When the case of the shooting of a Chicago police officer in 2012 came to the chambers of Cook County Circuit Judge Thaddeus Wilson, the court saw something that it said was obvious to anyone who has done any practice in the criminal law: the statement of the mother of the suspect Paris Sadler was free of any corrections or edits. Since the mother Talaina Cureton said that she had edited and corrected the statement prepared by Assistant Cook County state’s attorney Joseph Lattanzio, it was a curious fact. However, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, long criticized for her policies such as prosecuting citizens who dare to video police in public, fought to block any effort to reexamine the statement and denied that her office omitted critical information. Now, it appears that one of those videotapes that Alvarez hates, existed showing Cureton editing the statement. Lattanzio has been fired. However, once again, without the videotape, Alvarez’s office would have likely succeeded in blocking the challenge and protecting the prosecutorial misconduct.
Chicago Officer Del Pearson was severely injured but survived the shooting. The revolver was recovered in the basement but the defense moved to quash Sadler’s arrest and suppress evidence questioned the accuracy of a witness statement. Lattanzio insisted that no corrections were made. Judge Wilson expressed dismay: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any statement taken by an assistant state’s attorney … where it is perfect with no edits or corrections.”
Then it was revealed that Cureton had secretly taken an iPad recording of her interview with prosecutors the day after the shooting.
Alvarez has continued to struggle with those videotapes that she has fought against in police abuse cases. In June, her office had to indict three Chicago police officers and a Glenview officer for lying on the stand in a routine drug case after a video contradicted them. That video was taken from one of the cruisers as opposed to a citizen.
What is most striking in these cases of prosecutorial abuse is that they often occur in relatively strong cases like this one. Prosecutors will sometimes feel more pressure in the high profile “easy” cases to secure convictions. However, this case also reflects the fact that most cases rely on the ability of the defense to prove misconduct without a videotape. Without that videotape, Alvarez’s office likely would have prevailed on appeal in saying that the absence of edits is purely speculative and that the court needs to give the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt in such cases against the word of a “biased” mother. Notably, this was not the main prosecutor in the case and there is no evidence that the other prosecutors were aware of the failure to include the edits or corrections.
Alvarez stated that “Any law enforcement officer who lies under oath has defied that public trust and is subject to the same legal consequences as any citizen would be.” However there is no word at this time whether he will be prosecuted for false statements in the case.
Look guys. It is a no brainer. The state is not going to prosecute the prosecutors and nor would the feds. Oh, the feds might do it if this happened in the defamed town of Ferguson. But what needs to occur is the filing of a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985. That is for the violation of civil rights of the victim (the accused person). The prosecutors and other perps are what we call “state actors” acting under color of law to deprive this person of the right to a fair trial and take away their liberty. It is a million dollar lawsuit.
He deserved to go
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
paul,
it was just an expression and a way to tag an earlier joke, erm, pun.
IMLO , former POTUS Clinton correctly answered the question he was asked …
— “I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman.”
I fault the questioner for being unable to phrase the question to elicit the desired response •
As usual , Nemo Me Impune Lacessit •
Docile Jim Brady – “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski..” That was a statement made on TV to the American public. It included the infamous finger wagging which was a tell that he was lying.
NDTE
Bill, Hillary, whoever; if, and this is where the difference sometimes lies if you are cherry picking, the damage done is to someone, i.e. a prosector lying or finagling the system results in a miscarriage of justice that results in an innocent person being convicted or vice versa. Police, prosecutors, judges etc are the epitome of justice and fair play. Theirs is the protection of the citizenry from the citizenry. Their actions are direct and sometimes immediate. This is where the rubber hits the road.
That Bill Clinton got a hummer or more from a clerk is really nobody’s business. No one was harmed. That he slipped and slid his way through semantics and other twists and turns does no one any harm except those that were really counting on him getting nailed, in to the cross terms.
I bring in the ‘other’ side because you keep harping on the ideological issues and stray from the actions of the rubber hitting the road. You bring up the Clintons and I respond with the greatest shame of a Presidency in the history of the US. It’s just a knee jerk reaction. All politicians are deficient. Some are downright scary. Did you watch the GOP debates? Trump believes that vaccinations cause autism, Obama still wasn’t born in the US, and he is going to build a wall along the border between the US and Mexico and ‘make’ Mexico pay for it. How would you like that, in small or large bills?
There is simply so much more to play with on the right.
Paul,
Of course, I meant The Royal “They.” I suffer from dyslexic megalomania.
fiver – I don’t agree with Prince Charles on architecture. Why would I agree with him on the use of American homophones?
fiver – who is the “they” who say Americans have no appreciation of homophones?
And they say Americans have no appreciation of homophones….
Fiver, clearly, lol.
Issac – I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on consequences. Lies by the police or prosecution would be grounds for dismissal of both of the offenders.
This post concerns a government agent who was also an officer of the court deceiving a court on a matter clearly material to the proceeding.
Attempting to inject Bill Clinton into the discussion is an obvious distraction and clearly fellatious.
rjb, I do not believe that was the scenario. I have been deposed many times and seen and read THOUSANDS of depositions. NEVER in my experience, has a judge been present. Depositions have the witness and all attorneys involved in the litigation. Often, it’s just 2 attorneys, because there are only 2 parties to the litigation. But, sometimes, in complicated litigation, there are many attorneys. I don’t know where the defining of sex as intercourse came from. But, to limit it to intercourse, is, as we know, ludicrous. And that brought us Bubba’s infamous, “It depends on what your meaning of “is” is.” Said with that condescending Bubba smirk.
Nick, I’m just throwing this out for you to clarify if you choose. if you can. Yes, it is equivocation. Bubba was not obligated to help convict himself. My recollection and understanding [it was a long time ago] is that when he was asked under oath whether he had had sex with Lewinsky that he asked the judge to define sex. It was defined as intercourse. He then denied having sex with Lewinsky. I understand that to be a technically correct answer based on the judge’s definition.. If that is indeed how it played out he was guilty of lying in the common sense meaning of the word something every politician does repeatedly, but don’t lawyers very often count on technicalities of the law to win their case?
I said, Bubba Clinton, not Hillary. What is your take on Bill lying under oath. I still expect equivocation. Please prove me wrong.
Isaac, Clinton was mentioned because he is the most famous liar under oath in my lifetime. And, many people said things like “It was only a deposition” or “It was only a civil case.” I’m pleased to see you did not equivocate. And, I did testify as a govt. investigator and probation officer many times, although the vast majority of my career has been in the private sector. Finally, I NEVER VOTED FOR BUSH. And, I DESPISE the pompous Rumsfeld. You constantly fall into the duopoly myopic mindset.
NDTE
You are not in a position of the public trust. If Clinton is charged, prosecuted, and found guilty, then she should get a book, at the very least twice the size of what the ‘ordinary citizen’ would get, thrown at her.
However, to bring Clinton in you first have to clear the agenda: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, etc, etc…..
I wonder Isaac’s thoughts on Bubba Clinton lying under oath. Get ready for long winded equivocation on that. Cops lie under oath all the time. If caught, they should be prosecuted and fired. I have testified under oath hundreds of times. I have never even thought about lying. When you swear to tell the truth you MUST. I have had times where telling the truth was hurtful to my client.
Regarding the statement. I have taken thousands of written statements. My mentor, a KC detective back in the 70’s, taught me to always make at least a couple mistakes that need correction. I’ve never taken a statement that didn’t need corrections and I have never taken a statement that did not have the initials of the witness on every page. But hell, this is Chicago. You know, where the Cult leader comes from.
“Fired” is a good first step. If it were someone outside of law enforcement, the next step might be bail.
We’ll see.
Alvarez stated that “Any law enforcement officer who lies under oath has defied that public trust and is subject to the same legal consequences as any citizen would be.” However there is no word at this time whether he will be prosecuted for false statements in the case.
Herein lies the problem. Any law enforcement officer who lies under oath has defied that public trust should be subject to more than the same legal consequences as any citizen. Those in positions of power and trust carry a greater obligation. When the penalties are slight to none, the activities continue. It’s not rocket science.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/David_Leisure_Joe_Isuzu_Resized.jpg