the others had been
bagged and beaten by his midnight crew. All four of them lost on
direct appeal,"*® and Hobley and Orange also lost their postconvic-
tion torture claims in the Illinois Supreme Court,'"* in part be-
cause they could not show physical injuries that the Illinois
Supreme Court, in a perverse application of People v. Wilson, had
articulated as a requirement in their cases.
In 1994, Patterson, represented by lawyers from the People’s
Law Office, filed a post-conviction claim in which he marshaled all
the newly discovered torture evidence that had come to light since
his 1988 motion to suppress hearing and trial. He also included his
subsequent identification of Jon Burge as the red-haired officer
who participated in his torture and offered photographs of etch-
ings he had made in the interrogation room bench the night of hi
torture which stated that he was suffocated with plastic. The trial
judge dismissed the petition, and Patterson, who had no docu-
mented physical injuries, appealed directly to the Tllinois Supreme
Court. Confronted with the Wilson physical injury standard, Patter-
son’s lawyers placed Chicago police torture in the context of the
history of torture, international law, and its definition by the
United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) in order to ar-
gue that a major component of torture was to inflict serious pain
during interrogations without leaving marks or visible injury.**
The case was argued and decided together with two other Chi-
cago police torture cases,® and in August 2000 the Supreme
Court issued a landmark decision in the Patterson case. After re-
Nariox (Jan. 11, 2013), hup:/ /s thenation.com/article/ 172152 police-torture-
anddeati-penalty linois enyearstater.
9% People v. Patterson, 610 N.E2d 16 (Il 1992).
9 People v. Hobley, 637 N.E2d 992 (Il 1994)
100 People v. Orange, 521 NE2d 69 (1L 198)
101 People v. Howard, 588 NE.2d 1044 (IIL 1991)
192 Paterson, 610 NE.2d at 16; Hobley, 637 N.E2d at 992; Howard, 588 NE.2d a
1044; Orange, 521 NE2d at 69.
103 Peaple v. Orange, 639 N.E.2 935 (1IL. 1995): People v. Hobley, 696 N.E2d 313
(L 1998). The Ilinois Supreme Court granted Hobley a post.conviction hearing on
other grounds,
101 Sor Reply Brief and Asgument for Defendant-Appellant at 3-7; People v. Pattes
son, 610 N.E2d 16 (1Il. 1993) (No. 82711).
105 People . King, 735 NE.24 569 (1IL 2000); People v. Kitchen, 727 N.E2d 189
(1L 2000). The Supreme Court, following its decision in Patterson, reversed the trial
court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing in King, and reversed the trial court’s denial
of leave to file an amended postconviction petiion in K,
jecting several ineffective assistance of counsel arguments, the
court, in an opinion written by Justice Rathje, found that funda-
mental fairness defeated the yes judicata effect of its prior Patterson
decision,® and held that Patterson was entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on the question of newly discovered torture evidence.
Rejecting the State’s reliance on a number of the court’s prior de-
cisions, including People v. Wilson, People v. Hobley, and People v. Or-
ange, the court modified the physical injury rule:
[T]he fact that the defendant has suffered a physical inju
only one of many factors 1o consider when determining whether
evidence of prior allegations of police brutality are admissible.
The question of relevancy is a determination to be made by the
trial court after a consideration of, inter alia, the defendant’s al-
legations of torture and their similarity to the prior
allegations
The court detailed the newly discovered evidence, including,
sixty incidents of torture that implicated Burge and the detectives
who tortured Patterson, the OPS Goldston and Sanders Reports,
and several judicial and administrative decisions, and evaluated
their relevance in light of the decisions in People v. Cannon, People v
Banks, Wilson v. Burge, and People v. Hobley. The court found that
the sixty incidents, some of which were contained in a proffer of-
fered in the Wilson civil case, were not unduly remote:
Many of the claims detailed in the plaintiff's proffer are remote
in time from defendant’s claims. The amount of time separating
the incidents is a relevant consideration when determining ad-
missibility. . . . Even incidents that are remote in time can be-
come relevant, however, if the party presenting the evidence can
present evidence of other incidents that occurred in the in-
terim. Thus, a single incident years removed has litle relevance.
However, a series of incidents spanning several years can be rel
vant 0 establishing a claim of pattern and practice of torture.
Consequently, we believe that the claims detailed in the proffer
should be considered new evidence, but only if defendant can
establish the later discovery of other torture allegations linking
defendant’s claims to those contained in the proffer.'
In conclusion, the court found that all of this evidence was
relevant and should be considered by the trial court:
After reviewing the new evidence relied upon by defendant, we
196 Paterson, 610 NE.2d a1 16.
7 Patterson, 735 NE.2d 616 (Il 2000)
108 74 a0 6145,
100 74, at 612443,
believe that it is material and that, as pleaded, would likely
change the result upon retrial. In particular, we note that defen-
dant has consistently claimed that he was tortured. In fact, he
made this claim during his first court appearance. Moreover, de-
fendant's claims are now and have always been strikingly similar
t0 other claims involving the use of a typewriter cover to simu-
late suffocation. Additionally, defendant describes the use of a
ggun as a threat and beatings that do not leave physical evidence.
Further, the officers that defendant alleges were involved in his
case are officers that are identified in other allegations of tor-
ture. Finally, defendant’s allegations are consistent with the OPS.
findings that torture, as alleged by defendant, was systemic and
methodical at Area 2 under the command of Burge.""®
XI. Area 3 DETEGTIVE HEADQUARTERS
In August 1986, Burge was promoted to commander and put
in charge of the Bomb and Arson Unit. He stayed there until Janu-
ary 1988, when he was transferred, at his request, to Area 3 Detec-
tive Headquarters, on Chicago’s predominantly African-American
West Side. Commander Burge brought Byrne and several trusted
Area 2 detectives with him to Area 3. Tn August of 1988, Burge and
his detectives “solved” a quintuple murder by arresting Ronald
Kitchen and Marvin Reeves for the crimes. Burge personally partic-
ipated in Kitchen's interrogation, and after he collaborated with
several detectives under his command to repeatedly beat Kitchen
with a telephone book and a phone receiver, Kitchen gave a false
confession."! Kitchen and Reeves were both convicted, and
Kitchen was sentenced to death, while Reeves received a life
sentence.!™*
Asteady stream of police torture allegations began to emanate
from Area 3, culminating in September of 1991 with a case where
eleven young men, most of whom were juveniles, were rounded up
for questioning about a murder. They were brought to Area 3
where, they alleged, they were tortured and abused. The youngest
of the boys was Marcus Wiggins, a diminutive thirteen-year-old who
was mentally delayed. Wiggins claimed that he was electricshocked
by one of Burge's transplanted detectives into giving a false confes-
110 14, at 515,
111 KosWorks, Ronald Kitchen: Tortured, Franed, and Sentenced 1o Deat, YouTuu
(Nov. 19, 2011, hutp:/ /wewyoutube.com watch?v-AD§XxPKZLg (Kitchen recount-
ing his torture).
112 "Sor G. Flint Taylor, Thaee Tonture Vitims Exonerated, Another Granted New Trial, 9
Povice. Miscoxbuet & Cvit Ricirrs Law REroRTex, No. 14, Mar-Apr. 2010, at 4
sion, and several of the other juveniles also alleged shockings and
beatings."** Eight of the young men, including the only nonjuve-
nile, Jesse Clemon, were charged with the murder. They moved to
suppress their confessions, and, ultimately, all of the cases were dis-
missed. In Clemon’s case, Earl Strayhorn, a well-respected Affican-
American judge, became the first Cook County trial judge to hold,
albeit indirectly, that Burge or his underlings coerced a statement
from a suspect. Finding that a witness who corroborated Wiggins'
assertions that he was electricshocked to be “very credible,” Judge
Strayhorn suppressed Clemon’s confession:
Given the atmosphere that existed in that District with eleven
people under suspicion in custody in the same location, the at-
mosphere must have been horrendously oppressive and I am go-
ing to suppress the statements."
The Tllinois Appellate Court af
Clemon was set free."™”
In January of 1993, Wiggins brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit
that alleged that his torture and wrongful arrest were caused by a
pattern and practice of torture."® During discovery, Wiggins' coun-
sel compelled the City to produce several suppressed OPS discipli-
nary files which contained findings that Byrne, Dignan, and several
other Burge detectives tortured and abused several suspects.!'” Af-
ter Wiggins settled his case, his counsel sought to publicly release
the files; the City opposed their motion, and the trial judge or-
dered them released:
‘med the trial judge, and
In essence, this Gourt concludes that the allegations of police
misconduct in the disputed documents before the Court must
receive public exposure in order o insure that the significant
public interest is served. As Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in his
now famous letier from the Birmingham County Jail in April of
1963: Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered
up but must be opened with all its pusflowing ugliness to the
natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be ex-
posed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of
human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can
be cured.” Similarly, this Court concludes that the allegations of
113 Peaple v. Cl
. 630 NE2d 1120 (IIL App. Ct. 1994); June 4, 1996 Deposition
of Marcus Wiggins at 303:1-308.7, Wiggins v. Burge, 173 F.D. 226 (X.D. Il 1097)
(No. 93 C 199)
114 Clrman, 630 N.E.
s 1,
116 Sor Deposition of Marcus Wiggins, supra niote 113, at 303:1-308:7.
7 Declaration of G. Fint Taylor at 13-17, Gannon v. Burge, No. 05
WL 4351520 (ND. I Sept. 19, 2011)
dat 123,
2192, 2011
police misconduct contained in the disputed files must be ex-
posed to the light of human conscience and the air of natural
opinion. !
Two years later, in 1999, Federal Judge Milton Shadur, who
had previously ordered the Goldston Report released, made the
first unequivocal judicial determination that there was a pattern
and practice of torture and abuse under Burge at Area
Itis now common knowledge that in the carly to mid-1980s Chi-
cago Police Commander Jon Burge and many officers working
under him regularly engaged in the physical abuse and torture
of prisoners 1o extract confessions. Both internal police ac-
counts and numerous lawsuits and appeals brought by suspects
alleging such abuse substantiate that those beatings and other
means of torture occurred as an established practice, not just on
an isolated basis. 1"
XIL GUEERNATORIAL PARDONS
In 2000, in response to the heightened focus on the death
penalty and its relationship to police torture, Tliinois Governor
George Ryan ordered a moratorium on the death penalty. Three
years later, after a long and highly publicized battle between pro-
ponents and opponents of the death penalty, Ryan, as he left of-
ice, commuted all 163 Tllinois death sentences to life without
parole, and granted innocence pardons to Leroy Orange, Madison
Hobley, Aaron Patterson, and Stanley Howard.'*” The basis for
these pardons was that all four men had been tortured into giving
false confessions by Burge and his men. In an impassioned state-
ment, Ryan described his rationale:
The category of horrors was hard o believe. If I hadn’t reviewed
the cases myself, I wouldn't believe it .. . . [Wle have evidence
from four men, who did not know each other, all getting beaten
and tortured and convicted on the basis of the confessions they
allegedly provided. They are perfect examples of what is so terri-
bly broken about our system. !
118 Wiggins, 175 FRD. at 230,
119 United States ex el Maxwell v. Gilmore, 37 F. Supp. 2 1078, 1094 (N.D. 1IL
1999). Judge Shadur made this determination in support of his granting an cviden
tiary hearing to Area 2 torture vietim Andrew Maxwell on his federal habeas corpus
peition
120 Sor G, Fint Taylor, A Historic Moment for the Huuman Rights Movement: Hinois Gover
nor Ryan Grants Pardons and Mass Clemency, 7 POLICE Miscomuct & G Ricits Law
Rerowres, No. 7, Jan.Feb. 2003, at 75
1214, a0 75, 7.
Hobley, Orange, and Patterson were immediately released,
while Howard remained imprisoned on another conviction.
XIIL ArroixtMent of THE Cook COUNTY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
Since the early 1990s, lawyers for the torture victims had peri-
odically made the demand for a special prosecutor to investigate
the serious crimes that were alleged in the ever-increasing number
of documented torture cases. These demands went unrealized un-
til 2001, when the lawyers, together with community activists,
mounted a campaign that resulted in the filing of a petition before
Cook County Criminal Division Chief Judge Paul Biebel that
sought the appointment of a special prosecutor. The basis for the
petition was Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine’s al-
leged conflict of interest that arose from his and his law firm’s
prior representation of Burge in the Wilson civil litigation. In April
of 2002, Judge Biebel granted the petition, finding, pursuant to
chapter 55, section 39008 of the Hllinois Compiled Statutes and
relevant Illinois precedent,'*? that Devine's prior representation of
Burge created both an “appearance of impropriety” and a per se
conflict of interest which was imputed to the entire Cook County
State’s Attorney’s Office.'** In what would later prove to be a very
controversial decision, Judge Biebel appointed as Special Prosecu-
tors two former Assistant Cook County State’s Attorneys, Edward
Egan and Robert Boyle, who had played key supervisory roles in
the 1960s during the reign of Mayor Richard J. Daley.!*!
Later in 2002, lawyers for the Death Row Ten moved to re-
move Devine's office from defending the State in all Burge related
postconviction cases and for the entire Cook County Bench to be
disqualified from hearing the cases.'” The disqualification of the
State’s Attorney’s Office was premised on Devine’s conflict, the ap-
pearance of impropriety, and Judge Biebel’s prior ruling, while the
judicial disqualification request was based on the fact that a large
percentage of Cook County judges were former Assistant State’s
22 55 1L Cour. Star. Axw. 5/ 39008 (West 2001); People v. Coslet, 364 N E.2 67,
70 (L 1977); People v. Gerald, 107 NE. 165 (Il 1914); People v_ Courtney, 687
N.E2d 521,526 (1ll. App. C. 1977)
it of Special Prosceutor, No. 90 CR 11955, 2002 WL 34491453
(Gir. €. Cook County April. 24, 2002).
24 Ser, .. Abdon M. Pallasch & Frank Main, Did Leaders of Burge Inguiry Favor City
FHall?: Exmasls Show Top Daley Lasuyer Ploasd With Thair Seletion, Cot. SUN-Tises, Jly 31
2006, at 10.
2 Sor Memorandum Opinion and Order of Apr. 9, 2003 at 3, In e Appointr
Special Prosecutor, No. 2001 Misc. 4, (Apr. 24, 2002)
Attorneys, with a substantial number having been directly involved
cither in taking confessions from men who alleged torture, or had
been involved in the prosecution of cases where a tortured confes-
sion was at issue.' Judge Biebel found that Devine did not have a
per se conflict, but disqualified the State’s Attorney’s Office none-
theless because of a potential conflict that arose from the possibil-
ity that Burge might be a potential witness in one or more of the
cases.'” Over the objection of the torture victims' lawyers, the
judge appointed the Tllinois Attorney General to represent the
State in the cases. Judge Biebel also rejected the argument that the
appearance of impropriety required the disqualification of the
Cook County bench, finding that:
This Court agrees that public confidence in the judiciary is of
substantial importance. However, the Court disagrees that re-
moving the cases from the Cook County Judiciary is the best way
to foster such confidence. The best remedy for any perceived
lack of faith is to allow the judges of this jurisdiction to preside
over these matters with diligence and impartiality, as they have
been swom to do. The removal of Petitioners’ cases from Cook
County would, in essence, be an acknowledgement that the
judges therein are incapable of fulfilling their duty. This Court
declines to draw such a conclusion. !
XIV. Crvit. Surts By THE PARDONED PRISONERS
In late 2003 and early 2004, the four pardoned torture survi-
vors each brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits alleging that they were
tortured into giving false confessions that led to their wrongful
convictions and imprisonment.'** They further alleged that their
torture and wrongful convictions were caused, in part, by a wide-
spread racially based pattern and practice of torture, and that their
wrongful convictions were continued as a result of a broad-based
conspiracy by high-level police officials, acting together with Burge,
his associates, and State’s Attorney Richard Devine, to cover up the
pattern and practice of Burge-related torture.'"
126 Sor Johw Contoy, Deaf 1o the Scrowms, G Reavis, (July 31, 2003), hups//
i chicigoreader.co orthescreams/ Contenzoid-012815.
Memorandum Opinion and Order of April , 2003, at 12-13, In e Appointment
pecal Prosccutor, No. 2001 Misc. 1 (April 24, 2002).
26,
(e v. Burge, No. 04 C 0168, 2005 WL 74264 (N.D. Il Mar. 30, 2005)
Patterson v. Burge, 328 F. Supp. 24 878 (N.D. 11l 2004); Hobley v. Burge, No. 03 C
3678, 2004 WL 856439 (N.D. TIL_June 2. 2004): Howasd v. Gity of Chicago, No. 03 C
481, 2004 WL 2397281 (N.D. Ii. Oct_ 22, 2004).
130" Sce G. Flint Taylor, Pardoned Minois Prisoners Bring Torturs and Woongful
The defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied in almost all
respects,'™ and discovery proceeded in the cases. People’s Law OF-
fice lawyers, who represented Orange and Patterson, embarked on
an investigation that yielded numerous statements that they ob-
tained from recently discovered torture victims and five African-
American detectives who had retired from the force. The former
detectives, no longer living in fear of the police code of silence and
official retaliation,'™® for the first time revealed a wealth of evi-
dence that corroborated that the pattern and practice of torture
under Burge was an “open secret at Area 2."%* These former detec-
tives revealed that they had seen what appeared to be Burge's tor-
ture box,"** had walked in on torture scenes,'* had overheard
discussions concerning the use of plastic bags, telephone books,
and the “Vietnamese treatment” to obtain statements,”™ and had
heard screams coming from the interrogation room.™” They fur-
ther asserted “the [B]lack box . . . was running rampantly through
the little unit up there,”* that Burge enforced the “code of si-
lence” with threats of violence,'*” and that Burge was an avowed
racist'!” who was rumored to be a Ku Klux Klan member. !
During discovery, the torture victims® lawyers took scores of
depositions and posited hundreds of interrogatories, and on al-
sion Claims, 7 Pouici: Miscoxpuct & G Ricarts Law Revorsex, No. 13, Jan.—Feb,
014,
et
152 Sor, e, November 9, 2004 Sworm
v. Burge, 525 F. Supp. 24 §78 (N.D. IIL
138 10, a 11
151 Afidavit of Melvin Duncan on May 20, 2004, at 11 5-10, Patterson v. Burge, 528
E. Supp. 24 878 (N.D. [IL 2004) (No. 03 C 4133): Statement of Walter Young on
November 2, 2004 at 6-7, Patiesson . Burge, 528 F. Supp. 2 878 (N.D. Tl 2004)
(No. 03 C 4433).
155 Sor November 9, 2004 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd, supra note 132, at 13-14;
catement of Wiliam Parker on Oct. 12, 2001 at 7-16, Patterson v. Burge, 328 F.
ipp. 24 878 (N.D. 11l 2004) (No. 03 C 4439); Statement of Waltes Youns, supra note
131, a1 9-10.
136 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd, supra note 132, at 10-12; Affidavit of Melvi
Duncan, supra note 134, a0 11 1,4, 5-10; Statement of Walter Young, supra note 134,
aso,
157 Sworn Statement of Doris Byrd at 9, Patterson v. Busge, 528 F. Supp. 24 878
(NLD. 1L 2004) (No. 03 C 4435).
1 4 a0 10211
139 74, a0 6-7.
10 14 atement of Walter Young on November 2, 2004, at 30-31, Pates
son v Burge, 328 . Supp. 24 §78 (N.D. IIl2004) (No. 03 C 4439): Statement of
Sammy Lacey on October 12, 2004, at 0-21, 28, Pauterson v. Burge, 528 F. Supp. 24
78 (N.D. 1L 2004) (No. 03 C 443%).
i Statement of Walter Young, supra note 154, at 31-5:
Byrd, supra note 152, a1 27.
tatement of Doris Byrd ac 41-43, Paterson
004) (No. 03 C 443%)
worn Statement of Doris
most all occasions, Burge and his fellow officers, citing the ongoing
investigation by the special prosecutors, invoked the Fifth Amend-
ment 1o all torture-related questions. However, at the very incep-
tion of discovery, Burge made what would later prove to be a
critical mistake—he denied under oath in interrogatory answers
that he had participated in or witnessed any acts of torture and
abuse.
None of the four plaintiffs had joined Richard M. Daley as a
defendant in his case, but they all sought his deposition as a mate-
rial witness as State’s Attorney and Mayor on their Monell and con-
spiracy claims. In February 2007, Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat
Brown ordered that Daley sit for his deposition on Madison
Hobley's Monell claims.*** However, in what would become a recur-
ring theme, the City subsequently agreed to settle the four cases for
atotal of $19.8 million, and the Chicago City Council approved the
settlement in January of 2008.'** Daley consequently avoided
testifying,
XV. Tk INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN
From the beginning of the public struggle against police tor-
ture in the late 19805, People’s Law Office lawyers and anti-torture
activists had consistently identified the racially motivated abuse
perpetrated by Burge and his confederates as torture rather than
police brutality, as the media preferred to call it. At their behest,
the Chicago City Council held a widely publicized hearing on the
torture cases on Christmas Eve 1990 at which one of Andrew Wil-
son’s lawyers, international torture expert Dr. Robert Kirschner,
and County Commissioner Danny Davis presented evidence.''*
Shortly thereafter, Amnesty International took up the cause, call-
ing for an investigation by the Illinois Attorney General's Office."”
In the Patterson case, PLO lawyers, for first time in a police torture-
related court proceeding, argued the relevance of the interna-
tional history of torture to the Burge cases, and their arguments
112 Hobley v. Burge, No. 03 C 3678, 2007 WL 551569, ac*8 (N.D. L Feb. 22, 2007).
145 Fran Spiclman, Ths Tragic Chapter. .. Is Closed, Cint. SUs-Tisgs, Jan. 10, 2008, a
8 The City had agreed 1o settle with three of the four men for SIL8 million more
than a year carlic, but the Gty refused to exccute the agreement, S Rudolph Bush,
Burge Claimants Allege City Backed Out of SI4.8 Millon Settlonent, Cins Tiw., Feb. 20,
2007, Judge Soat Brown relcased her Daley decision two days after the City's attempt
1o back out of the settlement became pu
144 Sy Transeript of Hearing before Chicago Gty Council Subcomm. on Finnce
(Dec. 24,1990 (on fle with author)
145 Sor Ray Long, Polce Tortue Probe Sought Her, Cin. SUx-Tres, Jan. 2, 1991, ac 1.
led to a landmark change in the law."'"
In 2005, the anti-torture movement, frustrated by the pace and
tenor of the ongoing investigation by the Special Prosecutors’ Of-
fice, petitioned for and obtained a hearing before the Inter Ameri-
can Commission for Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization
of American States.*” At this hearing, held in Washington, D.C. in
October 2005, a Burge torture survivor, lawyers from the People’s
Lay Office, and several activists testified and presented evidence to
the Commission.'**
The movement next turned to the United Nations Committee
Against Torture (CAT). The Midwest Committee for Human
Rights and lawyers from the People’s Law Ofice, together with nu-
merous national human rights organizations, presented the issue
of Chicago police torture to CAT as part of a broader picture of
systemic U.S. human rights violations that also included torture at
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib."* A lawyer from the People’s
Law Office appeared before CAT in Geneva, Switzerland to argue
the case for U.S. prosecutions of Burge and his men."” In May
2006, the CAT, in its “principal subjects of concern and recommen-
dations concerning the United States” section of its report found:
The Committee is concerned with allegations of impunity of
some of the State party’s [US's] law enforcement personnel in
respect of acts of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-
ment or punishment. The Committee notes the limited investi-
gation and lack of prosccution in respect of the allegations of
torture perpetrated in areas 2 and 3 of the Chicago Police De-
partment. (article 12) The State party should promply, thor-
oughly and impartially investigate all allegations of acts of
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punish-
116 Sor Reply Bricf and Argument for Defendan
son, 610 N.E2d 16 (IIL. 1993) (No. 82711).
17 Approximately fifty organizations and individuals, including the Midwest Com-
mittee for Human Rights (MCHR), the National Lawyers Guild, the National Conter.
ence of Black Lawyers, the NAACF, the ACLU, and 1 on Urban
Affins sgned the pridon, S Leters ur Justice
at the Univ. of Chi. Law Sch, 10 the. Comivn on
Tiinan Kihts otk Aug 36,2005 and Sept. 6 2005 on He v st
(alleging that the pattern and practice of torture violated the American Declaration
of the Rights and Dutics of Man and requesting a general interest hearing)
Appellant at 37, People v. Patier-
148 Dennis Conrad, Panel Hears Claims of AniiBlack Cop Brutality Hers, Cht. Sux-
2005
Toas, Oct. 1
9 Sor of, Moy
um from Midwest Comm. for Human Rights (MCHR) 1o the
Torture Crucl, Inhuman or Degrading Treat
Sept. 30, 2005)
wker, UN. Inuestigates Alleged Torture, WBEZ. Chicago Public Radio.
006 (tanscript on il with author)
broadeast, May
ment by law enforcement personnel and bring perpetrators to
justice, in order to fulfill its obligations under article 12 of the
Convention. The State party should also provide the Gommitiee
with information on the ongoing investigations and prosecution
relating to the above-mentioned case. !
XVL ThE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS' REPORT
In July 2006, after a fouryear investigation that cost Cook
County taxpayers $7 million, Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle
returned no indictments, but rather issued a report that absolved
Richard M. Daley, Richard Devine, and all but one of the numer-
ous high-level Chicago Police officials who had been implicated in
the decades-long scandal. "™ In the report, the Special Prosecutors
did make a number of findings that would prove to be of signifi-
cance in subsequent legal proceeding
© The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that
Burge committed aggravated battery, obstruction of justice, and
perjury when he abused Andrew Wilson and later testified
falsely about it.'**
« The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Area
2 Midnight detectives Ronald Boffo and James Lotito physically
abused Philip Adkins and committed aggravated battery against
him. 1
« The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Area
2 detectives Anthony Maslanka and Michael McDermott physi-
cally abused Alphonso Pinex and committed aggravated bat-
tery, perjury, and obstruction of justice.'”
© There were “many other cases” in which the Special Prosecutors
believed that the persons, including Melvin Jones, Shadeed
Mu'min, and Michael Johnson, were abused but “proof beyond
151 UN. Comm. Against Toruure, Consideration of Reports Submitied by States
Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and Recommendations of
the Commitiee Against Torture, 36h Sess., May 1-19, 2006, at 7, CAT/C,
(May 18, 2006). In May 2008, similar evidence was presented (o the UN. Rapporteur
on Racism at 2 hearing conducted in Chicago. See MidvwestHumanRights, Jory Mogul's
Testimony to UN Speial Rapporteur on Racism, YouToms. (May 29, 2008), hutp’/ /s you
tbe.com/watch?v=00dH2ZWOL v
52 Sor Report of the Gook County Special State’s Attorney, In re Appointment of
‘Special Prosceutor, No. 2001 Misc. 4 (July 19, 2006) [hereinafier Special Prosccutors’
Report]
15504 a0 16, 65.
154 74, 16. The evidence established that Adkins was br
Mashlight, causing him to defe
dirceted at him. 4. at 266-75.
SA/CO/2
ly beaten shout his
e on himself, and that racial
head and body with
epithets we
155 14 a0 16.
a reasonable doubt” was absent.'*
« Burge, the “commander of the Violent Crimes Section of Detec-
tive Areas 2 and 3, was “guilty [of] abus[ing] persons with im-
punity,” and that it therefore “necessarily follows that a number
of those serving under his command recognized that if their
commander could abuse persons with impunity, so could
they.
« Chicago Police Superintendent Richard J. Brzeczek was guiliy
of a *dereliction of duty” and “did not act in good faith in the
investigation of the claim of Andrew Wilson,” because Brzeczek
“believed that officers in the Violent Crimes unit of Detective
Area 2 had tortured Andrew Wilson,” and that Brzeczek “kept
Burge in command at Area 2, and issued a letter of commenda-
tion to all of the detectives at Area 271"
« Brzeczek “received and believed evidence that a prisoner [An-
drew Wilson] had been brutalized by the Superintendent’s sub-
that the prisoner had confessed; that those
subordinates had testified under oath on a motion to suppress
and before a jury, and he [Brzeczek] had to believe, they
[Burge and Yucaitis] testified perjuriously; that the prisoner had
been Sentenced to death, and that that Superintendent still re-
mained silent for over twenty years
« The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in its 1993
consideration of the City’s liability in the Wilson civil case, was
misled concerning Superintendent Brzeczek's contemporane-
ous knowledge that Burge and his subordinates tortured Wilson
because Brzeczek concealed those views until afier the case was
concluded.'™
« The Chief of Felony Review of the Cook County States Attor-
ney's Office, Lawrence Hyman, gave “false testimony” when “he
denied that Andrew Wilson told him he had been tortured by
156 14_at 12-13. The evidence established that Busge electrically shocked Jones on
his penis, thigh, and foot, struck him in the head with a stapler, threatencd him vith 1
revolver, and theatened to “blow [his] [BJlack brains out:” that Burge suffocated
Mu'min with a plastic typewriter cover, threatened him with a revolver, subjected him
to Russian Roulette, and repeatedly wsed racial epithets; and that Burge clectrically
shocked and beat Johnson. Se Testimony of Melsin Jones, United States v. Burge, No.
08 CR 846 (N.D. Tl May 27, 2010); Testimony of Shadecd Mu'min, United Staies v
Burge, No. 08 GR 846 (N.D. [1L_June 15, 2010); Special Prosecutors Report, supra note
13, 87.
ccial Prosceutors’ Report, supra note 1
1 0 a0 17,
199 14 a0 8657 (s
160 14, at 8758,
at 16,
sphasis in original).
detectives under the command of Jon Burge.”'*"
« No meaningful police investigation was conducted, nor any po-
lice witness questioned either in the Wilson case, or in the
Michael Johnson electric shock case, which occurred a few
months afier Wilson, and had “glaring similarities” to the Wil-
son allegations. '
* “[S]omething should have been done about the ‘disgrace and
embarrassment’ [at Area 2] 24 years ago” by the Chicago Police
Superintendent. !
« Ifaction had been taken against Jon Burge at the time of the
Andrew Wilson case, or even shortly thereafter, the appoint-
ment of the Special Prosecutor would not have been
necessary. '™
« This action should have included, “at the very least,” the Super-
intendent’s removal of Burge from any investigative command
and a “complete shake-up at detective Area 2."1%
XVIL RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTORS' REPORT
The lawyers for the torture victims, human rights activists, and
much of the African-American community were outraged by the
Special Prosecutors’ failure to indict for perjury, obstruction of jus-
tice, and conspiracy, and their failure to properly assess blame.
Their anger was fueled by the discovery that Special Prosecutor
Egan had nine relatives who were Chicago Police officers, one of
whom served under Burge at Area 2 in the 1980s and participated
in the arrest of torture victim Gregory Banks.'* As a result, lawyers
from the People’s Law Office, together with Northwestern Law
School's Center on Wrongful Convictions, drafted a Shadow Re-
port that was signed by more than 200 organizations and individu-
als from the human rights, criminal justice and racial justice
movements."” The Shadow Report, which was released in April
2007, found that the Special Prosecutors
« Did not bring criminal charges against members of the Chicago
1014 a0 54,
102 14, a0 12413, §7-88
103 Special Prosecutors’ Report, supra note 152, at 89
104 10 a0 88,
165 10
166 Aldon M. Pallasch & Frank Main, Torture Report and Faily Ties: Top Investigator
Had Nephea on Buoge's Staff. Civ. Sus-Titis, Aug. 5, 2006, at A7.
107 Repokr ox Tiik FAILURE oF SEcia. PRosscuzons Eowan J. EGa axo Romexr
D. Bovis 10 Py Iasmicars Sisresnc Povice ToRIURE ix Cricaco at 2 (April 24,
2007).
Police Department despite the apparent existence of numerous
provable offenses within the statute of limitations.
« Ignored the failure of former Cook County State’s Attorney
Richard M. Daley, State’s Attorney Richard A. Devine, and vari
ous other high-ranking officials to investigate and prosecute po-
lice officers who engaged in a documented pattern of torture
and wrongful prosecution of torture victims.
« Did not document the systemic and racist nature of the torture
and did not brand it as such in accordance with the interna-
tional definition of torture.
« Unfairly evaluated the credibility of the alleged torturers and of
their victims and unfairly attempted to discredit torture victims
who had pending civil or criminal cases.
« Conducted an investigation that was hopelessly flawed and cal-
culated to obfuscate the truth about the torture scandal.
« Ignored a wealth of evidence establishing that there was a wide-
spread and continuing cover-up of the torture scandal—a con-
spiracy of silence—implicating high officials of the City of
Chicago, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County
State’s Attorney's Office.
« Failed to document the role of judges of the Criminal Division
of the Cook County Circuit Court in the torture scandal
« Had appearances of conflict of interest and bias in favor of
those whom they had been appointed to investigate.'™*
The Shadow Report provided the vehicle for obtaining public
hearings, first before the Gook County Board of Commissioners,
then later before the Chicago City Council. At the hearings, both
of which took place in the summer of 2007, the testimony of sev-
eral torture survivors, their lawyers, experts on torture, and com-
munity activists was presented; at the City Council hearing, an
African-American detective who had witnessed a Burge torture
scene testified, and a video of Burge repeatedly invoking the Fifth
Amendment was presented.'*"
In the aftermath of the hearings, the Cook County Board
passed three Resolutions, which called for the following action:
10 14, at 25,
169 Cook Caty. Bd. of G
s Hearing (June 13, 2007), hup://video google
comvideoplay?docid=T23557585003007387¢. e also Transcript of Proceedings
from Chicago City Council Commitice on Police and Fire, Discussion of Special State
Auorney's Findings at 118 (July 24, 2007); Chicago Gty Council Hearing: Burge and
His Victims (July 24, 2007) (video) (on file with author): Chicago City Council Hea
ing: Testimony of Former Atea 2 Detective William Parker (July 24, 2007) (video) (on
il ith author).
The Cook County Board of Commissioners fully supports any
action taken by the United States Attorneys of the Northern
District of Illinois in the investigation and prosecution of any
and all federal crimes allegedly committed by Burge and his
men.
« The Cook County Board of Commissioners recommends that
the Tllinois Attorney General initiate new hearings for the
twentysix Chicago Police torture victims who were wrongfully
convicted and remain incarcerated in the State of Illinois.
« The Cook County Board of Commissioners recommends to the
legislature of the State of Illinois and the Congress of the
United States the passage of legislation explicitly proscribing
the crime of torture as defined by Article 1 of the United Na-
tions Convention Against Torture and Other Gruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment and Punishment and provide that
there be no statute of limitations for this crime.'”
During the City Council proceedings, numerous Council
members, including Daley stalwarts Ed Burke, the longtime power-
ful Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Ike Carrothers, the
chairman of the Police and Fire Committee, made strong state-
ments condemning the pattern and practice of torture under
Burge as “embarrass(ing],””" “heinous crimes,”'” “scurrilous,”"
“atrocities,””* the “worst [disgrace]” in the history of the Chicago
Police Department,”™ and akin to the torture at Abu Ghraib. "
Another Daley Alderman, Tom Allen, who had previously served as
a Cook County Assistant Public Defender, summed up the pro-
fessed sentiment of the Council
This was a serial torture operation that ran out of Area 2
The pattern was there. Everybody knew what was going on
Now, everybody in this room, everybody in this building, ever
body in the police department, everybody in the Si
i Cxv Bo. or Covni'is Res. 07
290 (July 10, 2007). The Board had
requested that Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle appear at the hearing, and when
they refused to do so, it passed an additional Resolution that called for the C
discontinue any future payments 1o the Special Prosecutors’ Office. Cook
or Coun'is Res. 07R312 (Sept. 6, 2007).
71 Transcript of Proceedings from Chicago City Council
Fire nent of Alderman Edvard Burke (July 19, 2007).
17 Transcript of Proceedings from Chicago City Council Committee on Police
Fire, Discussion of Special State Attorney’s Findings at 4549 (July 21, 2007) (statc-
of Alderman Joc Moore)
7 14 at 3534 (statement of Alderman Tom Allen).
74 4 au 3435 (statement of Alderman Isaac Carothers)
7 14 at 1541 (statement of Alderman Ed Smith).
76 14 at 104 (statement of Alderman Sandi Jackson)
1Y B,
Committee on Police
ney's Office, you would like to get this anvil of Jon Burge off our
neck and I think that there are creative ways to do that.'””
XVIIL ThE Prose
SUTION OF Jox BURGE
In the wake of the hearings, several aldermen delivered a let-
ter to the U.S. Attorney demanding that Burge be prosecuted for
perjury. '™ Only days later, in response to the building public and
political pressure, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald announced that
his office was investigating Burge and his men,'” and in October
2008 Fitzgerald announced that Burge had been arrested on a
three-count indictment alleging perjury and obstruction of jus-
tice."™ The indictment was based on the allegedly false sworn state-
ments he made nearly five years earlier in his Hobley interrogatory
answers.
In late May 2010, Burge went on trial before a packed court-
room and a federal jury comprised of eleven whites and one Afri-
can American.*™' Among the key witnesses against Burge were
three of his victims—Anthony Holmes, Shadeed Mu'min, and Mel-
vin Jones; the prior testimony of Andrew Wilson, who had died in
the penitentiary in November of 2007, was read to the jury."™* For-
mer Area 2 detective Michael McDermott, who had been granted
immunity from prosecution, was a reluctant witness for the govern-
ment, and when he tried to equivocate, portions of his grandjury
testimony, in which he admitted to seeing Burge torture Mu'min
by placing a piece of plastic over his face, was read to the jury as
impeachment.™ Two of the African-American detectives who had
given statements in the civil cases also testified for the prosecution.
Burge took the stand in his defense and denied everything, but his
fellow officers all declared their intention to invoke the Fifth
Amendment and were therefore not called as defense witnesses.'**
1 at 37, 40 (statements of Alderman Tom Allen)
7% Monique Gascia, Aldermen Cal or Fderal Prosecution of Burge, Cit, Taun., Sept. 20
2007,
7 U1S. Atorney, FBI Probing Allgations of Polce Torture, Cit. SUN-Tiiss, Sept. 27
2007.
150 Steve Mills & JelT Coen, Fads Catch Up With Burge, Con. T, Oct. 22, 2008; G,
Flint Taylos, Torture Ringieader Indicted, 9 Povice Miscoxvuct & Cvn. Ricurs Law
Rerortek 7, Jan.—Feb. 2009, at 1
hicago Police Commander Convicted of Lying About Torture, 9 Po.
. Ricairs Law Rerokisa 17, Sept-Oct. 2010.
Lics Misconouc & C
e
189 14 Rummana Hussain, Buge Cop’s Sory Changs, Cot. SON-Tives, June 15, 2010
154 John Conroy, Burge Trial: Former Prosscutor and Seven Detectives o Take the Fit
WBEZ Cit. Pun. Rapio (June 4, 2010), hups/ /wnewbez.org/jeonroy/2010/06/
burge-triabformer-policechieEwanis o-take-the- Gith/26215; John Conroy, Burge Trial:
The jury retired to deliberate in late June 2010, 37 years after
Burge tortured Anthony Holmes. While the jury was out, Burge,
still unrepentant, allegedly asked a courtroom observer whether he
thought the jury would “believe that bunch of niggers?™™* The
next day the jury brought back its verdict of guilty on all three
counts.
In January 2011, trial judge Joan Lefkow conducted a two-day
sentencing hearing, at which Anthony Holmes spoke movingly
about the meaning of the conviction and sentence to the survivors
of torture, and African-American history professor Adam Green ar-
ticulated their importance to Chicago’s African-American commu-
nity."™* The judge then sentenced Burge to four-and-a-half years in
the federal penitentiary, finding that she, like the jury, did not be-
lieve Burge when he denied torturing suspects; that certain victims
of his torture were “terrified” and had to leave the City; that there
was a “mountain of evidence” that supported the testimony of the
torture survivor witnesses; that she inferred that coerced confes-
sions under Burge were “widespread,” and thereby “defiled” and
“irreparably” “undermined” the justice system; and that Burge
committed perjury to avoid “exposing [his] long history of miscon-
duct, undermining [his] long history of denial that these events
occurred.”” The judge further found that “too many times I have
seen officers sit in the witness box . . . and give implausible [testi-
mony] to defend themselves or a fellow officer against accusations
of wrongdoing:” she decried the “dismal failure of leadership in
the [Chicago Police] Department” and the long time failure to act
by “others, such as the United States Attorney and the State’s Attor-
ney.” In March 2011, Burge reported to Butner Federal Peniten-
tiary in North Carolina to begin serving his sentence.'™
Former Police Chief Wanis (o Take the Fifth, WBEZ Cit. Pun. Ranio, (June 15, 2010)
hitps/ /snww.wbez.ong /jeonroy,/2010/06/burge-triabformer-police-hicEwants to-take.
thefith/26215.
155 G. Flint Taylor, Racism, Torture and Inpunity in Chicago, Nxrios;, March 1118,
2013,
56 Transeript of Testimony of Professor Adam Green at 131-32, United States v
Burge, No. 08 CR 846, 2011 WL 13471 (N.D. IIL July 1. 2011), available af hutp://
peopléstavoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1.20 11 Tesimony-of-Adan
Greenin-USv.Burge.pdf: ww also G. Flint Taglor, Judge Sentences Chicago Police Com:
mander Jon Burgein Torturs Case, 10 Povice: Misconpict & Civit. Ricaits Luw RepoxTex
Apr. 2011
tencing Transcript at 4-5, 10, United
WL 13471 (N.D. L Jan. 21, 2011).
158 14,
199 As Bunge Heads to Prison, Torture Quistions Linger, Co. Taan., M
At of Justice informed some of Burge
tes v. Burge, No. 08 CR 816, 2011
b 15, 2011, In
victims that he
XIX. MoRE EXONERATIONS AND Lawsurrs
Since Burge's indictment in 2008, nine more African-Ameri
can men have been released from prison on the basis that inculpa-
tory statements were tortured from them or from witnesses by
Burge and his men as part of Burge’s pattern and practice of tor-
ture™® While the State dismissed several of the cases without a
hearing, in several others judges ordered new trials after con-
ducting evidentiary hearings before the State decided to dismiss
the cases. Five of the men—Michael Tillman, Ronald Kitchen, Mar-
vin Reeves, Exic Caine, and Alton Logan—received certificates of
innocence pursuant to chapter 735, section 2702 of the Illinois
Compiled Statutes from the Cook County courts after their cases
were dismissed, while two of the men were released after they ac-
cepted plea deals."”" In one case—that of Stanley Wrice—the State
appealed the grant of an evidentiary hearing all the way to the Illi-
nois Supreme Court. !
XX, THE Stantey Wiice Case
Stanley Wrice was tortured by Burge confederates John Byrne
and Peter Dignan in September 1982, and he gave what he has
always maintained was a false confession to a violent rape that he
did not commit. After Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle issued
their Report in 2006, Wrice pursued a successive post-conviction
petition in which he alleged that the findings in the Report about
Burge's midnight crew constituted newly discovered evidence. The
wrial judge, a former assistant state’s attorney under Daley, dis-
missed the petition, but the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and
remanded, finding that the Report and its findings of “widespread
systematic torture of prisoners at Area 2" provided the basis for a
new evidentiary hearing."”* Special Prosecutor Stuart Nudelman, a
former Cook County Judge who had been appointed in 2009 by
ad been approved for release 0. halfvay house n Tampa. Florida,startng on Octo-
ber 2, 2014, Mils, Steve, Burge to mave o falfuay house in fall, Chi. Trib. Feb, 25, 2014
190 G, Flint Taglor, supra note 117, at 1 PostConviction Orders, Peaple v. Caine
No. 86 CR 6091 (02) (Cir. C1. Cook County Jan. 15, 2011 & March 16, 2011); Order
from Petitioner’s Appeal, People v. Cortez Brown, 953 N.E2d 81 (I App. CL 2007)
(No. 105-0928): Transcript of Court’s Oral Order, People v. Cortez Brown, (Cir.
‘Gook County May 22, 2000); Transcript of Court’s Order, People v. Wrice, No. §2 C
8635 (03) (Gir. Ci. Cook County Dec. 10, 2015); Post-Consiction Order, People v
Andrews, Nos. 83 CR 4978 and 83 CR 4979 (Gir. Ci. ook County Aug. 14, 2007)
191733 101 Contr. STaT. ANN. 5/2-702 (West 2014).
192 Sor People . Wrice, 940 N.E2d 102, 10810 (I App. Ct. 2010); People v.
Wrice, 962 N.E2d 954, 952-53 (1il. 2012)
193 Peaple v. Wrice, 940 NE2d 102, 108-10 (I App. €
2010).
Judge Biebel to replace the Attorney General's Office in Burge re-
lated post-conviction cases, ™ appealed the case to the Tllinois Su-
preme Court on the grounds that admission of Wrice’s confession
at wial, even if it were the product of torture, was harmless error.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, rejected this argu-
ment in no uncertain terms, finding that
the police misconduct_alleged in this case—beatings perpe-
trated by two police officers [Byrne and Dignan] who figured
prominently in the systematic abuse and torture of prisoners at
Area 2 police headquarters . . . constitutes an egregious violation
of an underlying principle of our criminal justice systeml[.]'**
The court therefore held that the harmless-error rule did not
apply to “coerced confessions . . . such as the one now before us,
involving alleged police brutality and torture.”*®
On remand, the trial judge recused herself, because of her
connection to unnamed witnesses in the case, witnesses who were
thought to be the trial prosecutor and former State’s Attorney
Daley. The case was then sent to Judge Richard Walsh, who was
randomly selected from a list of judges who had no connection to
the State’s Attorney’s Office during Daley's tenure there. In De-
cember 2013, Judge Walsh vacated Wrices conviction and ordered
a new trial after an evidentiary hearing at which both Dignan and
Byrne asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrim-
ination and refused to answer any questions concerning their tor-
ture and abuse of Wrice."”” Concluding that Wrice's statement was
coerced and that his rights under Brady v. Manyland'** were vio-
lated, Judge Walsh found that there was “no doubt” that detectives
were torturing suspects at Area 2, that it was unrebutted that
Dignan and Byme tortured Wrice, and that Byrne and Dignan
committed perjury at Wrice's trial when they denied that they tor-
tured him and witness Bobby Joe Williams.'* On December 12,
2013, the Special Prosecutor finally gave up his vindictive crusade
and dismissed the charges against Wrice.
199 In his order, he rejected the argament that the State’s Attorney's conflic was
cured by Richard Devine’s retirement and his replacement by Anita Avarcz. So Mem-
orandum Opinion and Order, People v. Smith, 83 C 769 (Ci. Ci. Cook County Apr.
8. 2009).
195 Peaple v. Wrice, 962 N.
196 14, a0 953,
197 Transeript of Court’s Order at 2.3, People v. Wrice, No. 82 G 8655 (03) (Gir. G
Gook County Dec. 10, 2013)
19% 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
199 Teanscript of Court’s Order, supra note 197, at 2-5.
24934, 9
. 2012)
XXL Tue Gaxxox Civie Surr
After his criminal case was dismissed in 2004, Darrell Cannon
filed a torture and wrongful conviction lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985. Represented by lawyers from the People’s Law
Office and MacArthur Justice Center, his complaint was patterned
after the policy and practice complaints those lawyers had filed in
the Orangeand Patterson cases. However, unlike in those cases, Can-
non faced a significant obstacle—in 1986, while ensconced in the
bowels of the Iilinois prison system, Cannon had filed a handwrit-
ten pro se damages complaint alleging that he was tortured by
Byrne and Dignan, and two years later, before the newly discovered
evidence of torture had begun to surface, Cannon, on the advice of
his courtappointed lawyer, reluctantly accepted the Gity of Chi-
cago’s offer of a nuisance value settlement of $3,000, of which he
netted $1,247, and signed a broadly worded release that included
all claims related to his torture that might arise in the future.
The City and the police defendants moved to dismiss Can-
non’s second suit, arguing that the 1988 settlement agreement
barred Cannon from pursuing further compensation against any
and all Gity officials on all of his newly pleaded claims. In 2006, the
wrial judge, Amy St. Eve, rejected this argument, holding, in con-
formance with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ landmark de-
cision in Bell v. Milwauhee™ that the massive conspiracy to cover
up the torture scandal constituted a fraud by the police defendants
and the City which thereby rendered the 1988 setlement a
nullity 22
At the 2007 Chicago City Council hearings on the Burge tor-
ture scandal, a special emphasis was placed on ending the Cityfi-
nanced defense of Burge in the five then-pending civil damages
cases, which up to that point totaled more than $10 million. Sev-
eral council members and U.S. Congressman Danny Dayis publicly
called on Mayor Daley and the City's legal department to settle all
of the outstanding torture cases, including Cannon’s.* Within
Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C 2192, 2006 WL 275544, a *10-11 (N.D. Il Feb. 2,
2006); G. Flint Taylor, The Tortwre of Danell Cannon: A’ Case that the City of Clicago
Cannot Won, HUssixGrox Post (Aug. 10, 2012, 12:14 PM), hup://www huffingtonpost
com/ lor/darrell-cannon-case_b_1762150.ht
201716 F.2d. 1205 (7th Cir. 1984). Bell was an extraordinary police killing case
where the court voided another unconscionably small seulement afier an extensive
police cover up was exposed by the partner of the police shooter twenty years after the
shooting
202 Cannon, 2006 WL 273544, at *10-11
20% Transcript of Proceedings from Chicago City Council Commitice on Police and
Fire, Statement of Alderman Bob Fiorett at 95, 100-01 (July 24, 2007); id- at 104
months, the City settled four of the five cases for a total of $19.8
million, but refused to offer a nickel to Cannon, arguing that he
was not entitled to a second bite of the apple. Instead of setling,
the City poured $1.8 million in legal fees into further contesting
Cannon’s case. In 2011 Judge St. Eve reversed her field and
granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on the question
of whether the 1988 settlement precluded Cannon’s new suit.** In
50 doing, the judge deemed the cover-up irrelevant to the issue of
fraud because Cannon knew he had been tortured and therefore,
in her view, was not deceived **
Cannon appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Relying in large part on Eell, the appeal presented the
fundamental question of whether Burge, Byrne, and Dignan, their
now notorious midnight crew, and the entire Gity power structure
could utilize their wholesale cover-up of the worst police scandal in
the history of the City of Chicago to deprive a torture victim of hi
fair day in court and his right to reasonable compensation.
In January of 2013, a threejudge panel of the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case. Led by Judge llana
Rovner, the Court repeatedly excoriated the City for its position in
the case. Addressing the City's lawyer, Judge Rovner first stated:
And before you even introduce yourself, I want to start you off
because it seems to me that the City has misread Bell In both
Belland this case the determinative fact is not what the Plaintiffs
knew but what the Plainiiffs could not prove because of the
cover-up. In each case the plaintiffs or the plaintff's surviving
representative knew the officers engaged in wrongful conduct
and in cach case the extensive cover-ups prevented them from
proving it
After the Gity's lawyer offered a response, Judge Rovner con-
tinued her pointed inquir
Look, if a defendant destroys evidence of wrongdoing and the
plaintiff knows that the defendant destroyed that evidence, does
that knowledge preclude the plaintiff from later claiming fraud
in the inducement of a settlement? If so, does that mean that
the more successfully you lie, you cheat, you commit fraud, in
litigation, the greater your reward for forcing a small settle-
of Alderman Sandi Jackson); id. at 60-61 (statement of for
agressman Danny Dais).
201 Cannon v. Burge, 05 G 2192, 2011 WL 4361529, ac 31 (N.D. L Sept. 19, 2011)
N
208 Oal at 15:44-16:21, C
(No. 12-1529). available at hitp://media
1529_01_22_ %01 3.mpS.
Aldern
1 v Burge, 752 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir, 2014)
iscourts go/sound/2013/5p.12-1520.12
ment? I do not, I cannot see how this is different. T try—I cannot
see how this is different 27
Judge Rovner then rebutted the City lawyer's assertion that the
police defendants simply denied that they tortured Cannon, stating
that “they didn’t just deny, they lied, they cheated, they committed
fraud, they committed cover-ups . . . "%
Calling the City's “no fraud” argument “unavailing” .. . which
she made “to be kind,” Judge Rovner summarized the facts in the
record:
Here are the facts on summary judgment. These officers take a
man with a prior murder conviction. Then they lic, then they
torture him into making a statement that leads to a second mur-
der conviction, then they lie about it, then they destroy evi-
dence, then they engage in this incredibly lengthy cover-up with
other city officials. You've got to help me. [On] [w]hat planet
does he have a meaningful redress in the courts under those
circumstances? I mean, of course he was forced to settle unfavor-
ably because the officers and perhaps the Gity have made it vir-
tally impossible for him to prove his case. You would have us
enforce a settlement procured by defendants who so rigged the
deck that no Plaintiff could have proven a legitimate claim and
that to me seems to be the bottom line here "
Judge Rovner then dismantled the City's argument that Can-
non’s lawyer was required to ask the defendants during his initial
case if they had tortured other suspects:
Judge Rovner: That astonishes me, that argument because, in
other words, he is supposed to have asked in discovery, “By the
way, have these officers tortured anyone else? Is the Gty helping
these officers coverup other criminal acts?* Was he obliged to
ask them if they were committing additional criminal acts? How
do you suppose they would have answered?
City’s Lawyer: Your honor, I don’t know how they would have
answered.
Judge Rovner: “Yes, yes we are criminals?” Of course you
know.210
Judge Sarah Barker, sitting by designation from the Southern
District of Indiana, then suggested that “where it's completely fu-
tile, because of corruption basically, you've deprived him of access
to the courts, haven't you?"*!! Judge Rovner then returned to the
07 14t 17351508,
208 1
21114 213621148,
Gity's argument that Cannon should have further questioned the
police conspirators:
Judge Rovner:
Judge Rovn
So why is Burge in prison right now? Why, bot-
‘tom line, why do you think he is in prison right now? What was it
that put him in prison right now?
City’s Lawyer: He was convicted of committing perjury for deny-
ing acts of torture, yes
actly.
Judge Rovner then addressed the question of the settlement'
unconscionability:
out,
[Alt the time he settled, there was no way for him to even begin
to prove his case for torture, much less prove the cover-up. He
was, you know, he’s in prison for murder, based on the confes-
sion that he now alleges, and indeed alleged from the very be-
ginning, was the result of torture, his bargaining position was
absolutely non-existent in those circumstances, and it was non-
existent because the Defendants obtained that condition
through a confession that was given under torture and then cov-
ered up the torture, and that (o me is the bottom line here 2>
Judge Rovner, calling it “a miracle” that the truth had come
again underscored the symmetry between Cannon’s case and
Bell decision:
the
Under Bell, the Plaintiffs, it secems to me, have shown exactly
what they need to show, and any other result would mean that
defendants could engage in a decade-long cover-up with impu-
nity. The plaintiffs might *know” in quotes that there’s a cover-
up, in the sense that they know that the police are lying, but
that's a great distance from being able to prove that that's the
case . . it scems to me that if the Defendant successfully sup-
pressed the truth in an effort to force an unfavorable settlement
out of the Plaintiff, they should not be rewarded for the success
of their scheme when the truth eventually comes out*'*
As the City's argument concluded, Judge Barker returned to,
paltry settlement given to Cannon in 1988:
[Gliven all the things you know now and all the corruption that
came to0 light, and the facts that have settled out in a different
way than anybody understood or would admit at the time the
settlement agreement was entered into, don’t you think that it's
a thin reed on which you're attempting to hang your resolution
212 Oral Argument at
No.
1529_01 22
25, Cannon v. Burge.
12:1529). available at htp:/ /media.caT.uscourts gov/sound /2013/sp. 121
F.3 1079 (7th Cir. 2014)
20,12
214 It 25322123, 2509-25:21.
t0 say, given all of that, $3,000 is a fair setlement . . . #*!%
Sixteen months later, in a stunning reversal from its position
at oral argument, the Seventh Circuit panel, in a lengthy opinion
authored by Judge Rovner, affirmed the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment. Judge Rovner set the tone for the panel’s deci-
sion in her opening paragraph. Relegating to a footnote the fact
that Burge, who was the lead defendant in the case, stood accused
of torture by more than 100 African-American men, and was in the
penitentiary for committing perjury and obstruction of justice, she
wrote:
This appeal casts a harsh light on some of the darkest comers of
life in Ghicago. The plaintiff, at the time of the events giving rise
to this suit, was a general in the EI Rukn street gang, out on
parole for a murder conviction, when he became embroiled ina
second murder. Among the defendants are several disgraced po-
lice officers, including the infamous Jon Burge, a man whose
name evokes shame and disgust in the City of Chicago.*"
The panel then proceeded to reject, one by one, all of the
arguments that Judge Rovner and her fellow panel members had
previously embraced. The panel held that Cannon’s wrongful con-
viction claim, which did not arise, under Heck v. Humphrey'” until
his criminal case was dismissed in 2004, was also covered by the
1988 release*"" and refused to find that the settlement was the
product of fraud,**” despite what Judge Rovner called, at oral argu-
ment, an “extensive criminal cover-up” that made it “virtually im-
possible” for Cannon to prove his case.* Repeatedly asserting that
Cannon and his lawyer did not pursue the pattern-and-practice evi-
dence before he settled, while minimizing the cover-up and the
role of high-ranking City officials in it, and reducing the decades of
perjury and destruction of evidence by the named defendants to a
“he said, they said controversy,”! the panel distinguished Bell, lik-
ening Cannon’s case to two previously decided garden-
215 14 a1 29052934
216 Cannon . Burge, 752 F.3d 1070 at 1081 (7th Cir. 2014)
217 512 US. 474, 486-90 (1994). Heck held that a 42 U.S.C. §198 cli
ful convic 6T i cxonerated from his
215 Cannon, 752 F. 3d at 105354,
219 12 1085.
220 Oral Argument at 24:5-25:10, Cannon v. Burge,
(No. 12-1529), availabie at http:/ /n
1529_01_22_ %01 3.mpS.
221 Cannon, 752 F. 5 1079 at 1086,
n s not tipe until and unless the plai
2 F.3d 1079 (7h Gir. 2014)
iacaT uscourts gov/sound /2013 /sp.121529.12-
lice misconduct cases*** Emphasizing Cannon’s criminal history
and prior gang membership, the panel also refused to find that
Cannon’s $1,267 settlement was unconscionable despite Cannon’s
unequal bargaining position at the time, and the multimillion-dol-
lar settlements subsequently obtained by other similarly situated
torture victims after the truth about the torture scandal came to
light *** In so doing, the panel stated that “what the officers did to
Cannon was unconscionable,” but the “settlement was not.”*
In conclusion, the panel, in what Cannon’s lawyers termed in
their Motion for Rehearing as a “moral judgment masquerading as
legal reasoning,™** again blamed the victim, as it did throughout
the opinion, and washed their hands of the matter:
This case casts a pall of shame over the City of Chicago: on the
police officers who abused the position of pover entrusted to
them, on the initial trial judge who was later imprisoned for ac-
cepting bribes to fix murder cases, on Gty officials who turned a
blind ¢ye 10 (and in some instances actively concealed) the
claims of scores of African-American men that they were being
bizarrely and horrifically abused at Area 2, and last but not least
on Cannon himself, who was a convicted murderer out on pa-
role when, by his own admission, he drove a car for his fellow EI
Rukn general as a murder was commitied in the back seat, and
helped dispose of the body and conceal the crime. It is
difficult 10 conceive of a just outcome given the appalling ac-
tions by almost everyone associated with these events but the law
regarding the finality of setdements governs the result 22
In Cannon’s rehearing petition, his lawyers contrasted Can-
uation with that of his torturers:
non'’
Itis truly ironic, in light of the Panel’s broad based condemna-
tion, that Gannon, after serving 24 years in prison, has been a
model citizen since his release more than seven years ago and
has devoted his life to speaking to youth about the horrors of
prison and to quelling gang violence as a CEASEFire supervisor
while Burge is in prison; Byrmne and Dignan barely escaped fed-
eral indictment for committing perjury in Gannon’s case; and
that all three of them, as well as their numerous confederates,
all invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever they are asked under
oath if they tortured any of the 118 now known victims of tor-
22 1t 108587,
223 1t 1085,
224 Cannon v. Burge, 752 F.3d 1079 at 1104 (7th Cir. 2014)
225 Appellant Darrell Cannon’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc at 12, Gannon v,
Burge, No. 121529 (7th Cir. filed June 10, 2014)
226 Cannon . Burge, 752 F.3 1079, at 1104 (Tuh Ci. 2014).
ture. Additionally, while Cannon is told 10 be satisfied with
$1267 (minus appellate costs) for his trouble, Burge, Byme and
Dignan continue to collect their pensions - - - FOIA records ob-
tained by the People’s Law Office from the Police Pension
Board document a total of over $2 million 0 date - -~ and they
have reaped the benefit of legal representation by private law-
yers whom the City has now paid more than $1.8 million in this
case alone 27
In conclusion, Cannon’s lawyers re-emphasized the extraordi-
nary nature of his case:
This s, without question, an exceptional case. It is demonstrated
by its facts, as well as by the panel’s opinion. Additionally, it is a
case of national and international importance, as it is now the
subject of Amnesty International’s Global Campaign Against
Torture, and implicates Article 14 of the Convention Against
Torture’ (GAT) under which the United States is obligated to
‘ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture
obtains redress and has an enforceable right o fair and ade-
quate compensation including the means for as full rehabilita-
tion as possible.
On May 27, 2014, the full Seventh Circuit Court denied Can-
non’s petition without dissent. 2
XXIL Tiaan anp Krrcues Civie Surrs: Daey
JOINED AS A DEFENDANT
Six of the nine men who were released since 2007 filed torture
and wrongful conviction suits in federal court, pursuant to the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphrey** Tillman and
Kitchen, represented by the People’s Law Office and MacArthur
Justice Center lawyers, each brought wide-ranging conspiracy
§ 1983, 1985, and state law, which, for the
t time, named Richard M. Daley as a conspiring defendant !
227 Appellant Darrell Cannon's Petition for Rehearing En Bane at 14 n.12, Cannon
v. Burge, No. 12-1529 (7th Cir. fled June 10, 2014) (footnote omitted)
251 at 14-15, quoting C el Tnhuman,
or Degrading Treatme
20 (1988), 1165 UN.TS
CAT on April 18, 1988,
tions, s
220’ Cannon v. Burge, No. 121520 (7th Cir. 2014) order of May 27, 2014,
250 Tuo of the men—CGortes Brown (also known as Victor Safforld) and Eric John-
son—were barred from suingg by the Heck decision hecause they pled guilty in ex.
027 (1984). The United States signed the
on October 21, 1994, subject to certain dechara-
e for substantial sentence reductions, while Stanley Wrice filed a petition for a
icate of innocence in May 2014
251 Their lawyers had previously atte
jpted to amend the complaint in the Cannon
While the district court judge in Kitchen dismissed Daley,** Re-
becca Pallmeyer, who was the district court judge in Tillman, de-
nied Daley's motion to dismiss.** In her lengthy opinion, Judge
Pallmeyer summarized Tillman's allegations of torture and abuse:
[Burge detectives] Boffo and Dignan questioned Plainiff while
he was handeuffed to a wall, and Boffo struck Plaintiff on the
head. At another point, [detective] Hines struck Plainff in the
head and the stomach, causing him to vomit, and drove Plaintiff
t0 a secluded location, forced Plaintiff to his knees, held a gun
to his head, and threatened to kill him “like you killed that wo-
man.” . . . Hines struck Plaintff on his back and head with a
telephone book, causing his nose to bleed on his clothing and
in the interrogation room, then forced Plaintiff to clean up the
blood with paper towels. Defendant Boffo kicked Plainiff in the
leg, and [detectives] Boffo, Dignan, Hines, and Yucaitis used
their thumbs to push against Plaintffs ears, pushed his head
back, and poured 7-Up into his nose. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendants Yucaitis and Dignan repeatedly subjected him to
nearsuffocation by placing a plastic bag over his head, and that
Defendant Dignan hit Plaintiff on the leg with his flashlight and
waved the flame from a cigarette lighter under his arm. During
the course of this interrogation, Plaintiff was not allowed to
speak with a family member or an attorney. Plaintif ultimately
agreed 1o cooperate, and Defendant Yucaitis later testified that
Plaintiff made oral admissions concerning his involvement in
the crime.2*
With regard to Daley, Tillman alleged a course of conduct that
began in the early stages of Daley's eight year term as State’s Attor-
ney of Cook County and continued throughout his twenty-year
reign as Mayor. In summary, Tillman alleged that
Former Mayor and State’s Attoney Richard M. Daley and for-
mer Chicago Police Superintendent LeRoy Martin refused and
failed to investigate a pattern of torture carried out at Area 2
prior o Plaintiff's arrest, proximately causing Plaintiffs torture
and wrongful conviction. Plaintff claims that Daley, Martin, for-
mer Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard, former aide
to the Chicago Police Superintendent, Thomas Needham, and
case 10 add a RICO claim that
trial judge. Soe Cannon v. Burge, No. 05 C.
2007).
232 Kitchen v. Burge, 781 F. Supp. 24 721,735 (X.D. I 2011).
253 Tillman v Burge, 813 F. Supp. 2d 946, 968 (N.D. 11 2011)
234 1. 956 sor KosWorks, Michasl Tillman: The Torture and Wrongful
an_Inocont Man, YouTume (Nov. 7, 2011), hup:/ /wwyou
#u-SLEKGTscaRA.
cluded Daley, but the amendment was rejected by the
192, 2007 WL 2278265 (N.D. Il Aug. 8,
wiction of
com/watch
former Office of Professional Standards Director Gayle Shines
all conspired to suppress evidence of police torture that Plaintiff
claims would have been exculpatory.***
The Court later further detailed the allegations against Daley
Plaintiff’s Complaint includes allegations regarding the torture
of other individuals in Arca 2, including the high-profle case of
Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants
in this case, along vith others, engaged in this practice, failed t0
intervene to end it, and suppressed information regarding this
nsive pattern of abuse. Plaintiff alleges that as Mayor and
State’s Attomey, Defendant Richard Daley had personal knowl-
edge of the alleged abuses perpetrated by Burge and other De-
fendants at Area 2, Plaintiff aserts that, had Daley and Martin
investigated the allegations of abuse at Area 2 prior to his arrest,
he would not have been tortured and would not have been
wrongfully convicted. Plaintif further alleges that as a result of a
conspiracy between Daley, Martin, Hillard, Necdham, Shines
and others o suppress information about torture at Area 2,
“Plaintif’s wrongful prosecution was continued, his exoneration
was delayed and his imprisonment lasted far longer than it oth-
erwise would have.” According to Plaintff, between 1989 and
1992, Daley and Martin were given “additional actual notice that
Burge was the leader of a group of Chicago detectives that sys-
tematically tortured and abused African’ American suspects
through an Amnesty International report and public hearings.
Plaintiff alleges that in 1996, despite his knowledge that findings
of torture and abuse had been made against Defendant Dignan,
Daley promoted Dignan to lieutenant. Plaintiff also alleges that
Daley, against the advice of his senior adsisers, “personally in-
sisted” throughout his tenure that the City of Chicago “continue
to finance the defense of Burge, Byme, Dignan, and other Area
2 detectives, despite his personal knowledge that Burge commit-
ted acts of torture. 2%
While the judge dismissed Daley from Tillman's § 1983 sup-
pression of evidence claim, finding that his actions while State’
Attorney were covered by prosecutorial immunity and his actions
as mayor did not constitute suppression of evidence—and also e
cused him from Tillman's § 1983 coercive interrogation claim—
she held that Tillman had sufficienty pleaded § 1983, § 1985,
§ 1986, and state-law conspiracies against all of the defendants, in-
cluding Daley:
[Tillman's] allegations
uggest that Plaintiff's torture was more
295 Tilnan, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 95354,
250 1 938,
than just an isolated incident, and suggest, further, that the sup-
pression of the truth about what occurred at Area 2 was the re-
sult of coordinated efforts that continued for some time. . . As
discussed above, the Defendant Officers are alleged to have par-
ticipated directly in the torture, as did Burge; [Assistant State’s
Attorney] Frenzer allegedly did so as well, by attempting to take
a statement when he knew the torture was ongoing: Martin and
Daley are said to have undermined and obstructed findings of
torture; Shines allegedly suppressed findings of torture; and
Plaintiff claims that Needham and Hillard continued to sup-
press findings and undermine investigations into torture at Area
2 after they took office. Plainiff has listed a litany of actions at
Area 2 furthering and concealing the abuse that took place
there . . . and has also provided specific allegations regarding
acts of torture performed on this Plainff and on others.
These allegations are sufficient to allege a § 1983 conspiracy 7
Upholding the § 1985 and § 1986 conspiracies, the court de-
termined that “[Tillman] has alleged that all or nearly all of the
victims of the alleged conspiracy were members of the same class,
and that racial epithets were commonly used during the course of
this torture. Those allegations lend sufficient credence to Plain-
Gil's claims at the pleading stage.” Finally, the court also upheld
Tillman’s state-law conspiracy claim, restating the alleged conspir-
acy, and Daley’s role in it, in broad and powerful terms:
Though he does not again outline the specifics of these actions
in Count X, the allegations are the same—that Defendant Of-
ficers, Burge, and Frenzer participated in the torture itself and
that Daley, Hillard, Martin, Needham, and Shines covered up
and suppressed evidence of that pattern and practice of torture
of which Plaintiff was a victim ***
XXIIL LeGistarive INmiaTives
In 2009, the Ilinois Legislature created the Illinois Torture
Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC)*” in response to demands
from community groups and lawyers for the torture victims, and it
continues to review more than 100 complaints filed by Hlinois pris-
oners who allege torture and abuse. Under its mandate, it has re-
manded sixteen cases to the Cook County courts for evidentiary
571 976,
258 1 97778,
250 1 75,
210 Ser Mlinois To
Anx. 40/45 (West 2000).
Inquiry and Relief Commission Act, 775 111 Coxr, Stat
hearings,*"" and has done so despite recurring funding crises and
political attacks orchestrated by Cook County State’s Attorney
Anita Alvarez, whose office continues to be disqualified from ap-
pearing in Burge-related cases.*'*
Local and national activists and lawyers also collaborated with
Chicago Congressman Danny Davis in drafting and championing
the Law Enforcement Torture Prevention Act of 2011, which would
make police torture a federal crime without a statute of limita-
tions ** Davis reintroduced the legislation in January 2012 after a
congressional briefing that featured presentations on Chicago po-
lice torture as well as other police and prison human rights viola-
tions *!* Unfortunately, the bill has little chance of passing while
the House of Representatives continues to be controlled by con-
servative Republicans.
Locally, The Illinois Coalition Against Torture gathered more
than 3,500 signatures in support of a Gity Council resolution that
declared Chicago a torture-fiee zone, and the resolution, which
was sponsored by Alderman Joe Moore, passed by a unanimous
vote in January 20122 In’ October of 2013, Aldermen Joe
Moreno and Howard Brookins, in response to an organizing cam-
paign by the Chicago Torture Justice Memorials Project and law-
yers from the People’s Law Office, introduced a reparations
ordinance that would require the city to administer financial repa-
rations to all torture survivors who are unable to sue for financial
compensation because the statute of limitations for such claims has
expired; provide all torture survivors and their families with
tion-ree education at City Colleges; create a center on the South
ide of Chicago that would provide psychological counseling,
health care services and vocational training to those affected by law
241 I Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Decsions, Toxruws. Iouimy & ReLik
Cosn'x, hutp:/ /wwwZillinois.gov /itrc/ Pages TIRCDecision aspx.(last visited May
6, 2014)
212 See G. Flint Taylor, Unloly Alliance Seoks o Dismantie linois Torture Commission
HuseGron Post (October 16, 2013, 1:16 PM). hup:/ /www huffingtonpost.com,/
finttaylor/unholy-alliance seeks-o-_ 4103757 hunl.
213 Law Enforcement Torure Prevention Act of 2011, HR. 3781, 112t Cong,
§250 (2012).
244 Congressional Bricfing on LEPTA, Privint TORIURE: SUPRORT THE Law EXFORCE
Mext Towrure Prviatiox Acr (LETPA) Bro (Mar. 29, 2012). b
prevention blogspot.com/2012/03/ congressional-briefing-on
{featuring statements by Congressman Dais, torture survivor Darrell
tional Police Accountability Project Exceutive Dircetor Brigitt Keller, and People’s
Law Office atiorney G. Flint Talor)
205 “Torture Fe” Chicago Resolution, 111 Co. Acarsst Torure. (ICAT) (Jan. 18,
2012), b/ /ilinoiscat org/ torture free-chicago resolution
enforcement torture and abuse; and require the Chicago Public
Schools to teach about these cases. The ordinance also calls for
public torture memorials and a formal apology from Chicago's
leaders to those who were tortured and their communities ***
XXIV. Burce CONVIGTION AFFIRMED
In April 2013, a threejudge panel of the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld Burge’s perjury and obstruction of justice
conviction. The opinion was written by Judge Ann Williams, the
only African-American judge in the history of the Seventh Gircuit
Introducing the court's decision, Judge Williams wrote:
justice and perjury.
Former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge presided over an
interrogation regime where suspects were suffocated with plastic
bags, clectrocuted until they lost consciousness, held down
against radiators, and had loaded guns pointed at their heads
during rounds of Russian roulette. The use of this kind of tor-
ture was designed to inflict pain and instill fear while leaving
minimal marks. When Burge was asked about these practices in
civil interrogatories served on him years later, he lied and de-
nied any knowledge of, or participation in, torture of suspects in
police custody. But the jury heard overwhelming evidence to
contradict that assertion and convicted Burge for obstruction of
Judge Williams further discussed the history of Burge and his
confederates’ pattern of torture:
For many years a cloud of suspicion loomed over the violent
crimes section of the Area 2 precinct of the Chicago Police De-
partment. (GPD) located on Chicago’s south side. Jon Burge
joined the CPD in 1970 and rose to commanding officer of the
violent crimes section in the 1980s, but his career was marked by
accusations from over one hundred individuals who claimed
that he and of under his command tortured suspects in
order o obtain confessions throughout the 1970s and 1980s.
Burge was fired in 1993 after the Office of Professional Stan-
dards investigated the allegations, but he was not_ criminally
charged. Years later the Gircuit Gourt of Cook County ap-
pointed special prosecutors to investigate the allegations of tor-
ture, but due to statutes of limitation, prosecutors never brought
246 Odinance Secks Reparations for Chicago Police Torture Survivors, Can. Torsuss. Jus.
s Mivorias (nd), available ol hup:/ /chicagotosture.org/articles /ordinance-
s reparations-chicago police-torture-survivors/ (last visted Sept. 15, 2014). As of
October.
nance, and it was avaiting a public hearing before the Council’s Finance C
217 s
014, & majority of the ouncil membe
had signed on 10 the Ordic
V. Burge, 711 F-3d 803, 806 (7th Gir. 2013)
direct charges of police brutality against Burge. Eventually, the
Gty of Chicago began to face a series of civil lawsuits from vie-
tims seeking damages for the abuse they endured 2%
Judge Williams summarized the “horrific™ evidence that the
govérnment introduced against Burge at trial:
At wial, the government called multiple witnesses 1o testify
about the methods of torture and abuse used by Burge and
others at Area 2 in order to establish that Burge lied when he
answered the interrogatories in the Hobley case .. [T]he wit-
nesses at trial detailed a record of decades of abuse that is un-
questionably horific. The witnesses described how they were
suffocated with plastic bags, clectrocuted with homemade de-
vices attached to their genitals, beaten, and had guns forced
into their mouths during questioning. Burge denied all allega-
tions of abuse, but other witnesses stated that he bragged in the
19805 about how suspects were beaten in order to extract confes-
sions. Another witness testified that Burge told her that he did
not care if those tortured were innocent or guilty, because as he
saw i, every suspect had surely committed some other offense
anyway?”
The court then went on to dismiss Burge's assertions of trial
and sentencing errors, which it summarized as follows:
Burge raises several challenges 1o his convictions on appeal,
which we do not find persuasive because the evidence shows
that he lied when he answered the interrogatories, his false
statements impeded an official proceeding, and they were mate-
rial (o the outcome of the civil case. Overall, we conclude that
no errors were committed by the court and Burge received a fair
trial. Finally, Burge objects (o the district court’s reference to a
victim impact letter at his sentencing, but it is well established
that hearsay is admissible at sentencing hearings, so we
affirm 20
XXV. SETTLEMENTS 1N THE Civie, CASES
Since 2007, the amount of taxpayer money paid to private law-
yers to defend Burge and his alleged co-conspirators, including
Daley, in torture-related cases has more than doubled to over $21
million." In the Tillman and Kitchen cases, as the deposition of
208 1 807,
249 1 808,
250 1 506,
231 These numbers have been compiled by the People’s Law Office from figures.
obtained from the City through Frecdom of Information Act requests and from othe
public information. See PLOPLE'S Lw OFFcE, SUMMARY 0F DOCUMENTED CITY AND.
Daley approached, settlements with the Ciy totaling $11.5 million
were reached, and, as of September 2014, the City had paid out
$64.1 million in settlements in the torture cases.*** When the
amounts expended by the City to pay Burge’s pension, by the
county to pay Special Prosecutors and settlements against county
prosecutors, and by the State to fund the Hllinois Torture Inquiry
and Relief Commission and to compensate wrongfully convicted
torture victims under the Illinois Court of Claims Act*™* are in-
cluded, the total exceeds $100 million.>* Factoring in the more
than $22 million paid to Burge's confederates in pension money
over the years*** and the money expended by the federal govern-
ment to investigate and prosecute Burge, the ever-mounting total is
estimated at $125 million.
CoxcLusion
Over the decades since the Chicago police torture scandal first
became known, much has been accomplished. Men have been
freed from prison and death row, and many of them have been
compensated for their torture and wrongful convictions; Burge,
once a highly decorated police commander, has been fired and,
much later, convicted and sent to prison to serve four-and-half
years with fellow prisoner Bernie Madoff; a Torture Commission
has been created, is reviewing many additional torture complaints,
and has recommended hearings in a number of them; a special
master has been appointed to search for additional imprisoned tor-
ture victims; Special Prosecutors Egan and Boyle reluctanty ac-
knowledged that crimes were committed by Burge and his men;
the role of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has been rec-
ognized by a federal judge; and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has
offered a begrudging public apology for Burge’s crimes. 2 As sig-
nificant as these victories, hard won by lawyers and activists, is the
fact that the legal, political, and public perception of the allega-
County Exvexprrsis i Burk Torruse Scawost (st updated
[hereinafier Bukce Exvexoruns] (on file with author).
52 1
253705 L. Gow. STAT. Axw. 503/1-29 (West 2014),
254 Bugce. EXPENDITURES, supra note 251
255 S PrOvLE’s Law ORFICE, PENSIONS PAID 10 AREA 2 AND § OFFICERS ACCUSED OF
Tokruke Usoek Jox Bukce. (through Serr. 2014) [hereinafier Torrume Pexsions]
(on file with autior).
236 Ser Fran Spiclman & Tina Stondeles, Rabm Somy” For Burge Crimes, Cia. SUx-
Tists, Sept. 12, 2013; Flint Taylor, Ralm Emanuel Apologies for Police Torture. Now
What?, Nariox (Sept. 18, 2013), hup:/ /www.thenation.com/article/ 176247/ ra
emanueLapologizespolice-torture-nowwhat
Sept. 30, 2014
tions of a pattern and practice of racially motivated police torture
in Chicago has turned 180 degrees from a dismissive disbelief that
was fueled by an all-encompassing official cover-up to an accepted
historical reality that was placed by the United Nations in the same
category as U.S. torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and
commands front-page headlines in Chicago when the mayor offers
an apology.
Nonetheless, much remains to be accomplished. Burge still re-
ceives his pension;*” somewhere between fifteen and forty Burge
victims remain behind bars;?* many others, including Anthony
Holmes and Darrell Cannon, have received embarrassingly litdle or
1o compensation; all of Burge's key operatives, particularly John
Byrne and Peter Dignan, have escaped prosecution for their per-
jury and obstruction of justice:** and a federal statute that would
prevent such injustices languishes unpassed in the U.S. House of
Representatives. This unfinished business looms before the lawyers
and activists who have waged these batiles over the decades, and
must be completed before the City of Chicago can remove the
stain of the police torture scandal from its collective conscience.
257 In 3 decision that further fanned community otrage, the Police Pension Board
decided in 3 44 vote that Burge could continue to collect his police pension despite
his conviction. linois Attorney General Lisa Madigan challenged this decision by
bringing suit in Cook County Chancery Court. The case was dismissed by the trial
judge. the appellate court reversed, and the inois Supreme Court, in a four to three
decision, reversed the Appellate Court, holding that Burge can continue 10 collect his
pension, which has now reached the total of nearly $700.000. Soe State of Hlinois v
Burge. No. 11 CH 04366, 2011 WL 4073313 (Gir. Ci. Cook County Sept. 2, 2012)
(Novak. .): 'd sub nom. People ex re. Madigan v. Burge, 981 N.E. 2d 1058 (11 App.
o 2019); e, 2014 1L 115635 (IIL S. G 2014). S also TowTuRs: Pexsioxs, supra
0 In 2013, the Peopl's Law Officeand the Macnbu fusice Cener Fled s
elass action case under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 755 I Ce Axn 5/
9014, hat sought evidentiary heaings for & cie of prisomer o
prised o all Burge-seated orture victms who remain behind bars. SeeNotice o Heas
451, 91 CR 10108
£ Judge Bicbel dis-
missed the class action, but appointed a special master, Dean David Vellen of the
Loyola Law School, "to idenify all incarcerated individuals who have valid claims of
coerced confessions at the hands of Commander Burge and those under his authority
and 1o present their names to this Court for the appointment of private 1o bono
counsel to assist them ting their individual claims under the Post Conviction
Hearing Ac” Plummet v. People, Nos. 81 CR 21451, 91 GR 10108 a1 8 (¢ ook
. Mar. 12, 2014)
259 See G. Flint Taylor, A Slap in the Face of Torture Victims, Cins. Sux-Tiais (Nov. 27,
2012). " hitps//seww.suniimes.com /news, otherviews/ 16658057-452, aslap-in-the-face.
oftorturesictims htmlf.US n95RAVIg,
“Burge and other cops in Chicago have
long known they could do whatever they
wanted to black men and anyone in the
black communitg; however change is
coming now, an diustice cannot continue
to be denied and delayed. Excegt for the
short prison term Buige served, all the
other torturers citg and police officials,
prosecutors and judges got away with
either participating in, turning a blind
eye to, or coveringfilp the torture scandal.
It is our collective hope that history will
continue to expose and shine light'on
their involvement in helping to create
one of the largest police corruption
scandals in US history.”
CPD torture survivors Ronald Kitchen, Stanley Howard,
Marvin Reeves, and Mark Clements, duthors of the book,
“Tortured by Blue: The Chicago Police Torture Story,”