Jon Burge FBI investigation

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET 1417740-0 Total Deleted Page(s) 2 85 Page 185 Duplicate; Page 186 Duplicate; Page 187 Duplicate; Page 188 Duplicate; Page 189 Duplicate; Page 190 Duplicate; Page 191 Duplicate; Page 194 Duplicate; Page 195 Duplicate; Page 199 Duplicate; Page 200 Duplicate; Page 201 Duplicate; Page 202 Duplicate; Page 203 Duplicate; Page 204 Duplicate; Page 209 Duplicate; Page 211 Duplicate; Page 212 Duplicate; Page 213 Duplicate; Page 214 Duplicate; Page 215 Duplicate; Page 216 Duplicate; Page 217 Duplicate; Page 218 Duplicate; Page 219 Duplicate; Page 220 Duplicate; Page 221 Duplicate; Page 223 Duplicate; Page 226 Duplicate; Page 265 Duplicate; Page 304 Duplicate; Page 305 Duplicate; Page 306 Duplicate; Page 307 Duplicate; Page 308 Duplicate; Page 309 Duplicate; Page 310 Duplicate; Page 311 Duplicate; Page 312 Duplicate; Page 313 Duplicate; Page 314 Duplicate; Page 315 Duplicate; Page 316 Duplicate; Page 317 Duplicate; Page 318 Duplicate; Page 319 Duplicate; Page 320 Duplicate; Page 321 Duplicate; Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 354 355 356 361 363 368 370 Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; b6 - 6; b7C - Duplicate; Duplicate; Deleted Page(s) No Duplication Fee For this Page US. Department Einstice a October 15, 1990 Federal Bureau of Investigation U. S. Department of Justice 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago,:IL 60604 Dear 00: 66: As we discussed, enclosed please find a civil 'rights allegation brought to our attention by the Task Force to Confront Police Violence. As you can see, this allegation requires very prompt atte 'tations problems. b6 b7C ?3 Very truly yours, FRED FOREMAN United States Attorney Assistant united States Attorney 219 S. Dearborn Street dA\ 15th Floor I Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 886-7651 I - Map "314 ?eeces ruml?qo I 07% law-engrangly?i b6 -6 b7C -6 L-.. 11 1? ,v (Rev. 10-3- 77) 18.11.1111, 1 v. swift-m 124Mm 1 1' 54214321? A 1 ?1 dam "kgab-Bg Mb 1 1+1 '10 be raw-nod Yu ?No a .s 1 rl?a? ?w 3:33.229 -4 ?4 .In; an. mam: ~1W?umiumSTATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF 0 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OFW COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT- -CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE or THE fl?? STATE 03 ILLINOIS f? No. 85 13285 a SNADEED MUMIN PORT or PROCEEDINGS h?d in gpe entit cause, before the Honorable JOHN J.WHANNION: Sua??- led of said court, on the 13th day of May, A.D., l987."? HON. RICHARD M. DALEY, State's Attorney of Cook County, by MR. JAMES REILLY and MR. THOMAS FINN, Assistant Stafe's Attorneys, appeared for The People; MR. DENNIS Doss?rr, appeared for The DefendantJohn surge 1; 3.3 John Paladino 27 29 Shadeed Mumin DCT 51983 . MORGAN a 1 as.? o: m: Ciactm count . cauamm. nmsmu .ngw FINLEY .. 4/ 1g ww?mm? .1 3-: W. urn-m- t: "Wm. Ht?: 1:2- go a. . ?33 Ii! :5 ll ?Hipallegations against Lieutenant Burge from Area 2, k" that Lieutenant Burgehad no contact with the defendant when the statement was actually signed, elicited by -etective?Ealadino and the state's Attorney, and at the conclusion of all of the testimony we would ask the Court to deny the motion. THE COURT: Okay.' Call your first witness. MR. REILLV: We call Commander Burgen . .. 1 . 4 u, . . called as a witness on behalf of The People of the .state of Illinois, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATIOE By Mr. Reilly: Will you state your name and spell your last name for the benefit of the'court reporter p}qese3_l? A John surge, B-u-r-g?e. . You are a Chicago Police Officer? A Yes, I am. . What is your current rank, sir? Commander. . . And where are you assigned? 4 A The bomb and arson unit of the Chicago. Police Department Detective Division. raw-sateen- .ntnl I I eel. Ip? Imun-uu: . I .u?u-osu? un- null. .1- vu- I How long have you been a Chicago Police Eighteen years. Directing your attention to October of 1935, where were you assigned at that time, sir? A I was the commanding officer of the Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit. I want to direct your attention_spepificaliy. g? i to the afternoon and evening hours of I: October 30th, 1985. What shift were you working on that date? owes worxing afternoons, from four o.m. to You were the commanding officer on duty at Violent Crimes, is that correcSpecifically sometimeiduring_the evening of October 30th, 1985, at around ten did . you receive a prisoner named shadeed Mumin? A Yes, sir? And where was that prisoner transported is brought to Area 2 from?the 7th Police He had been placed under arrest for another 5 . . aseyu . 5 ted charge in the 7th District? 3- A Correct. 3 And approximately what time of the evening, a 4 if you recall, did he arrive at Area-2? 1 A Around ten p.m. 6 . And when he arrived at Area 2 what was 7 done physically with Mr.'Mumin? A I was told by the detective wno*transported I I: 9 him that he was in the facility. I then toid the J..- has any '5 I 10 detective to bring him into my office. I wanted to my :5 to nixlook around the courtroom l' . ?Bo you see Mr. Humin in court today? i is A YES. 3 16 ?Please point him out and describe what he a 17 is wearing today in the courtroom. I i 13 A seated at the bench wearing eye- 5 glasses. . 29 3 MR. DOHERTY: re stipulate he's identified the 21 Defendant, Your Honor. 2: THE COURT: The record may so reflect. :3 MR. REILLY: '11 acceotlthat stipulationt When he was brought into yoUr office, sir, us . it . 19- EV- Fa: er. (ari'n'u-r: 1' ??u?uu I) I In! I?i.?1ll. h- I.) at. I, I Eli- f? I was there anybody else in the office with you? A ea, Just Mr. Mumin and myself. 1 Was Mr. Mumin handcuffed at that time? A He was when he first arrived there, sir, howEVEr, I told the detective to remove the cuffs. And were they removed? A Yes, they were. Where is your office located in relation Immediately adjacent to our squad room_and :rative offices, and the desk there is utilized by the watch commanders. And when he was brought into your office was toe doo: Lei: open or closed? Did you proceed to speak to Mr. MuminYes, I did. 3 . ?haf did you tell him atlthat time of the evening? A I had a conversation of maybe five minutes duration at the outside. I told him the reason why he-was there, told him the eVidence that we had against him, told him that certain statements had been made by co-defendant in the case implicating he 7 Flinnhf" _l_u ?u - new ?rw-nr-n-u was one of the offenders. Various idle chatte.. Nothing to the point. No questions relative to the case. 4 And you, in fact, were not Eh! In: and detective on the case? 6 A No, I was not. Did you attempt to contact the officers or ?vl magnetite-r12- 'b to And after your-five minute conversation, . or in the-- _he conversation in your *1 '1 of-ice there, 1: what was done with the Defendant, Mr. Muminthe interview rooms . . :a?en was placed in an interview room? 16 A To the best o??my knowledge. 17 physically see it, though. i I didn?t and a (O 13 Now, you indicated that your shift was approximately four p.m. to nidnight. Did you go home at approximately midnight that night? :1 A Yes, sir. ?y I Did you have any further contact with ?1 hr. Mumin that evening? 4 A No, sir. urn-the investigating 131-: - gI-N?-?-lulm-luml II On (In :r 0 I .1.- VI Ill 0? a. .1 11?? The statement Mr. Mumin provided to ook ezective Paladino and state's Attorney Cr the following morning and early afternoon at twelve fifty were you even at Area 2 at :hat?ime, sir? a I A No, sir, I was not. Were you even in the building at that timeonimately- mid. October 30th, 1985, and when did you next return to Ar ?5 a 2 1" 3:2 course of your 05 th Mr. Mumin on the 3ch 1935, did he, at any time, indicate to na? n? "n wanted to talk to a lawyer? A No, sir, he didn't: was he hand uffedfvery by you or an;oue in your presence? t-me hexas in i A He was not handcuffed at any Did you ever push him up azain:t a wall? A No, sir. "trt 19- :iu- ur- val-151'- u' in .. nuDid you ever make any racial comments or threaten to kill him at any time, sir? A No, sir. ?hile in your office at any point in time {as he handcuffed? .- A No, sir. Did you, at any time, have any contact with the defendant where you produceq awshh Magnum an? told him you were going to play Russian Eoulette" A NO, Die you, at any time, threaten the defendant with a gun or ever put a gun to his head and pull the trigher three times and tell him he was a Eucay You testified in your testimony tocay you didn't even question him about,the crime itself, i that correct? 3 (I) A That's correct.' Did you, at any time during your contact with hr. Mumin, place a typewriter cover over his head until his air supply was cut off? A Did you, at any time, place a typewriter 10 Wt i 5 9- - cover over his head to the point where he passed out in your presence? A No, Did you, at any time, threaten to out a typewriter cover over his head? A No, sir. Did you ever threaten him at any point did anyone else 13 your presence commi any'of the following?- Or 0: the above described instances? no, si;, not in my presence. A You had or ogportunity to revies the arrest report of Mr. Suadsed Mumin, also :nosn as Georgsh Samsey, from the 7th District,.is that correct,, . g. sir? . . i A Yes, sir: And you learned that at eig?t thirty p.m. at the 7th District he was allowed to mass? shone I I And he arrived at o'r cation some time in the 1 or after, is that correct? low-4s:sadism-12 - r- low-snangand3 . a . . 1 .. -- unu- um I You may Okay. 1.: n? "in. DOHERTY: The n9: .'nh you very mu to youmay have a moment 10 who 11 ~ere handling the investigation. 0. (D mpting to contac tn the TI up!? a mum In a a Cl; anted to perate with th oolice H) at Area 2 did he indi A I. ate you advised him of what I-uou-on?pp' i I-nleNot Afte y? 1. Did he ever request to ma: {6 another phone i . bean: .l In?. Iii-the De?endant he e,?was in the ?th District? :ietrict and sign him out after he had been processed there and bring him to the areair -. .. a u- - . :e;:naan. he cro'tnt from one police =.a.ion to the i a; . ;:i_ae Station :03: you here at? 3 Correctyou renueetinJ -reutn. 3 yet was so you coals qaesticn him a brought to yo?: A The of the 7th District police Seatign are quite lacking. we have a very CRO EXAMINATIOH (I) U) By hr. Doherty: Comman?er, did you find out Mr. Humin, e: A Yes, sir. Did you request that he be brought to you? A I told the detective you hereonally requested that the :1 0 U) I4 was personally familiar (D the purpose of viewing lineup 3-3 . 19-w-ee4e-gFeljs-M . 9 I lu.n-u nus-nu?. ?I?ll nut?. uu-ulur urn- uo'I-II-vrv - I uni-nun - - 9 ?0 with the investig tion being conductea that Mr. Mumin was involved in and that's the reason had him transported to us at Area 2. well, was Mr. Sha?eed Mumin, the Defendant 1 .ere, ever placed in a lineup at the police station you were at? Objection. Relevance. T32 0363;: Overruled. Hemmay answer. TF2 EITLESS: I don't know if he was or Not. well, would anything refresh your recol;ection? MR. REILLY: Objection. TEE 0033?: Sustained. at. soeaarrz All rignt. THE COUEI: He might not have been there, counsel. But when he d?d arrive, Mumin Ir, was brought to you by the getective? I A That?s correct. And those were the instructions that you 6 detective, to bring him to where you 3. gave to n- were in police station? correct. 1% I I. 9? 3 m??ilr! a adm -5 And where is it you first saw Mr. Mumin in your personal office, commander? outside the door of the inistrative offices. 2 Is this where you had your initial conversation him? I . A No, I did not. Jhere did the initial?conversationrwith? . defendant tase glass, commander? A In my office. you and he, the defendant, I: present? '3 A Yes, si:. :5 :4 And the purpose of that conversatidn, though, Ii :5 was to geestion him.about the evidence you had against 16 - him in tne armed rocbery, isn't that correct? I I7 A do, that is not correct. I wanted to, give I: :3 sin a little food for thought. 1. I9 2 well, that do you mean more specifically when I :0 yo! say "food for thought," command-31?. i: 21 A I wanted to let him snow bow lie was implicated 22 in this offense and by whom, and knowing that he nas, in fact, an (ex-convict, seet his cooperation in the -k :4 investigation. ii =5 1h ism-desegFte?ie gr ?a?x ifs-cumin ?can ?I?i .- u- .- m-n-u- -4 -- nun-vr ?Lug-n- Ina-nur- .- nu Int-u. .3 All right. And by seeking his cooperation, m? were you attempting to get him to give you statements concerning his participation? A That was not my intent at all. That's the reason I never admonished him prior to talking to him. Do you know if anyone ever admonished him? M3. REILLY: Objection to the formuof the .Overruled. He may answer. did in my presence. _?orever, given to the MP. DOHERTY: So how long was.tne conversation . . you had with Mr. Humin? Just five minutes in iength? A Le than five minutes. 0) And you had no other conversation with Mumin? I at that time, no. . J- ny other me -c I I ll. 4' ?in. a I 0 I 9" "wsl .. .. . . . 3'3 x?allowed you a i zere at? est of my recoil ten p.m. he 1?qe? to thirty Was that what rest your testimony 9 I a. .92: t. 1" (an t? (I) Humin we. brou . "66" anybooy tale re bu I. (-does 1 ht him to bring I didn?t. -n mini (I) him tee But that dgesn't involve not. into this ?e tive me on the telephone several times a wait Did you relea 6 cu [h at the se office id[ml the handcuffs ?minimum ?it. anion-I um?? (a LII-I in. A Well, was that in your preSen presence. Do you know-- But the phone call was made a from the first police station he was at, correct? IA To the best of my knowledge. Do you Know if he called a lawyer at the :irst ysliee station? A don't snow who he called.' M3. REILLY: Objeetion. TEE COURT: Ovevrule?. Ms. But ne dien't ask to mass any phone 93;; iron tne seccnd eclice station 53 was crougnt xi) 9 But you did tell him that a co-defendant had made statements implicating him in the robbery? And you asked him to coogerate with you, something to that effect? Or you were urging nis was givin him food for (0 (I: "f .hit-.- In. .u-m?t-n(3: (I) hang :5:320 One G. 3.lite you to coop causayour :ter rate." your .L an a my own typing? Overruled. 1? =hat ternoons. Do you recall what wor 0: your offic ecall exactly, no, 3 a, so There may or may not have beened, commande -would 9? 1 urn- bud . ?warm ?we imam. Ammo-a nava- - ?gvr-u I- I. dun- v. our - on- A..- And what-- Where was the typewriter that Lies Hunt used to do your typing? :5 ?3 ?1 . Brown's typewriter wa? located in toe commander's office, which was closed and locked. And Miss "unt's typewriter is normally loosed in her Are those the-- Oh, so Brown's typewriter res inaooecsible because it easflockedaup-in the. o;?ice? I. . A CorrECt. god you, as the commander, did you have a Key to that loosed office? a 33; that was not my o?fice. That was the onmanoe: of the area's office and I did no: nave a for it. And the other typewriter was locked by.? Miss Tunt, but it was in plain View? put 20 A I don't anew if it was in her desk or in The one that was on her 6e33, does she a cover on it when sne is throng" usin? it? A I never seen a cover on it, no. .- . I -. 94 u- our1.1Lill. All right. Have you ever seen any typewriter cover at all in the police station in which you are at? A I'm sure I have at one time or another, Do you snow if there is a typeer_ter cover in the police station anywhere, the police station "ou were at, on October 20th, where Mr. Mumio was a . I 1' bro"::feel quite certain there was probably or? somewhere in tre building, but I?was no: direc:in my attention there was one and when Er. Mutin-- But Mr. Muuin mad it clear to you, commander, that he didn't want to cooperate with you in this food for thought discussion ?y 2 - you were haVing with him, is that'coerCta- A No, that is not corrects cooperate wit. you 0: he didn't want to cooperate with you? A ?e indicated that he aanted_tc cooperate. Did you testify on direct examination that Mr. Mumin said he didn't want to cooperate with you? 21 . . I) U- ?0 '1 J?Jpnru?eq?l?54. 10:90 It) A him, couns A [a \0 (20 UI ac. brought to No, I did not. Did Yes .. And your conversation with him was for Less tuan :ive minutes, yes. Did you take a statement from him at this? n?he agreed to cooperate? . -.. O. n?O, id not. you have an oral statement? eas not trying to elicit a statement from elor. 39 after he said-- Strike that. The Ishtar" has in July of 1935, correct? Bhat's correct. Meaniat tne defendait. p. I don't recall there was a warrant in or not, counselor. gut you didn't arrest Mr. Mumin at the time '9 your office or this armed robbery, ,l 23 did you? A I didnlt arrest him. He was already under arrest. Not for this armed robbery, though, commander, 7" a he? A No. Did you arrest him for this particUlar armed toe time me was brouahhim, counselor. re I1 tr) ?ow, when he said he wanted to cooperate 5? i I tn you, woe. .e say? I A Just about tnose exact words, and I tale to get h0;5 o: toe detegtives that handled it and.have them come in and speak to him. well, did you know what the allegations 0 I A hes. i c-o. ?3 And you anew someone was shot? A Yes, I did. - a: ?0 And you knew a co?defendant had been arrested? A That's correct. 23 I I. as \l I . kl Iii-J IM- I v-n - n?nm-u-n - - ?2 35.7.73 1' And you knew the co?defendant had said that the defendant here was prESent, correc.? A That's correct. He was the driver, he told you, is that right? He didn't tell me anything about his pa?ticipation of the crime. .6) -Hhat is the coxdefendantrecall, counselor. A female juvenile. And Mumin told that-? The defenaant, that .e wanted to cooperate with you? 2 Eat you didn?t gue?tior nim any further 1? about tne roobery in July? AR. REILLY: Oojection. As<ed_apd answered. TEE A:ter be 5316 he wanted to cooperate with you, what did you So with Mr. Mumin? A I yelled out to MeDermitt to come into 2" El l?o-n-cp..-A- nu- -- . -1erview Not the interview you assign roomcertainly do, coun at time, no. Mu?in woen that That means 1 W33bac ?idn .33giv .inyou Know who next had contact with Mr. but .1 31 coogerat ?i re a - 5 '3 with you, 6 ?0 you a he had partic i 3 him, l'f 15? .1. wnen yau were 13' 39 involvement ate :ent g. . 1? 0.. 16 interview room. I already testified to-that. .?umber lu(I) rcom 5:5 he Afea 2, did he admit to you all-him? staement fr tne parpose 0 .L havin- v? ?3 another polic agreed And then you put him in a to coaperat basically what occurred, yes. ?(1) ca; name If.) D: "b :029-.- lab..- =35: Okayitied - I-j I Redirect? a 1 i i tained. C3 0 All righttgke proceedin Noth 3 a T10 .L a F-a-l-a-d?i- i an .i .Jv minor. 'vere had ?l i 3 I He already sa u, Your ?ow a 1 Any further witnesse ?my I I mil-Ill gllnu. union-? cu?lrm. . - unguu-u?Iw-In .wm-uv-uumagmun- I. ml- I. .n-uu nun Into ?an v- . nun-r - I -umnua 1' i" M3. REILLY: No, we have a cougle of conferences. - THE COURT: All right. We can do that. All right. We?ll take a brief recess and con?erence whatever cases he have. (Whereupon a recess was taken in the *5 6 ter which above entitled cause, a following proceedings were had:) T13 CLETJ: Peeple varsus Shadee? Mumin, h. I TEE COURT: Okay. Mr. Doherty, call your efen 0. ME. DORSETY: Thank you, Judge. The In asks leave of court to call the Defendant, Mr. Shadeed Mumin. Coulc you please walk.up to the witness stano A U) UM I N: called as a witne in his own behalf, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATIOE By Mr. Doherty: THE COURT: Okay. ProceEd, Mr. Doherty. DOHEREY: Thank you, Judge. 9 Would you state your present name please? A My name is shadeed Mumin. ul" I 'u . I .7 ?Mm-Inu? and-I-u u- - shun-I? Jr: 23:. nun-1kgImam: .1 -. . own-1- Spell that please. A s-h-a-d-e?e-d, z-u apostrophe m-i-n. And how old are you, Mr. Mumi 2 A Forty-three. Were you arrested on October 30th, 1935? A Yes, sir. 4 Ahout what time, if you know, were you arrested on October 30th, 1935? A I thin; prchably aroun? p.mt' . has that by unmarked or marked police officers? A Unnarked. Unmarke? police officers puliea you over? A Yes, Sir. where at? At Yist and Green, off alsted. Ans did they search your car?4 - -. ..4. asked me-- When I got out of my car they asaed me where was the had A 5 A) hotgun and some pistols I we supposed to have 7 . . When I first was pulled over by them they 5 h) These are the unmarked-- Unmarked police officers, "e ?Did they take you anywhere? 9 No, sir, they was talking to me, one of them was I.) ?3 IS 19 irlv 4 - ?as. H. while the other one was looking in the car. All right. And after they looked in the car did they'take you anywhere? A In the course of looking in the can, behind n? my back seat I had a sachet case with my leather ools in it because I just had came from the leather shop, and in that leather case I had a pistol sticking down there and the detectiue in the car there found that, and at that time then they called the?paddy, wagon and took me to 61st Street. Do you know what time you rot to ?lst and ?acine? A No, sir, not right offhand. That's the police station there, right? You get there about how I I the detectives encountered you? many minutes after f: r- .f thirty.J I i? A May have been around seven believe. so about a half hour later you were in the .0 police station? A Yes, sir. What happened initially at the police station at 61st and Racine? A At the police station, when I arrived there, i I I .lnm-Q 9 i asked the detectives there what was I being char: ed ,0 mg?u all-:1nm' with. They told me for having a concealed weapon. Hull Illu- Inn-u. h) :i 3 What happened after that? . 4 I eat there for a while and then they told *e 5 me to get my stuff. That I was going to 111th. 6 i All right. {ho told you that? Detectives or 7 the police officers? 1 A The detective did, sir. .All right. And howtwerelyoaztaae; tollilth? :0 Street? 1 1 A Ta?;n to 111th Street in a paddy wagon. l: i And about what time did you get to 111th (I) t"eet? 33 v3" snow, Mr. Mumin? have been around eight o'clocs. l?i IJI ?LiI'm not certain. i? :5 Did anyone tell you, sir, what you were a 17 being taken to the 111th Street police eta ion for? if g: IS i A ?No, sir, they just said'they wanted to 3% - :9 1 talk to me. 5 il 33 And when you got to the 111th Street police El 2: ctation at about eight o'clecx p.m? on October 30th, 1: 1935, what happened when you got there? Ea :3 3 A I was taken outmof the padd" wagon, tasen a; . 3? j. 34 upstairs to the detective?e department up there l?l'W?uu-n ?un- - nan-?I- -- ?I?l . n- . ?Irv-v It" Inn-I?ll- -- nu- I'rwl ?in? All right. ?ho took you out of the paddy wagon? A Two uniformed police officers. They too; you to the upstairs area of that police station? IA Yes, they did. To your anowledge??.Hell, strike that.? You were taken to where in the upstairs a I I I o: the golice station exactiye' A To the detective area: to a holding room You were taken into a little room? '5 . .q Sir. I A I bpstairs. H: (I) b. Four by eight, eight bv Pour, something in A -About how big was the room? A that nature p? 9 well, was it a small type room? A Small type room, "as, sirYes, sir, about that size. Yes, sir. A And were you handcuffed at the time you were i the roomnatal-I iJH-a .nu?nn lum? hail ?at Anna an}. 3..-. ?nd In! s! A At the time I was put in the race i res handcuffed but the uniformed officers too; their cuffs off and went out, closed the do r, and a few 4.1? . . minutes after that in came one Lieutenant Bury: and out the-cuffs on me. his cuffs. Mr. Mumin, after the uniformed officers left the room you say Lieutenant Burge entered the room? . wfwj.Yes. Is that the same lieutenant that first testified here? A It is. In your hearing? A It s. i All right. When you first saw Lieutenant Burge?? Had you ever seen him before? ytu snow?? A No, sir, I hadn't. What did he first speak to you? What hanpened when he first came into that room? A Ee told me to get u? and turn arouns to the wall and I was handcuffed immediately to a wall where I couldn't sit down, with my hands behind me in this direction. . were you standing or seated? . 4 a 7 J- Standing. I couldn't sit. And when you were handcuffed to the wall was there any fixture on the wall? I There was a fixture where they had the a cuffs holding onto the wall there. -Q Describe the wall_area that you say you were handcuffed to. - A There was like a screw or something that a had been put into th wall and the handcuff was in (I) t3 re. Like a hanger. I or the record the defendant has indicated an appendage coming out of the wall similar to a 3 ing-or YE (I) Or a hook. Was one or two hands handcuffed at that time? Two handcuffed. What happened then? lbDW-le?b I was asked to tell;- I was asked to tell him about a robbery, and I informed him at that time I had no Knowledge of what he was speaking of. Now, please recite to the best of your q. ability or recall what Lieutenant Bur?e said to you. 50 ?ew-454 ?Iat. LINK?11-1 .u -- ?nlII-?ll A A He said, want to Know about the robbery." I told him i had no knowledge of what he was talking about. What did'he say then? A He told me, "Oh, yes, you do." And I'kind of smirked and said, "Sir, I have no knowledge of what you're talking about." He told me-- He said, "You'll talk before you leave here..'' and he stepped . 1 . out for a few minutes and came back and at that time the cuffs was put on even'tighter, and he left the room for approximately about a half hour, and durins u' up 5 the course o: that time, by being handcuffed to the wall, my wrists became very numb and I'll say about around approximately a .alf hour he came been and kind of loosened the cugfs and said, "Are you ready to talk now?" And I said, PI have no gnowledgeiof? h: what you're talking abouttwo hands cuffed? A Both hands was handcuffed behind me to the wall. I was line on my toes. And what happened during that period or time when you were handcuffed to the wall, as you say, tight? Did you feel any pain? . A Around my wrist here the circumation was cut off. 51 . I lea. $6 1 gunman-urn! -dfpainful? 21> Yes, it were. What happened then? A He came in atter about a half hour and took them off for a few minutes and asked mey- He said, 'him are you ready to talk to me?" I said, don't Know what you're talking about. I have no 5 Knowledge of what you're talking what i I I I I informed him at that time. what happened then? A . .1 became kind of angry and pushed me into the wall. And about hoqlong, to your understanding or tlinking, had you been in'the police station at this period of time? n- A About an hour or better. Aster he pushed you, Lieutenant Enrge, what did he do? A He let me stay handcufted ?or a few minutes and then he took them off and we went into his office. Q. Where is that office located? A Down around the hallway from the room where he had me presently handcuffed. 52 .m-w-eoewely-a? 9" I -- Hun? EJIHMLI qltlrun-:? I'm-u m- ;qu-n- a . .4. .b?a-u - . on. - nun-u..- In"! opin?n?I lI?l . . . un-n-r?u no" a. . .4. - cuss-u- u. I I I?ll.? v! . :1 mum . u-n-nn Would you describe the-- A We came out the little room that I was being detained in and went down a little hallway like and into'his o?fice, like an office like one of those over there. About how mamy feet was the office, the lieutenant's office, from the little room you had been in? . . Il? A Approximately about ten, rifteen feet, I ,0 And who brought you to the office? a A Lieutenant Burge; What happened in the office, Lr. Mumin? . '1 A de told me?? He said, "Youire not going to i talk, huh?? And I told him, don't know what you're talking about, lieutenant." he told me at that. time, "Do you know that we can bury you in the; penitentiary?" 1 told him, "i still don't know what you're talking about." During the course of that time we siting there and he ashed he about my son. Then he inrofmed me that, "we really don't want you. We want your son. Where's your You're a damned fool, man, for you not taking the blame for something you didnJunta-I H. m, I - [7 ill llImwlII I.) KI 9 13 lmr-t- .- v'vv-v unn- u- nil? we:- - ?awn-an u: ?u . un- u. ?-hm-lI?-tlill w? tun-I." nun?1w..- I told him, don't know what you're talxing do. about, lieutenant." So he became angry and he sat down at the desk and I'm handcuffed to the chair where I was sitting in, and he reached into the= drawer and got a .uu Magnum out, which it was fully loaded; and he took all the bullets out except for one and he spun it and placed it to my head as I'm sitting in ?ront of him and_he snapped it_three times. He said, "you're damned luchy that i didn?t Kill you." I Just sat there and looked at him, and he said, want to know about the fucking robbery." and he got really belligerent with me and I told him, don't know what you're talking about." Mr. Mumin, in the office there were you handcuffed? A Yes. . And seated in a chair? A Yes. 9 Was there a desk in there? A It was a desk in front of him. Were you behind the desk or in front of the desk? A In front of the desk. And?where was the lieutenant? 5h warmers-(whee &hd Adm-am I .A .mf?d humour guru-o In: .- . ?luAh. .- qv - I'm-was over there sitting where you would be if you were-- Where the person would sit benind the dess? A Sitting at where you normall sit at the desk. Where you would be seated behind the des . And when he pulled the gun out, Magnum, as he emptied the chamber, was the chamber directly at towards you ?n A Directly towards me. It was pointed at me. He had it up. Are you tal?ing about the barrel? A Yes. -The barrel was pointed towards you? i A u: As he took the bullets out? A Right. as? -Q Or some bullets out, and the chamber was not facing you? Is that correct? A No. All right. Well, you really couldn't see-- Or could you see the chamber itself from where the bullets were removed or not? 1 A Well, it was a revolver. Like it was a revolver, so-? 55 m? en, In. nun an: can can cal "nu-?min 1 i IJ i6 l7 13 -mn Iv?; ?yum-55ml?; ?3 9" 'u ??M?mm 1? o- 061*? I .- tv?ygg In. 9 . Well, do you know of your own snowledge whether or not there were any bullets in the gun when he was pullhg the trigger? A One. He took:them alliout except one. You believe there was one? A I seen it with my own eyes. And did he snap the trigger slowly or quickly? .. . A Snanped it slowly. He pulled it up, put it to my head and pulled it, snapped it and locked, turned it again and pulled it, and the third time he did it he took it away and said, "Oh, you're not afraid, huh?" And I just looked at him. i Then what happened? A He sat there and looked at me a while and then he said, "You know you're telling a fucking . lie. You know where they're at." I said, have no knowledge what you're talking about, lieutenant." So he became angry and Jumped up from the desk and over in the corner there was a typewriter with a brownish-like cover on it. He snatched that off and returned over to me and said, "You'll fucking talk or I'll kill you." And he placed the typewriter cover over my head, and I was handcuffed to the chair 5 .1 141 I?ll.m-y?u n. inc- -u-l gun- [up-anu- - - .- 0 VII unav- nunum?: like this and he pushed me back and held the cover on my head until I passed out, him and another detective. For the record he's described he's seated a) ihe this, meaning he was seated in a chair with his 33' O- 5? ends ind his back handcuffed. That' the demonstration that he gave, for the record, Judge. Now, would you'describe the.typewriter-; a couer? .A It was brownish, long. Do you Know what material it seeme to be A Vinyl. Like a vinyl cover. - How is it that he placed this over your head as you say? A ?Like you drop it down over?a_typewriter. He?, just put it down over there and held it over my face until I passed out. So the cover was placed over your head, is that correct? A Yes. As it was placed over your head were you able r- 3: I Do you know where Lieutenant Burge's hands were as he placed the typewriter cover over your IQ Wu an- 3 3 head? 4 A He had one?holding the back of my head 5 and holding the cover around there and he had the other 3 one on my face like this, pushing it, pulling it 7 :i down on me. 3 i; And indicating for the record one hand was 9 I: at the rear of the head and the other'hand.was with: ,9 1 his palm to the front of the head 0: the witness. Now, the hand that was to the front of your head, as the cover was?over your head, the :3 lieutenant's hand that is, what was that hand doing? Ea A Pushing it in my face. Pushing the cover and smothering me so I couldn't breath out. av . ?Annual-I?Qull I - And as his hand pushed the cover on your .- 5" Mon- head what feeling did you get2; \l ml:- A I?tried to move my headlbut I couldn't move it. Every time I moved he would move and push - .-. u. . ..I it, and finally I passed out.? Well, did it affect-- What affect did it =3sz I a have on_you when he put the cover over year face? A Felt like I would die. In-c .. g-u- Were you able to breath? 4- 58 H, . leewaeuw??yaa - . . I.- . w. i .Mm? ?u us. 5? ,lf? le mun-13 I55 I :5 I Elm IJI inmum-m nu v- '4 till-- A No. And for how long was that cover over your A Approximately three seconds to a minute. Didn't take?that iong. Three seconds to a minute? I mean you're not sure? A I'm not sure. .. .- . .. A) All right. MR. REILLY: Objection. COUTT: Try not to lead him. Sustained. MR. DOHERTY: All right. And it was on your head how many times? A He pulled it three'times, and the third time I hollered. Then he took it off and laughed, him and the other detective that was with_him. Do you know that detective's name, the dner don't. Did he do anything; that other detective? A No, he Just sat there during this time wren he first placed the cover over my head, and I alin; and trying to stand up with the chair was strut \v holding my arms, you know, in a position behind me because I- I ?a 3 Irina anw Elsiwavy-n?u?u-u- -. uqq?w. nr-a?a?uu?I?pu1?u-AI- nu. -- a- nun?nu.- an: - ?1 u-um?? In I-?l Inn-u- - . I was handcuffed to the chair. But it was Lieutenant Burse that was-- A (He's thebne that did all the work. Q, And how long were you in there with the typewriter cover? How long did that entire event take place? You said it was three times. How long. a period of time? A About twenty minutes. Approximaely a half hour. . i. . . Twenty to thirty minutes you say? K: d) pl- '3 Then what happened, Mr. Mumin? A The cover was taken off and he asked me was I ready to sign a statement and I told him that I'll do anything. Just let me go. Then what did they tail you or what were you told then? . A Lieutenant Burgeiinformed me at that time, he said, "If yOu tell somebody nobody will believe you because there's no marks on you and you better sign the fucking statement when this attorney gets here tomorrow." And he said, "If you don't, you'll get it even worse than what I did to you now.' About what time is it now when you agreed to 60 mew-elemeezj-es . I "din-*4 . sign the staement? Do you know? I A It may have been after eleven o'clock. I) . Ana-JL-wnru {u Did you ever make any phone call from the police stationNo, sir, not from 111th. 1 oil-luv: - a Did you make a phone call from the first police 0 station? . nun-? call. I called,av?niend thereto= emu-amnioncome pick up my car. lo Well, was that so your car noulda't-- A That was to inform someone to pick where was your car? Eg :4 A Left around let and Qalsted near Green, ii i where they stopped me. i 15 Did you request any other phone calls at 1 g! 17 timeNo) sir, hecause'at the time I arrived at ;?_111th the lieutenant inforaed me then that I wasn't El :0 getting no rucaing phone call and not calling no gi fucking lawyers because he knew the routinedidn't even ask. I didn't even ask. - a. 33 2 You didn?t ask him to make any phone calls 24 at 111th.-.- . a a I If? lam?on?.un . 3?wau?nalu- nu - -a ?1 .- m?un-Inn-.- 0- a I -m-uv-4ull 6 A When he informed me of this Iidi n't ash. Well, :hen he informed you of what? A He told me I wasn't getting no rush n; phone call. He said you ain't calling.no inching lawyer ang we're hip to that kind of stuff. What's what he told me. So I didn't even as: to make a phone call. Now, at the time that you agreed-- Or did you agree with Lieutenant Burge, did you agree to sign the statement? .. . q. A After he tortured me and put me through this, yes. And that's in the evening? A During the eveni g. After he had done these acts? A Yes. Why did you agree with the lieutenant to sign the statement? . I A Because i?tearedlfor my life and he took me through all this torture. I couldn't stand it no more. Do you recall the lieutenant stating any. racial slurs to you? my -. MR. REILLY: Objection. THE WITNESS: Yep, he called me a bunch of niggers. 5 .b . t- . L15 Ilaf?ll? li w*IIIfCOURT: Overruled. Go ahead. The 1 will stand. MR. DOHERTY: when is the first time youawere brought before a judge? so that's 2 correct? A a snonledge. to Sign th 3 A The of November, to the best of my Which was-- You were arrested on October 30th, "ll . two days after the Yes, sir. After the lieutenant-- 0r after you agreed statement the following day through ,Lieutenant Burge, where were you placed in the police stationfirst put there? was placed back in the room that I was in when I was brought to the?station.' Were you handcuffed or not? I No, I was not handcuffed at that time. You were just seated in the room? Yes. Is there any?- Was there any toilet facility No. Did you receive anylfood at any time? 3e No, sir. ?2 3 ii Did you smoke cigarettes?. I 3 A No, sir. 4 1 You didn't smoke then? I 5 A No, sir. i; 5 Was there any water in the room? 7 A No, sir. 5 5 Did any police officeps orhstate'e at 9 any time feed you? =9 A No, sir. "3 Did anyone even inquire as-? Excuse me. Did I I IJ you see anyone-- Strike that. 3 315 you see anyone after you were 913056 in 3? i'?oomNo, sir. I.had to use the restroom and u- ON beat and beat on the door. Nobody ever answered the door. I never seen anyone until the next morning. - About what.time-mm. - A About nine o'clock in the morning. What happened at nine in the morning? A The detective, I thine his name is Paladino, .IIW II: ?1 22 cake in and I informed him that I had to use the rest- 3 (. 33 3 room and he let me out and I went to the restroom. II 3? That's the detective that was the second . . a eu- ., - 2. i?i?u II DI. I 2a.: Mrswitness here today? .: lg) i 3 A The second witness that testified here today. 3 i When did you see the state's Attorne 4 h, A Later on during the day, around eleven thirty or something like that I think. 1 nun-that you signed a statement? A Must have been around twelve, something lite h. uu'un?n?IIwould you describe what occurred as you 19 a signed the statement, what occurred prior-?immediately and mum au- 0 be u; . prior to that? ?Do you .now? Just before you signed f. I it what happened? A I was advised if I wanted to sign the statement. JD hat? Cl? who asked you L11 pig .E A The State's Attorney, I think. . Where was hethe little room where I was at. :1 .. is You were not E: A No, sir. Is that the first time you had seen the State's Attorney? ?3 I I A Yes, sir. w: Did-- Were you shown any statement? A Not at the time I was assed. He went out and nun-s h? 1. F. '6 came back and then the second officer that testified came back with him, and that's when it was presented to me- All right. Is the.statement any ofwyour handwriting? A No, sir. And after you signed the statement what happened? A They left. The Statets officer left the room. I was left in the room until that night. Why did you sign the statement, Mr. Mumin? A I had to sign it. If I didn't, I would get smothered out again or whate?er, and I believe it, so I went along with him. Any oral statements that you made to the police at any time in police custody, Ehy'did you make? 5 6? those statements: A I didn't make no oral statement to any of the officers. . Did you ever see Lieutenant Burge after you signed the statement? A I seen him that night, or the next night, at Street. ism?vl-nn'aI-suvr-lnu 4 awn-51 "am?nJ m" - rmvilaul'l - q- - .-.-I- If pro"? . In nun . nun?ran.? u- nun-v Chi-u. nuaw-n?nu-n- n-u- -al- . Were you kept in that room again? A Kept in the room from the time I arrived until that next night, on the 3lst, until about two in the morti?g, when I was-takennbacw to Street. . And the next morning, or later that morning, you were brought to court? A Right. when you saw Lieutenant Burgeulater.6nd?hef day of October Blet, where was that? A He was in his office. He came and looked in the little room and told me; see you signed." He said, "Good boy.? That?s what he told me. :e told me to 3669 my mouth shut too-about what happened to me. Were you ever placed in a lineup? A No, sir. Have you ever beEn placed_in-a lineup? . A No, sir.. MR. DOHERTY: Nothing further. THE COURT: Cross?- CROSSAEXAMINATION By Mr. Reilly: Mr. Mumin, you were arrested at seven fifteen in the evening at 70th and Halsted on October 30th, 1985um? I 5* lawthat correct? A To the best 0: my knowledge, yes, sir. Some tactical plain clothes officers arrested you, right? A Yes, You were in your car, a 1978 Baick? A Yes, sir. Q, Okay. And they searched that car and recovered a -357 revolver, right? I A Yes, sir. i Along with a variety of ammunition, right? A I had no knowledge of ammunition, sir. Okay. And after they stopped you on the street and searched you, seamched thecar, they took (f you over to 61s and Racine, correct? ir. Yes, (0 I A They took your car these too, didn?trthey?'r A I found out aftefwards they did. .4) Okay. And at 61st and Racine you were processed there? When I say "processed," they got some information from you as to where you live, what your name is, right? They had you fingerprinted? 3 68 i . ., .isf-sv?sasangn?Ej - I I n?uwde-?? =21 Its lip: hum-I rum-luvI'll" la- n? Dian-kn .- W?r ua? sung?u.- Ill ti A No, sir. Isn?t it true you were fingerprinted at eight fifteen that night at the station of ?lst and sites Racine? A I don't recall, sir. You might have been fingerprinted at eight fifteen right? A It's possible. 1, . _j -n Okay. And you said they allowed you to make a phone call at eight thirty p.m. You called a friend, right? A I called at 61st; Right. About eight thirty right? A I have no knowledge of the time, sir. And you were charged with a felony that night, correct; unlawful use of weapons?..u A That's what I was told.: Eventually somet}me that evening, right? A Yes, sir. A You were told that? . A Yes, sir. . And after they were through processing you and charging you there, you were taken over to 111th Street some time that night, right? 6 9 - 54 i _i\1 ?0 . . 1'1 i A Yes, sir. a 2 You got over there and you told us on 3 direct examination it was about eight o'clock. It -. 4 was more like about ten o'clock whenEyou got there, i; I 5 wasn't it? 6 ii A I have no krmledge: I thought, to the best knowledge, that-- 3 Well, you don't know what time it was when 9 you got there- then, do youBest of my knowledge you're correct. a . The best of: your knowledge what, sir? - ,2 I A That is correCt. I have no-- I. 33 0- That? you don't knowlwhat time it was? 5 ,4 E: A No, sir. :5 A?d when you got to 111th Street, you were put I: :5 in an interview room, and that's when you met Lieutenant Surge, rightYES, sir, - 19 Okay. And he threw the handcupf; up on you? I 23 :5 A Yes, sir. 9 He handcuffed you behind your back. and to the I 22 well, right? E, a 33 A Yes, sir. 70 mWn?I?n -qnu?r I 1 r? I . .Yes, sir. I) Okay. Real tight to the point ?bere they were 32"" 3 hurting you? I. i? . 4 A YES, sir. I ,5 Which caused you to lose the feeling in your .1 6 a: hands? 7 A Yes, it did. 3 They werevery numb?. . J. 1 I .A Yes, sir. I :9 Did they dig into your skin? z: A Yes, sir. if I: Hurt you a lot, right? . :3 A Caused pain. Okay. He did this more than once, right? IS A That's right. :5 Both yoUr hands? 1: A Both hands were sir. 13 He put those handcuffs as tight as he acid on 39 3 your wrists, right? A That's correct. 31 And you said he threatened you and asked you 813-001: a. rebbery, right? :3 3 A Thatfs correct. You said you didn't Know anything about In. Elm-?m. wt 19-w-4sjss?esm- 51:5 If! at I I In in mm,- 5-- I) UI .uh-o- .4. .. .- .c?w Inn-v - -. . . u- um-mu?u-u- up- a-informed him I didn't have no Knowledge what he was talking about. He said you-- You said he then toox you into his office, right? A After a while. Ago when he put yoo in the office you said he handcuffed your hands to the back of the chair, ri ht? (R) A Yes, sir.' i And he put the hahdouffs on real tight, right? A Yes, sir. Caused you a lot of pain? A They weren't on as tight as at first. They had been on ahd off several times up to that point in time, right? A That's correct. And that?s when you say he pulled cot {he .hh revolver, right? 1 A Yes, sir. It was fully loaded? A Yes, it were. He too: out all the bullets, right? a A All except one. Well, he took them all out and put one back 72 A U: um!- I: In or nun-v . . .IQR mun?Jun..? InuiL? .97: . . . right? ?I-nhanal- - Jiml in, right? i 2 A No, sir, I didn?t say that. Well, didn't you tell us on direct that he took them all out and put back one? I said he took them all out except one. Okay. You could see there was one.1n there, That's correct. -. And you said he spun the chamber, right? That's correct. He spun it real fast, right? He spun it. It spun real fast, though, right? I have no Knowledge how fast it spun, but-- Well, he spun it, right? YES. . . . It revolved severa1_}imes, right? I didn't-say that. He spun it, thoa?h? Yes, sir. Then he put it to your head and pulled it' three times? Yes, air. Real slow like? 38 uun- nun-d - -I lion-.? - .- nt nun?mil-law.- - us I w- HulC-OmJ-firing position, right? a A It was. The barrel was to my forehead up there. He pulled the trigger and it clocaed? A Yes. Right? But it never went 05:? A No, sir. c, And it was--? And yeu "werefa?u? diffs?:5 t?fo ?Erie. . chair, right? I A Yes, sir. And you're in a police station, ri or? A At 1113.. And there?s other'polioe officers out in tne ma area out in the main lobby there, isn't there? A I have no Knowledge etc was out theresee any. i You didn't see anybooyfelee? You had your glasses on that night, didn't you? A Yes, sir. You had your glasses with you? A Yes, sir. .. 31+? q_ Now, after he put the gun down you-said he then jumped up and went ever, got a typewriter Eover, right? 7% 1'9-w-41- WEBB-59 - . . a mun?nun" a femur. VIInH?cum. 0 unwav- 1 mm.- 2m. A After he didn't get no results after snapping the gun,he said-- He then asked me to tell him and I wouldn't tell him nothing. had nothing to tell him. The question is, he went and got the typewriter cover, right? A He jumped up and grabbed the typewriter co?l?erl went over and got the typewriter cover, right? A Yes, sir. And it was a brown, vinyl typewriter cover? A I didn?t say brown, sir. Well, okay. What color was it? A I said it was gray. Gray? a: 3 h_ A Grayish. Grayish? - 1 A Yes, sir. .i Was it vinyl or plastic? Did you say vinyl? A Vinyl. I know leathen, sir. And he put it Up over your face, right? i A He put it down on my head. Over your head and shoved it in your face is 75 i I.) U: ?75 what you said, right? Yes, sir. Pushing it hard up against your face, right? A Yes, sir. a Never broke your glasses, though, did he? A I didn?t have my giasses on. You took them off for that? A I didn't have them on. -.. . SirYou had them off? Well, you canft see without yo"r glasses, can you? A Yes, sir. Okay. The glasseslwere o3? now.when that was A That's correct. Okay. And you said after about three seconds i you gassed out, is?that risht? A Approximately that time I gassed out. And did you gust slum; over in the chair there and go unconscious? A That's right. i How lonz were you unconscious '5 :or! A I have no knowledge of that #Hi and an: all nus all IP13 nusYou have no idea how long you were i unconscious? a 'Rs. DOHERTY: ObJEction. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. REILLY: You're slumped over in the chair . in this lieutenant's office, right? Is that correct, sir? i A That's correct. i Did you fall out of {he chair? {Ni 3 A No, 51-. a But you did go unconscious? A Yes, sir, I did; and you don't know if it was an hour or five minutes? 1 A It wasn't no hoUr.' i Onay. Then he did it again, right? A After I regained consciousness he did.it againm'? a And you passed out agein? A Yes, sir. Then he did it third time? :2 A Yes, sir: And you passed out again? -. i A I didn't quite pass out. I hollered and he i took it cos. Then you said, "I'll sign anything." right u-llbl 0* A =That's what I said. "I'll sign anything." Those were your e?act words? What were yqur exact words? Withdraw that. What were your exact words? A I don't recall. But you told him you'd sign the statement? A I said that's what I said. Had he shown you a statement up to then? A Nope. .- f? 9 Had he presented you with any type of piece of pacer to sign? A No. sir. After you said, "I'll sign angthing." he toes you back in that interview~rhom, right? A Not right then. Well, eventually he took?you back in the room, right? . v- A Yes, sir: You were not handcuffed back in the interyiew roam, though, right? A No, sir. And he left you and you didn't see bin? i I ?1 again after that, right? A I didn't see him no m~re until the neit date, until the next night. 78 . ?Willi].? . yuan? lung-.1- --4- .. I- mum? - . Ink?- .?uuv uni-o nun-u - -I-nu- interview Okay. So you spent that night in the room, right? A From the time they brought me there. Okay. You slept on the bench there? A I sat in the chair. 0 You sat in the chair there? A Yes. 9 Until about nine o?clock in the,morning?i .4 u. 5. I when Detective John Paladino came in and let you go to the washroom, right? . I knocked on the doorallowed you to go to the washroom then? A Yes, sir, he did. Then he came back and you had a conversation I a I o. with him, rig.t A I ad no conversation with him. A i Okay. Well, he advised you of year Miranda warnings, didn't he? A No, he didn't. Do you know what your Miranda Warnings are? A Yes, sir. You've heard them before, right? A Yes, sir, I have. my nm-u- .- a. .u vaI nil-n l-I ., .- nan?tunn- -g-Iu- urc- .And he never gave you any Miranda Warnings? A No, sir; not to my knowledge. Okay. Well, you were right there. I m?an he didn't give you any Miranda Warnings? A That's right. Okay. And so then did you have any conversation with him about any robbery? A No, sir. You didn?t tell him II. #0 and Western? .9 d. 0 rt- :3 .0.) 0 I, v'he let you go to the washroom he walked out of the room again, ri A He waited until I came from the washroom. Then he looked me back in the room. Q. He just locked you back in the rooh,?right? A Yes. I He didn't have a conversation with you? a) no, A Then aboUt eleven thirty in the morning he came in there with an Assistant state'c Attorney, rant. i-O 15:: I 80 . leeway-65 t-J mihr_yui -C?3wmilluml?luxLJn ?vv- un-u .- . n- n-gnu?unn- - -- 033 . Mr. Wilbur Crooks, right? A I have no knowledge of what his name is. Well, a black fellow about your age, ?ight? A You're correct. Sir? A He's a black fellow; 9 About your age, right? A I have no anowledge how old ne was} sir.jf 'Well, in his late thirties, forties? I have no knowledge how old he was, sir. Well, you talked to him, didn't you, to Jr. Crooxs, the State's Attorney? A He assed me would I like to sign a statement. $511, you had a conversation witn him, didn't you? A "All depends what you call a conversation. well, did he ask you some questions and did you give A 81 6 A 6 in some answers that morning? He didn't ask me no questions. He idn't ask you any questions? No. He didn't ask you anything about the arned No. And Detective Paladins never asked you any .I nun-n: - ain't-rhuo?Iunqwu. u-uu - . rm 9 nun-? 0 0 questions about the armed robbery? A No. At any time that morning? A Not the time when he first came in to see me, no, sir. Osay. And when he tirst came in to see you the only thing he asked is would you sign a statement? A No, sir, he didn't say that. What did he-say nhen he you? A I asked him i: I could go to the washroom when he first came in. Well, I'm sorry. A If you're sp azing'o: Detective Paladino, I'll rephrase that question. When tne State"s Attorney; Mrr'cfooks; first came in to se you, what did he say to yon? q, A He asked me he understood I was agreeing to Oxay. And you said what? A I said yes. And you said yes? A Yes. - - (in II-?wa-Inl 0 in- sly-e? 4 .H: . wm? .u .u - (?fit but had h-J all I?l IE1 zzn,.nll -T I) I cum?n.- In:- I Okay. You didntt tell Mr. Crooks that you had been beaten up the night before? A I didn't tell him nothing. I was told not to do so. I didn't open my mouth. You didn't say anything? You didn't say anything about the lieutenant putting the gun to your .head the night before? A No, sir. I I You didn't say anything about the lieutenant putting a bag over your head, right? ir. :b 0 '0 say. So after you told him you'd sign the statement, than he walked out of the room again, right? ?The Assistant State's Attorney Croats? A YES, i i And then he came back in the.noom_with, Detective Paladino, right? A Yes, sir. Then they gave you a statement to sign? A h) p. '1 I This he been previously marked as Defendant's fl) 0) Exhibit Number On for Iden ification. I'll 355 you to look at that, sir, which consists of two pa?ES. I'll ask you to take a look at that 8?3 8 A lg. Ei??qill ?ll Fr 3 I Illa- .1 a 1 .21 Call-13 3' . to (I. ?6 Lam.? 1-. . .- In: . I?d-?l?l .. statement. Do you recognize that? Do you recognize that, sir? A I recognize some of it. It looks like it" the statement. - g, Okay. For the record, you have Just spent about the last twenty-five seconds to read that right in court, isn't that correct? A I looked at it, yes, sir. . I i ,v You read it, right?? A I seen it, yes, sir. Osay. You don't have any problem reading, do you? A Not to my Knowledge. And you: sig,ature app both on I. the first pa; underneath what contains the Miranda Warnings,,correct? A Yes. I That's your signature, isn't it? A Yes- Ozay. You also placed your initials at the bottom of the first page, is that correct? A Yes. You placed those initials there, isn't that .. correct? 8# lac-weuagssn-ae in ?tug-q Mur n-?t-dll w! zt'HIv-ynw-n I-?cut? al.- nmnn. .- A And you also initialed the-~and signed the second page of that statement, is that correct A Yes. Yes. And Mr. Crooks, the State's Attorney, and Detective Paladino were present,.right? A A ?it this and asked you to?s A they? A didn't A But he read what was on the statement to you, right? Oxay. Yus it, right? And they simply presented you with "i we-l, they let you read it first, didn?t He read what A What was ye., sir. Osay. of you, right? A I was sitting in the chair and he-? sUpgosed to be said on the Hell, 5 read it out loud to you, h) suppo (P I mean you signed it. ?5 And he read the statement to you, right? to be in the-- 1 '9 statement, atement was right in front . I la.- a I I I hawnun?- an- - . ?hw?mw aW~Wi . I A He was reading it, yes. And he started at the'top and first went? . over your Miranda Warnings, right? A Not to my knowledge. He started where the writing is. IQ Well, you signed a line right underneath a paragraph that contains the?Miranda?warnings, correct? A To the best of my anowledgaynye53 sir.( .. And you signed it back on October 3lst, And this was around twelve fifty is A Yeah. Then he read the statement to you, right? A Ye A) Oxay. And he asked youhif it was true, to sign it, is that correct? A That's correct. And you agreed to sign it at that time, right? A Yes. In fact, you did sign it. I 1 A I did, yes, sir. ray. In fact, the last line of the statement .1 4 ?My II II b' .?I'oltv A?L?wb?-?rtlun-InI-?na . ha - unv-J an . tun-1d .- . . nu- nu ado-nut. a. Ill - I -- n-u-nr- . r- .s. -v-nuv - .un- I 1' - ?u says, have been treated well since I have been in police custody and hae had something to eat." That's what the last line of the statement says, right? A Yeah. i hayx And that was true, correct? A Hasn't true. 2 Wasn't true? Okay. Neverthelessreyou signed tow, Mr. Crooks told you that he was an Assistant State?s Attorney, that he wasn't a police officer, right? A night. You hnew he was an attorney, didn't you? You anew he was A I knew he was an attorney. 5: . all, you knew he was the prosecuting attorney working with the holice. You knew that, didn't you? A He informed me of that. Ohay. New, you signed this at around twelve fifty a little before one o'clock in the afternoon, right? A Yes, sir. 37 - 1 il'??dll Ill tium-- u. .. ?mun-aw" rAnd Lieutenant Burge; you didn't see him at that time, did you? A No, sir. Q. And Detective Paladino didn't make any threats to you, did he, at any time? A No, sir. He was-- He treated you fairly? Is that a fair statem G) A He never had nothing much to say to me. We didn't have that much cohtact. You never had a conversation with him is your testimony, right? A That's correct. And you never provided either Detective Paladino or Mr. Crooks with what is in this statement? A I never told them verbally-nothings.aney-i; brought the statement to me. a Okay. And you never told them anything about this statement? A No, sir. You didn't tell them anything about a robbery at the Brown's Chicken? You never provided the police with anything -91! -- 9v"! 5 7 Km. l? ummhu Inna?? . v-Inucm.- - '?wimi? - 1 v-1" u- I u. much more than your name and where you lived, is -. that right? That's correct. And you're telling this Court that the reason you signed all of this is that you were in fear of your life, is that correct? A That's correct. And you were still in fear of your life that afternoon with Jar the Assistant state;s Attorney and Detective'Paladino there, right? A That's correct. Okay. You ?eared-? You feared Lieutenant is that right, sir? Burge, That's correct. :11: And you never made any complaints to any other detective or to the State?s Attorney, Mr. Crooks, ?is - pi out there about any mistreatment by Lieutenant Surge or anybody else? 1 A No, I didn't. In fact, when you went to the County Jail on November 1st of 1985, you were first processed in the intaxe division, is that correct? A That's correct. my? 'And you see a paramedic and they examine you 89 a .. . AA l, -34 ?mm-um Inn?t a In or I In him-ummomW?u? v" nut-ru- - .n?physically, right? You remember that? A Yes. You're familiar with that procedure, correct? A Yes, sir. Okay. And you made no_complaint at all to that paramedic at the Cook County Jail of any mistreatment by the police, correct? A I did not. I - Oxay. And, in fact, there were no injuries of any type to your wrists ?rom the handcuffs, right? A That's oorrec . No marks, no bruises, no swelling, ri A That' . ft) You didn't complain of any pain to your wrists, did youYou didn't tell the paradedic you had been made unconscious tho separate times the evening before? You never said that, did you? Correct? A That's correct. You still had your glasses when you went to be examined at the Cook County Jail, correct? You had your glasses on? A To the best of my Knowledge 1 did, sir. 90 . .ig-m?auaegF-au-EE -5 l- DIN-luvs I?m ?DI-n-v I-n-Igun?4 Now, you saw Lieutenant Burge-- Strike that. Let's get back to the statement, Defendant's Exhibit Number One for Identification. Dru-->w_ You had an opportunity to read this now? in court, correct? A Yes, sir. Okay. And Assistant State?s Attorney Crooks read it to you in the inter; iew room ?there* at Area 2, correct? And you have no idea what Has-- No knowledge of anything that's contained in that statement? M3. Well, Judge, 1? :oin23 to if content i in issue or If) ob?ect. I don't know in evidence, and I don? think,it? ermane:or .b State's Attorney to inquire as to proper.for the the Knowledge of the defendant as to content. THE count Objec?ion overruled. He testified he never made any statement Whatsoever. Go ahead. M3. REILLY: So you never provided him With i any of the information in this statement, right? A It was rote up. No, sir. You read it today and you read it back on 91 T4 is El I Ewan-?.u?ng?owuwun . - n- 'l anynu-l- n-t - - wanna?nu.- l? I . . . ctoher 31st of 1935 before you signed it, right? A It was read to me. You read along with the state's Attorney, right? . I A I looned at it. You knew what was in the statement then when you signed it? A Some of it. 3e11, ne read this statement :5 you and a aseed you to sign it in two separate places, correct? A That's correct. And he read the entire statement before he asted you to sign page two 03 that, correct? A To the best of my tnonledge. ?e read the entire statement? A Re ad it from where the words started writing, to the best of my knowledge. . i . . Well, you listened to ?ne: he said? A I understand that. You listened to every word and every line that he read to you that time, right? . A Best of my knowledge, yes, sir. And after he read all that to you he asked you to sign it and make any corrections if it was true, 92 ism-emecee?irr a .t a I - l'c' . .1 i? . . 7777 7 .Q J..- I-J 16 17 IS .. tun- L-u-?near-"n. . - .p-r ..-.-.- A. n. .- . Isn't-All .. gi - . correct? A He never asked to make no corrections. Well, he asked you to sign if it was?true? A Yes. . And you signed it then at that time, correct? A es, I did. . You never interrUpted him and told him something in that statement wasn?t true, did you? A I didn't say anythi'g'fo him.? I . You didn?t say anything? A No. And you never provided him with any of the information that he read to you? sir. Not one bit of information? Eo, sir. Ohm!? Now, the next time you saw this Lieutenant 5 1 Surge was later the nightiafter youihad signed this statement, right? A Yes, sir. This State?s Attorney had already gone, or he wasn?t in your presence? A Yes, he had already gone. You already signed the statedentIlb?mskn-u I I I ItThat's correct. And you didn't receive anymore threats from Lieutenant Burge then that night, did you? A No, I didn't. In fact, Lieutenant Burge gave you his card, didn't he? I A I don't recall, sir. Well, you called him~up a fewrtimes afte; -, a i this happened, didn't yo"? A I called to see about my car when I bonded And you called Lieutenant Bur?e, right? A He told me to call him if I wanted m' car. And you did call him a couple of times? A I called him to see about my car. the items out of your car? . -A He got some bags out of the car ?or me that belonged to some people I was doing-- And he arranged for all-o: thatyou Know? A The best of my knowledge. How .any different conuersations?- How many times did you call Lieutenant Burge after this? I 94 . ie-W-eesraQEBH?m ?men-31.3.." only have knowledge of calling him a couple of times. I If I may have a moment? THE Yes, you may; MR. REILLY- I have no further cross examination. THE COURT: Redirect? 1 MR. DOHERTY: Very briefly. REDIRECT Exndihgriog?m' . By Mr. Dohe}ty:w a a. Then "on called your friend from the 61st Street police station, had you been subjected to any physical attack or abuse at that police station? A sir. were you wearing a watch when you were taxen from police station to police Station and questioned? A No, sir, I did notThe medical people down there at the Germa: :5 Hospital-- That's ?onnecte? to the Cook County Jail, mm rum-um inn. I right, the Cermak Hospita A Yes, sir. Ytu told them you had chest.pain or pressure sensations, didn't you? I'm-Ir .. A Yes, sir.? You told them you were having problems, 15 I I . .bl' - nu n?qall-II.- nun-nu 0. - nr . .l'c I - H. didn't you? A Yas, sir. Did you understand, when you signed the statement at twelve fifty p.m. on October 21st, that Lieutenant Burge was coming back to the Street police station that day? A Yes, sir, he informed me that he would be back that nig.t to see what I had.done. .. . gvr; . The medical peoole'thatydu spoke to at the German Hospital, you also told them you were-- You complained o: a rain: like feeling to MR. DOHEETY: Nothing further. THE COURT: Any recross at all? REILLY: If I may have a moment, Judie? - h. - Nothing further. a COURT: All right. You're excused, Mr. Mumin. If] TH You may have a seat at counsel table. (Witness Excused) THE COURT: Okay. Any further witnesses for the defense? e. ER. DOHEETY: No, we rest, Jud In! THE COURT: Is the defense alleging there are unl, Ianmug-.u I any further witnesses that were not produced by the State? MR. DOHERTY: Judge, for purposes of th motion I am not going to invoke the material witness rule and I am not arguing that. I told them that the State?s attorney need not be prodUced. THE COURT: Well, there is no allegation in your motion that anyone was present other than Lieutenant Surge, except through the testimony of your client, who indicatethhere was another present during the discussion with individ'a S. Lieutenant Burge -revious to being placed in the interview room. Now, if you want that individual called, if you can identify that individual, that other detective who, allegedly, through thewtestimony?tr ., of your client, was allegedly present when Lieutenant Surge committed certain acts, then-1 M3. DOHEETY: Judge-- tate's burden to (I) TJE couar: If so, it's the put that individual on if we can scertain who he is. - m3. DOHERTY: No, I am prepared to rest aha not invoke the material witness rule, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Any argument on 97 ie-ezu-eeaegeeiy?ei 1-50--.-- t! In}! I 1? I I .0 lump .94.. ?Wm-.un?u?nv - 001* - ?1 ,revealed here indicates that be invoked questioning, the motion? MR. DOHERTY: Well, I do have a separate motion, though, Judge. I have a motion rarely used in criminal matters, but I submit there is authority for it. I have a motion to amend the motion with its supplements to conform to the proo-s. That is more of ten seen in civil practice, even thouah I don't practice civily, but I am moging to state a violation of Miranda versu's Ari zone from the outset with questioning by Lieutenant Burge. I am taken by surprise by his testimony in this respect, but I believe that his testimony what we ould be equivalent of 'ques tionin.?: under Brewer versus H: lliams, which was the Christian burial speech. He said he wanted to give the defendant food for thought and alert the defehdant that? he had been" implicated by a condefendant. At that point the de: endantA agreed to cooperate. He did not mate a statement, according to hi testimony, but he a; reed to cooperate. So, in [0 other he was told certain facts, food forru? thought, Whatever, Without having received the benefit of Miranda versus Arizona. I submit that . ., a; I-lr nt-a vat: An- u?q sum-4 u-u uni-I can ?nag-:?n-u..-. . . 1- -n ?n?v A..- ?ll-Ii ??leII lug?I 1- that is the equivalent of questioning and we then get into the suyreme Court cases known as the cat out of the bag theory, that once there is an improper questioning and the defendant admits participation, any later statement is also tainted. Does Your Honor want authority on that? THE COURT: No, there is no statement given by the defendant subsequent to thiszstatement-madel- by Lieutenant Bursa being admitted to on direct examination. There is no admissions whatsoever allegedly made by thedefendant at that stage other than, will cooperate," whatever that may mean, subsequent to that. The testimony that I heard was the defendant agrees he was placed in the room and wasn't confronted again until about nine o'clock thefiollowing morning by Detective?Paladino,swho. would testify that he gave)him_his rights and elicited an oral statement,'and the State's Attorney was called and he gave him his rights and there was a waiver signed by the defendant, and subsequent to that there was another statement given. .91 ml- 4- ?lu?u?l It?: .- in. Lieutenant Burge's statements to th the line of questioning Just telling him what he knew and why he was there. His testimony 9 9 I landmine-a4 IJ .4 . versus Williama and then the cat out_ o? 3 age: is the defense portion. The IjEQurst? It'e undisputed Lhat he :w . -- '3-1 13the defendant was? said, e?fect, to that ithout admittinE any I inSEorQ_v__~ divulrinr an; aacte whatcoever?33.0 you to amend your motion, but did .you wieh to Call any witne see in that re-ard9 154i: No, juct to amend to include the alle?atinn that it was a violationfbf Miranda .3 ?ne. I The 'RezardIEae Ih'a 7C5n??9t{gI o? the impact if may Inav.e I wish to include the=e 1e3a1 . . 3 :o L) 1 D- 0-. 'na1~ument bevegfoouar; I underetand. 4.1x . My ar~umen., very bvie 1y,, I M?ggogezafy: .. jgdge? is tna? I submit. Jud you have to rule based on t} 3 teatimony here. It'e DOL a qu tion Tne def endan? ?n Egg-83.. material 31_ made alle?ation . ?tate deniee tnoce 4-- ation 3 l- Ir .1 . j. Now, he is in custody for eighteen . w'held in a little the next If Jud e, Ivoom all n1 3:7nt un.11 rnin~ not fed and, addit ona1ly, it'c an "3cr1m? to the dependant.3-v1ve montbc -o by And I Your Honor heard tectimdy that the deFendant is an ?ioo J- 55' I . .. ?l 9. 3 a. up is dw? shim HII INN Mr.? Hun-Inn. .4 HI arc-wvu - I: mic trill. n-u-vv mm:? In! - VII. . 1- I?u?m P: al-nn-u- ?nil-Ima- I i ex convict. It's almost incredible that he's just (h ?a to agree to cooperate. .There is no warrant for his arrest. He's not under arrest nor placed under arrest, transported from one station to another and, okay, I'll cooperate. Just let me sign. And that's the totality of the evidence against him, a written signature on something drawn up by somebody other than_him. Nothing further. .. a. THE COURT: Okay. Response? MR. REILLY Judge, for purposes of the record, as long as counsel has amended his motion alleging Miranda violations by Lieutenant Surge?- MR. DOHERTY: Well, I think it's in the record uh?c 5" that Paladino claimed he advised him of his :1 at nine a.m.prior to any statement. I do think that's clear and I'm not alleting a Miranda?Violation trom_ Paladino. . . TEE COURT: 'Right. 11 snow uhat you?re saying. MR. REILLY: Okay.? I MR. DOEERTY: It's the cat out of the bag, that he was told he was implicated in a robbery prior to being given Miranda by the lieutenant. THE COURT: I understand. DOHERTY: So I will agree to that, but that?s a 4 . A . -445 - . I .- IJ qu- u-g?a?v-u- nau- uwu I h?n mv-O? mu. - - . un-p?un?I .. -- nun-- . 1 'u - nuns-ml- I II - um??A-nua-m-n- .- . u. .n?u-u - ?-vrl y-w- I I?war, .. .. r: in the record. REILLY: 022a . "4 TTE COURT: All right. 5? MR. REIEL Judge, if I can respond to that. Again I thint the Court made the point, and i will reiterate that point, that Lieutenant Bursa was mrely adv.isin; the defendant of why he had been brouiht over tnere from 61stnd Racine to*=llth that He had been in licated in an armed robbery by a female Juvenile of?ender. That the detectives on the case were not there, that he would that Lieutenant surge contacted--did successfully contact Faladino at home, who was aslee . Lieutenant Bur rge ?s conversation witn the defendant was less than five minu utes, and it was gone over time and time again on cross examination that there vas no statement e_icited and no nterrogation o: the defendat in any way, shape or :orm re garding the armed robbery of the Brown's Chicken by Lieu f? (D nan Burge. The evidence was vary clear that he was then placed in an interview room until some time the following mornin?, when he I i was advised of his constitutional rights, and there was 1 0 2 1943-4 Hagen?g; ~33 .?nwum - conversation with Detective Paladino. It is then - I 2 $1 clear from the reeord that Assistant State's Attorney 3 :5 Wilbur Crooks was summoned to Area 2 and that further 4 g; conversations were had, the defendant was further 5 E: admonished as to his constitutional rights and that 6 ii a written statement was, in fact, read and signed by the defendant. a 3 The court also, from the defendant, 9 3% heard that while he claims to i: ?i unconscious as a result of this be; over the head as well as handcuffs put on his wrists numerous times and tightened to the point where they were numb and pained him terribly, there were apparently . no mares, no bruises, no swe-lin:, no numhness, and 3 that additionally, that when he was examined by a paramedic on the let of hovember, 1935, at the Cook ?7 3; County Department of Corrections, he nade no tonpiaints Is of police maltreatment, and there is no evidence of n- - any injury at that time to his wrists and he made no a :0 complaint of the police Knocking him unconscious 1 several times the evening prior. i ?1 2? would argue to the Court that the ?5 scenario that the defendant puts forth regarding 24 the signing of that statement is not believable, it ug-rw?I- I) '4 an; all Ill hi1 Lil nhn' . ?w ?dun?u: air-In.- unnpang?n?umu?mwnot credible, and that the testimonprut forth by Detective Paladino and by Lieutenant Surge is certainly more credible, more logical and more elievable. I ask the Court to deny the motion to suppress as it stands. TYE COURT: Any response iron the defense? M3. No, Judge, we rest. THE COURT: seed on the testimony or the witness hho testified, includi?g the?defendant, relative to the allegations put forth in the motion the: tee was coerced and placed in a situation of duress and forced to sign the statement. as a matter of fact he testified he never even made a statement, he was forced to si a statement prepared by Assistant Stae's Attorney Wilbur Crooss relatie to an armed robbery, an I . incident occurring in the Brown's Chicken at 116th and Western. I've observed the witnesses as they testisied and listened carefully as to what they It is this Court's gosition and factual ?indin~ that "eutnnant time did commit the acts that are alleged in the motion. I believe Lieutenant Burge and disbelieve the defendant. It's 10h credibility issue. Based on the testimony I heard the defense motion to suppress the statements acknowledged by the defendant, rather than made by . NJ. I I ?3'"lg"lr? gnu?u. na?um n- the defendant, is denied. All right. AR. HERTY: Thank you, Judge. What is the status of the other three defendants? I don't know where-u . - . .w?V - MR. TEILIY: June ?end for a conference. IT. DOZERIY: What date is that? June 22nd. MP. 3333!: May we appear on that date, Jud covet: Sure. And in the 6? conference isn't fruitful? MR. REILLY: I'd like to resolve it one way or the other'at that time, Judge. . . a THE COURT: Okay. . REILLY: Maybe set it for a trial that date. MR. DOHEBTY: Okay. THE COURT: Is this b; a;reement? MR. DOHERTY: Yes, sir. M3. 6~22-37. MT. DOHERIY: kay. Judge, t.ere is a request the defendant is making. The bond was once exonerated by 105 en: tI-e I rad-.m haw-J! A I: "nun-Ins.uv- - a u: . sin??- y. . . at 11pm Into?In uku- lv-u his lawyers. T12 COURT: Right. MR. DOHERTY: And that put him in a no bond he. ooaerty: And he is in high security at Cook County Jail as a result of that. His bond was thirty thousand. He has a hold out of Milwaukeeextradition hold. Which is the reason it was? exonerated. Re are requesting that Your Honor set eath penalty murder ca (n the bond set he the original thirty thousand, Jud-e, which would pu: him in a different classification at the Cook County Jail, Le is now being held with the no bond people and He's forty?thrEE, .- I - . ug, he's got a record: he's really sedated and docile, and being a middle-aged Jail yo"ng, high maximum security people are marking his life rather memorable or dif?erent. THE COURT: All right. Before I get into that issue does the State have any objection to resetting cr 3? riginal b:nd oi thirty thousand? ?3 in ILLY: Yes, Judge, absolutely. 106 i' i :I?un-s . A. a .uu. .. a-u-n? 'uI-I-u 11" i .I ?d THE COURT: Well, let's have a hearing then. MR. Okay. T23 COURT: But I'm taking five minutes now. a ma. REILLY: Okay. MR. DOEERTY: Okay, Judge. (enereupon a recess was taken in the above entitled cause, after which the following proceedings were haqg) .. ., TLE Peoole versus Mumin. THE COURT: All ?ight. T315 is a motion to set bone now. a no bond, and I don't think this is a proper bail on this?partitular case because itfs not g" .i 5 . Seatu death penalty case, Judge. He?s not-- He doesn't have the money to bond out, three thousand dollars or any other sum, and a Governor's warrant has arrived for him. 6? Id COUPT: Which is a hold. MR. DOHERTY: There is a hold. TEE COURT: All right. We?ll set a bond then. MR. DOHERTY: I'm suggestinh thirty thousand, Judge. 107 - 1? r- IE3 ill :l4..- u. - . In- .- . nun-amgnp THE COURT: Okay. Did you wish to put he fl? defendant on? . No, Judge. He's forty-three years 31. I 2' old. The State will talk about his?record. He was running.a leather shop on the south side of Chicago at the time. He had a car, and when he made bond I he contacted the lieutenant, the lieutenant got his car, got his leather bags that he made for other people. 59's an artisan. That's hisaprofession.'= ut-"-J -- - But hisw- He is not really seekin; no . release, J"o;e. he Just seesin?.a send status. TEE Bhatever. He's entitled t; a bond. E3. Judge, I?d like to be heard garding the defendant's bond. We would expect the evidence at tries to show that on the 22th of July, i_ a- d??eouth?western 955, that the Brown's Chicken at 1; was entered by two young men, one, we would expect the evidence to show, being the son of the defendant, as well as another individual. Th 9.) dUring the course of this armed robbery that the victim, the manager of the place, Mr. Daniel lowman, was shot once in the chest durin- the course of this armed robbery. That there was a Hui. I4 0- n! '1 nun, .- 9:5" I. man" - *m 3 a large amount of money tasen. Strike that. There was a demand for money and money was, in fact, taken, and that the victim in this case, Mr. Plowman, was taken to St. Francis Hospital in critical condition as a result of the gunshot wound. we would expect the evidence to show that the Defendant, Mr. Mumin, before the Court, was implicated by a female juvenile who with .. . '2 . Mt. Mumin: and the other a we would evidence to show that the defendant provided the police and Assistant State's Attorney wit? a'mritten statement on the Slot of October, in anion the defendant aduitted to the no-1 - and the state's Attorney :.lt he drove the - other two offenders to this location for the purpose of.robbing the Erown's Chicien on western Avenue, that he was aware that they were armed with hand- ?i i guns, and he was also aware that when they went in there and they came running out to the car that he was driving he was informed that they had to shoot the Brown's Chicaen. an a) any inside further expect the evidence to show i (I: that?- well that is what we would expect the evidence . I to show resarding this case. I think the Court a (N- '3 IJ earlbond, consider the fact that thi o1 settin defendant has been twice convicted of felony ID :3 _ses in other states and other jurisdictions. Specificall in 1972 under the name of George Ramsey, dafendant was convictEd of armed robbery in sense, 1 Marion count", Ohio, and received ten to twenty-five <enitentiary. Indiana and in March of 1977 tonvicted of the I IL oriense of robbery, and again given a sentence of y- ive years in the Indiana penitentiary. Your Yonor, be was paroled on January th 3; 1932. in addition, this Court heard when he was arrested on Octoter 30th of i 1 - 5? Magnum in his automobile, the 1978 yellow Buick, the same car used and rrat the same car that was used in the armed robbery in July of 1935 regarding the Brown's Chicken. The defendant was charged with that cas=, charges were approved by the Assistant State's Attorney, however, he has not been char?6d in an 0 .F- 1 ?indictment with that case. i 2 Additionally, Your Honor, the defendant is I 3 E1 mated by the Police penartment and there is - i 4 currently a warrant for his arrest for armed robbery :3 5 ii from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I have Detective II I . . A :3 here and I thing he can provide some more inzormation $1 . 7 regarding that offense. I only bring this to the .. I 8 ii Court's attention because I have?'b?eeh informedMr. Joe Kigro ?rom our office that while there 10 is a Governor?s warrant here which has placed a hold . i: a I: on Mr. Mumin, Mr. Evzumin is represented by Mr. Julius 51- 5; thles in front of a habeas corpus petition which is I r" . .A 23 pending before Judge Richard ?ltz?eraic and that :4 5 going to be up tomorrow I understandsuggest what is toin? to hapgen,. Mr. Nigro indicated to me that that warrant may be withdrawn temporarily since the defendant is asking cw? I that he be extradicted on that chargethose reasons I am going to ass, "3 firSt of all, that I call Detective rs Inls?eui' the armed robbery charge that is pendin defendant is wanted for in the State of wisconsin. (K :4 a THE COURT: Is it the State's oosition don't know what the bond will be. Well, I'm notwon't consider that, but I will consider in aggravation in setting a bond what the evidence is expected to show in the State of Wisconsin. . . I. . HERTY: Uh-huh. tn *3 Ill 0 UTT: Without going into the facts, I'll .7..- Just consider the fact there is pending an armed . a nun?- nun-.- robbery in the State of Wisconsin. N9 Correct. theMilwaukee pol; e, Judge, for the armed robbery FR. TEILLI: Where a weaoon was used. ?ith 3 ?3 those representations, Judge, it is our pos tion IS that a thirty thousand dollar bond is not appropriate :5 in this type of case. It's a Class Felony charging 17 2 hi; with armed robbery andiattempt munder,? He hast two previous felony convictions in other states,' ther 19 juris ictions, Ohio and Indiana. The Court has been Mn 'saa fact that the defendant is wanted 22-; in the state of Uisconsin for a similar violent -w crime, and to assure his presence on each and every court date we would argue to the Court that thirty . - ump- u- - ulna?.- - Illa- unnu- a? thousand dollars is not su?ficient and that one hundred ?(sun IJ gas-In?amm?up? I. ?v - Imu-Am-knn?utII-n .n?llu In a: a u- I. I?i? fifty thousand would be sufficient in light of his background, in light of the charges, and to assur (0 his presence here on each and every court date, . - You have?no evidence that he has any ties to the community. You have heard only evidence of other ?urisdictions where he?s committed crimes. So we would object to a bond of thirty thousand dollars and ass for a substantial bond. -1 A . A T53 COURT: All right. I 6 MR. DQHERTY: Judge, he was released on bond on this particular case and appeared every timea we filed a ?abeas corpus on the Milwausee Governor's warrant, but I'm not aware of any intention to withdraw that. THE COURT: I won't consider it. MR. And, Judge,_the referred to, 1'6 line to-- t's been marked Defendant's -Exhibit Number One for Identification on this bail hearing and I'd like to resubmit it for Your Honor to examine. He was driving alone and he encountered .4 '9 his son and two other people, gave them a "i to the Chicken Place, they said they wanted to get some money. when they came out they announced that they had robbed someone. I don't thin; that he had Joined i mummy-gnu I 5 tau-ll?, ?3 4- THEACOUET: TEE COURE: (Whereupon the further proceedings in the above entitled cause were continued to June 22nd, 1987.) 0. Okay. MR. DOIERTY: All right. . "t I'll set the bond at sixty thousand de;iare. Thank you, Judge. Thanks. I . i a. For uI'r?J? u- .4 :11 (Address 61?. Contributor) Grand Jugs, Mat ?e I Di?s?minat?'oh .Ljipth--b6 -2 b7C ?2 gif?qu Mia-7?32?M?f?wf ?zf?hi?llht 24-33;} ?ivI-cvg- i i w. Jain?77, x. I . .- 92Ij-mz . a; g? 1 I win?. 21,3 "m 59%? a . m??mbmg?a? In dam?ritual ~iu Ii. ?Iw?u A (4- m. ?Flt NE Linn?; ?aim. nvfuwuaw ?t a . . $u?39ui?11~?rina? .1. 1 a .Q ax" nun.? nan?1?u uu??iaf?i??n??iyu u?hwlf?swum . a lg. a ?ip .HH . .kuau ?l idi?Puy?k Inau?; i?kw??nm?suubh??s?hmu b, i, rut! i R1 uh ad. Eiuwn4uiwx?utn4r?wa?m I ?nawg Ln quan- fL 1: I tux-3 ua A?uxvnu?h?nrkn a mini" :9 . n??vhinuknnv.?n dmv?lnm :axu. r: I a run?? lo vb? . ldhudhhill n$wur . an?wr. .?l-wu I .w .1 :3 Lauryn" ?Niu . x29?! (I . vi. ??zmnm i? ?nk: an?! Run? n.nPr9 vILu? w??uvina? iv? Bi w.Vu1uu.u?1..Mm Id)? Ju uv?N .lwx w. rahr?r?xtmag?unhgi?l r'un?jner?aq?i?. Purln:L>.uw ?Au av ?u v.14 . . nun?xi. I Hui wk? 1 ?g .145?? a. t. [Wm-131?. .3: ?li In?. Yu . AwthMum ruin?1E?. .2. .. . .lexa?z. an 17.9 . . \Jnlr ?##iglmu ui?m?i?'snunlr! dawn?; n: u? .4. 1.1m.? I ?Minis? .T 1 a: fa. 1&2 wunLh??a ?~1n Inn~"r?4?clka? . . .n Iiit?u RH :?un?lun uh: r? .99 MW . .. uh. Lda ?Jun? . .253? h. a . A J: '?Q-h??uu?gnuv 3% .1352. .lzx .wtr. uu1mrutv:u? .3595 . until??HM a? ?in an m?nmawwhla Adi u?nntl?ulul? winLu?lu an?. . kin )bL??th {Ear .f 32:214." W?hm??tn? k. ?v m1, 1qu ?lx??rn: u. lalnu. 4nnan??wu . yup?? . lulu?; unuz? u; ?a an .rnnuu #1me ins! ?(nilh'uuirun ?w run Us? Jun?Mhrh?r?hyaww . lulugri "w .. Hf.? 4h: will: Hidunr?ivhuw.? ?1 .i?n?um? "hintnun- "El Emu urn. ~q WW HJPIWH. Pun-3- nl ur 3h.? .1. Va 4 ?in I Innm An. I punk; r.5?lm1hmv . ?walk Wu .1 .n Wu n. ":Hru?vipliauu?? pudwiduu anlune! uluyl Eu): ?um?mn uhlJJ "a 1&3? in?ny A _h I H: n.1u ?uni. ly ?Fl-van ?n ?1 . 4w awful? jw .fi.> \?Luvhr nu I u?h..unhl?uu?xh 0.9 ?karmic?ww.u: uh Hk? lulu I Is" I: "um maxi; 3. u. "x .. LT. J1Mu~umN a? whimnr.b .. .I .y Faun.? u" M, hint I . thr?zil??n-iw Hawkins}! WIL ngi?? Lian; ?W?w?ul Wlufv .mn. u. - 4 guy! . um, ~Fhld?n?u?gwbwdn+m .mwu f.amu.\nl.. if. 1.33?: . . - u. alt-Ivr . vi ?had-lung[Jinn mm well?Wtwang? q. u. . .7 .ruu. (an 4 in: J?n?ruuln:wiu?. v. an I uh #?I??nq?vnwom. . u, . u: :Wlu?new aw M. .m JHHJ a?uw gainsuiiu-Jnn?uu .. arx #17 udvW~ hf? .w r. . {u?n . ?zux?vwir .is: ?63921 .. .unime-Wru . n71 fliraJM damn. u. uwl?xww. . run. .fhn uh 4? J. A a PM In.? ,?nvrb? ilk xsuunlwEthyl?V ,nf?w b; v? A Magiu?wuli. u. in .1 ?alum: new? u~ .Mmu at?. but. "Taup? an Haul. I rh a A u?wuL13:? I a: ? pul n. $5.3 onFran?? .7. T_}v 4 . m1; uWthu.#sn# ?a in.?ubw Mi ?Hun \lmy r?w? .21 um 4 n. In". .. 1M I nick} . s?wybm?n..m nivn ?me .w?ur? ac .n_.un . .: ?kaJuni?wulur .uho yum rhtu?y~\ 1? 9. EN 1T En.? In kir1ar.u r?hl. Henv Fl hb???can.??al i. "Fla: Alzmm hFVuii?Ivatnxuv ?nv.?.snu. - . rah?. ?zr?.h infultulm?nv 4 Fit: Huh ?zz? ?wizwn 1.x? Jyarj?nn?g.? EarlriJ . =b6 b7C -4 6H4. uk? rnL?. .. Aknuunukiu pra .. 9.1.inswan..u.w tar. .r 1M1 .4 1.31 4. a . 71?151.110.57 ??ann'ti gnu un? v? . \sh? 3.. .I L. AX 51m ?hr?.rhrh Imam??w1 in .. I. n??u?max . ?unk: #214 4 Van I ha..n .znwi A Link; 154r?TMuWau?u in 1 Jaw I _n.fm.,w ?In; w..r II. IF.u?w?htmuxxu?.i?.\ no. 1? .J?ih unMTMgun: in an - Il?? u. in.? 3 ?lat; ak?? 9.06? Na? a 3% 1 nuauwuawruu?u van kiwilk?l &.m?v?wr.d?.nltudn an: mu unlu rm u: 1., .?lut .34.1.. 3 . ux~.uua m, I, Am 1x U?mmh??vl?i xru . zalnmaro uh [Siva ?Erma: ?wixnuii. in. m. it?J?Pzdi ?uqunuld: h. - .n~i -. ?Mrn 5? .u fur?)- . Cu Z??gmwv?g _n arr null nu d?wrry . 31?ml asl? .. Ri?vgx :.nMturn: a: . mi}, - . .JP. .1 in Pu hhxii dunk {h uuF?r r? . . \xaii . ER: .sxsz. I Mun uvl ?dd. 1 a ?4.4.1wa Airb?u .wwm.\a 1. n Mnd.uhi.l1..L . .w Fan?Runny ?u.uwi_: ?rut? a Run u: wuhv nu?u "mi. nun . .r in - garE?gg. :u Hu,? 1. A 1?15 Mtg[11: a 1 fli?llz Lifz? 1 . Lil} x. . .3. 1313:1131 .2 3311!: {3:11.111 gala? ll. I. JJIL 1 ill. . .T \?luiiazl Iii! :l?ltimii I1 1513.?! 1:3: 1531 L7 1.5! .4. .4le Ill. lull-13: idx. l: 41?: a. Hueanb. 0 lk - 2::i at :15 Jud: I: it.- 4.- A ,g?H iga-m-?lma?aIyi-? r? mm . . . ?nut u; :1er {a 1 .M A. 4&.4 if: Ix?. Mr?. . 3.113. twv?i15133.5( wrinw a ?nu . 1 a3: r4219: ?n Ha. "glint?! Full: any?m aha?: ?m :umu??j iduu nu a mauth rx gum?. mu??71u . I in. ?Lunarpxuw .Iwnn?u? ?x a . ?hm-5? ?.51 1? AN .1 .a .. Elwyn: :5an Afr n: 3.. u. a 1?3 {Prirumu ?dv?a?ag?i? mbxwuw ?Kt; 3 a a I. . ??bula vim 1.I My nu?m ?mks L55 4.4 J, :L?iq Tn? an {Lynluxs 1i. .v n. Ar?hwunm nl?n?f? 1 er ?nely) - ?n uni; r, Jkumk-WK urJun a. ?r .4 #A?naurn ?2.21.3.3 ul?mfum 11111 VT .4. a In A u. r11? (I1um? are mua?qndm? x3; .31"umEmily Ah 5-39 V. r7.Ert??uili: .1 {JilViaJii? 1 . in; li!1.l 15in. I I. {111 .. :1 a! it. I .11! 3.1.2511 . ll}; .5. Ailluilaa 9 1.4.1. :15 1?15all}? .1 I. .I: {it} 1 I 1. Hg '7 33Nari *ri?i-711?!? ?afqi . 'Kit14" mam] ?Ir 1' ?9va i4." 1 UH ii View? in" latiYi?it?tiHifn'i 35%? Lat@1sz gr, 1H1??j. Ir?: :5 i 5! 11f! '5 emf?? 1? I raftsw'i ?T?ria1i?ih2i in I: 4' 'iiFD-340(FievLgmy! 311? i i i 4 ?n??gir . r"v1{id mWUniversa Fiec era-Number 782322/ . (5.: Field Of?ce Acquiring Evidence 1 .V .k SeHai #af Originating Becament m, H9 . Date Received (Name (AddressoiContnbutorb'ToBeRetumedUYes Receipt Given Y?s Ei no i i Grand Jiiry Material-?- Disseminate 6niy Pursuant to Rule 6 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure i 1 WW. - .TltieReference(Communication Enclosing Material) ofDescription. Original notes re interview ofp 1, i! ?Cor (/74 i z?fo?? 044 -fC~ 163/15 e? .045 P01574 g?xtiteh ?tates (Eistrint Glnurt NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TO: SUBPOENA T0 TESTIFY b3 _1 BEFORE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FOR: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDEO to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below. Dirksen Federal Building Grand Jury 2 19 South Dearborn ?Room 1625 Chicago, Illinois 60604 DATE Al YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or b3 -12( 0 Please see additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf 'of the court. CLERK TE b3 -1 b6 -3 NUMBEROFASSISTANTUS. ATTORNEY This su poena IS Issue upon application I I 0? the med States ?Amen? Assistant United States Attorney 219 South Dearborn - 1500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5354 '11 not app?cabfe. enter "none." To be used in he? of_A0 :0 man 03:12:? RETURN OF 7 DATE . PLACE RECEIVED BY SERVER I I DATE - SERVED I SERVED org (NAMESERVED BY ?ne A 661?: i? A STATEMENT SERVICE FEES I senwces TOTAL DECLARATION OF I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Realm of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. Executed on . i Dare . a A 9?1249 were", . (/7604 Go 4444/?! ?o?c?f Addressorsewer ADDITDNAL INFORMATION (0A: to who may serve a subpoena and the manner of its service see Me "an. Federa! Rules of Criminal Procedure. or Rule 45cc). Federal Rum of Civil Procedure. (Rue 45(c), Federal Rules of Procedure; Rule 17rd). Fweral Rules ot Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of certain indigent parties and criminal defendants who are unabte to pay such cosls (28 use 1825. Rule 170;) Federal Rules of Crime! Procedure)". 3.5M hit; 12,. Raj-73??, 1 p? ?51} F1, . h$ if: ?t5r? Fi? .. ii I . $14? 5? Ker gigglj?ijgg??: 33*? 1351.9 i 1 {24?ffrw 3 $534: 1? ?if; i" La'wu?wm-?iwtaavIf$141 315:. i I 3 ?it ?Maggi: '1 F1 WIii?ial ii Originating Docuinent Vii; ??1954 ?ii-"h ah? a i if:31R?tmne?dEJYesBNo ReceipiGivenDYesCJNo a 1 . 5; ?5.4.5411: r! ?GhandJ Nkmm?n- . 1' Rule Federal Rules of Grimm} Pr?o?dwe BYOB . i? :i i? ii}: - 1b 'lF'iyIgg-m-aimamn-na m? WV 7/2? 9/ J. #871]! A JJ JAM 3?0 qV-f 47747 ow. '44. Jam/J nay/f- J. J, JJ ?a?hh pic/I7 ??64 mm? Am #4 [am/AW -440? 14/!an Ari/??/x/W 7/444 4 4-M?w?p mme ,r?ow (Arm/g4? 1944i; JJ 7M z??fg?f Mu [1?ij ohm/H? MJ- (?/4741 Heft 2/21: JJ 70de If mw J??rhrt met?va? (Avg (EJJ WJ JZIJZJJ JJ 2/9,anqu Jug?. may mar-w In? Waxy?? JJ f?/?rcw? Jo.) MA- @031; -1 1111171111; ?r1 kid 27L ..A 944221?4me_ 1 J11 1:171; 8(1381) 1213 .. llA -. $2??-wt 1.1-1 1 7 0 LE raj-719119111211;;- tL 41:17:16de b6 1:78 -2, -5, -6 4.15111 MW ff? 4mm 1 (C L?chGfi ?iiv?fq .3. rag-tam 4 L. . _n 1 r- 5:10 2:11" 011' (MIMI: 1/15; 44 M. 11150 Jun L- -- m?w iv -- 2:1: VAmi 11.1?11.1; L- 7 ~mwr -L, 12-4. damn-#411111: (2:1 11-me Lanna/ML W1 LL 170:9 11M ?uh??s {1 ?-3-771 .11 Ant-L LL if 771-. 11211111 31331331111 - Lit--erwg? Tam 44.19%; th?la Air-9 7 1- 11; ALI-L ?cmc?m-LL L?f?zjgg. rfer?eg?L Jami??W? 13 121i 11 11111 9/ 4,77 M1503 Wm? Mme -2 - 4. 4244- - LWJW - - - 4143* - WW W-WW - WW - 444W 4:444:44. W144 432ng - - - ?at-4414* W.- r14- - -. WW. ho Wily-13 MAW _m WW W- ?Ljf 4&6. 41.1.-- 114 513?- Wc? A44 wag-W..- WW - _evfp ft?ce' gear? {flp?r?? gov 57 MM Md?hftm 4154M W95: 5% 413854;?" Maw ?gM Mkfw?: -4349? 42/ gig/H W: ?12356)?. M?imt! b6 -5 b7C -5 ?g?MbeU :@__Aly7 (0&1!ng meflz'ngf ,3?me 4'anerqu mgy_ 4mm..- mama 1556946?, Mgr/J M41464 0g lbw/?ah M?b?u Comm: (11m MMgr~z_ ff?? 5 . 3%47 -M M. M: {745%, -M M?ncm?w ?wa4419sz -- I 7 4 -- ~444..-. Mt M. war ax - 4 HmEV- - -1 -33 a: .. hr; g: .31.. y" Fm JEM ?456} 6?3! Wu . 97 ((43,946; (?.vm?farcw?w ?39 5 f? f?w?cr-? HAM fWeJ ?rm qugm-an HM fe/JT l?4cf< fowrerfr/?l?fn) (/3421?th A?nla (W?ec'hrb?- Mew??L3 44/ Mb erm {71.0 ,b6 _4 ?pvrx? 44 440 Acf? hm ?4 (Pam 1M 7" ,3 1x1: hach ffrro {g f?vt/WJ 6442C. W5 In.? aid/{hag [77; 1F 7-: {54 bf fir/?r" k/ ,Qea?wu) mm A CF13 (lo? ?frwa ?wan-f WM m. wd rm LUJRC ?3N-Hog?v? u) 0955/9 Maid? 1?2? 7 I 24 .. gruhluii I . 1 . 2 LITiJmiluia - - 411. A. Wangn?4.Md?: ?(Ig riff?54? 1 Lil-?3 Lia'??it'.r..uLw . 1v. 4.1.1. 1 IN. lulu?. .. a . .. . 5ndill1541 . ??ve 31 - ,y?jfetu?aml infi?wr . . . ?a . in?. .Iliu?hamzuwn .1. . ivJH17. .. 43.32owzr. ?91 .sHMCirfu-p . .. . is . 4. ?14 De/maevza? are b6 b7C Ania/mg #1616 A ?ac/M 5472' W177 7017917 {274% f??Q (?26;?ng ?gf??t?lge/Z7 #773/ (a ?Alf aft: 4? WM: 47/954. 24?2" @106?? 6/ 414+ 04* fM?u/u?r ?51,449 - __Qf?gg? ci?F a7?, dyct/ b6 :7 a: 2-. -. :b7c _2 _5 _7 h4m_ A wry/c - -. - - My @7440 A wafer? Wm - A E?Wr?g?f?l?iiw aveII: 2.1L I . 1- ?44..WTH . .WII .1. ?an115.L1.15 KIWI an; AJQI. 2. $1..1.1.11..14II. -143In. Junk 4n 1.. IIJ lawnm.IW ?u1.1.1-:Nmnu. admIfle~?$ .3. I: I .5 I. 42.1fmIIMI . . I.1I.IA AIM tum.- . . 1.9a3.1I..IzlmII II II inn121' . I I 1 ?ill b6 ?5 b7C ?2 ?4 ?5 r?f?r _1 044? m; 19:: - a 4 h, _.wwrr.? 7v 5m a 13:479:2 ?5 ?43014?! -4 ?hit mi Frc?r?m?zagl? 341L217 - ,1 4556;; a LWW12% 41144.1444 :?54V $415141?? 4; .J 4 .-- I 4J5 ?4&1 fi :44s??gs4w3 ?14531, ,1 4? husk ?454:.444 44, 4 . 415 a 34kgxm??3l 4 ?wyfuf, gm; '14 I ?5 a if?? fN?ahf?nd?i, ?n?uhw ?4th I??xi44-41_ a. 1 ?43? 44 4, /c ?lhta Hoe-Ind ??i*424~ 4 '44 9:11:42" 4' I {?441 1 4 L4: 1 I ?a?iialas 4 4 4k 4 4] 44:: '34, 4 4 +41. 4? ?9 B, ?1 ta ?v-w?w Irv?v 4; - 4? 4, 4 Aim Mnemomhmot ?41% 63? 4 Opfq?fl'f? ??jd 4' 4 4 44-w- 4 4 4 .: 4-44 ?nu-t f1 ?4 4. gamut: ?tatea ?iatrict (?nnri NORTHERN DISTRICT OF, ILLINOIS - EASTERN DIVISION TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY b3 -1 BEFORE GRAND JURY UBPOENA FOR: YOU ARE HEREBY COM MAN CEO to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the'United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below. ROOM FEDERAL BUILDING GRAND JURY 219 South'Dearborn street Room 1625 Chicago" Illinois 60604 WW YOU ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(s) or 0 Please see additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. CLERK DATE Na ASSISTANT S. ATIORNEY This subpoena is issued Iipon application of the United States of America . Assistant United States Attorney 219 S. Dearbotn, Room 1500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-1416 b3 -1 -3 (enoewwcte 'If no?: apphcable? . enter "none" 1? .. 3" 131' RETURN OF DATE . PMCE .- . RECEIVED . . -. BY SERVER - 1 1' . DATE 7' 0 1: puce SERVED senveo on (NAME) b3 -1 5 ?06 seavsoev b7C SPECIAL AGENT, FBI STATEMENT FEES TRAVEL senvwes TOTAL DECLARATION OF I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Sen/ice Fees is true and correct. Executed on 34 1-- Date 219 South Dearborin. Ave. Chicago; . 1511an 89694 Address of Server AooirioNAL INFORMATION may serve a subpoena and the manner of its service see Ruie 17(d). Federal ?utes 0! Criminal Procedure. or Rule 450;), Federal Rules or Civ? Procedure. (2) ?Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service or a subpoena issued on behaif of the United States or an of?cer or agency thereto? (Ruie Federal Rates of Civit Procedure: Rule 17(d). Federai Ruies of Orirninai Procedure) or on behalf or certain indigent parties and criminal defendants who are unabie to pay such costs (23 USC 1825. Rule 1703) Federal ?utes of Criminal Procedure)". 132 I kwElYeoElNo 1:93:19 {t 5'41 i. a Jug?it?zls . fink1:19: 1 in w? I .Wom .a a Al. I .4 ?li?fiah ,7 33: II n; . I G516) ElYool'JNo Motown . .II Fi?? . . ?.4va I?w mm? Iunlt5?2.. 3..nww a . II 2%.gm?nish: I. . l. L. W43, gum h3g54.. Tamil1.94%: kw??TKWi 1.. JNI Nauru?..I in: Harman, brim MIN.Ih?IifnrkIJIS. IWIHI .Iu(win: fa ?2.12i?ln. 5.541;} 3? ?gsg?mc?mgrm -437-" I Peirce 155M Moria/1?8 140,9}; 21316:?) My?? 574? 2:2pr 571m; 0W ?fen/<47 [?4406 May; f4 Wag/~54; i 7 7 .- . 194w 134 '1 Iain1121.111" 1 1 F1.- . 49111117.}.11 1 .1.2 1. 1.1.1.11.23.1.. .12 2 . 1.1. 1 .311 1111nu1U1112+2 1.1 1 1.1111 11.1:1 1H. 111112111.! J1 s1 .1 11- 7x 12.1 111.WW, L. . 11. 11.1.111vr1 4 . .. a P. . 1.1.11 1 2. 1 711 F.1d; 1 .. . 1.11..E.1.1.rm..i1??1n I 1 ?111.1 .193512.1111 . (1: 1.1wiimam? 1m, -2 .-. 1.1M - 5 .2 1 .11 .1112.? nkm?wn. 2 .5. M ui1 . on O. 1 21111 I .14 11 .1 5-12. x. a .4 1 1.5-.- 1- -. - . ?ght1.ka 1 19.1.1er1?.14131 .411 . 11.1? . 2 1 . .4 11Wt111u2u1131wam1,..11a1mrm11 ?1.4.1111JAMA 1.1 #1214 .. . .1211.11.1. #i?i?gs; .. 1 . .r 2 w/rb'7C ?5 Am. 5m; Arum; m4: ?af?rm .Cm Hf?m~r= tymto?D/PIO ?at; 94:41:45 b3 -2 b6 -2 A _b7c (Mam/9c 2w [ix/9,7 ?ux/K 8W Ww/_ 1/ ?o/C .6001 9&0 dwarf/49?4?? fie/mp r/ 6/ =44 (aw/25c 71/Per/m aw 2 '2 [Huff Fer/Pia 14w mm. .. .1.rmi?cwa4l . 1 A: 51151.. $h A ik?rlz?x}rq"af?rm: mmw. .. A: rate . . 4 . . 1 .. 4 may?. Pt 1. hfri?JLPw EINO Mir ?ll! at can and i ?m ElYeoElNo?ooeblavon DYOOEINO nml?um? . .wiL iaan?mu4&3 m$yh?i Her .. Prawu??i . i? I .t Jmtw?xa?: ?any 54.1. I fia?? Lye 1 ??lmy: I 51$ A. Haw. .M?.uh. .. . . . mm?mwn?\fTaqu?LUZ 1-0/1-11-11.- :73 '4 1 1 11f? D?gp?f - 11?_ _1 1.121121 wijn?m/I/ 1111111 1111 b6 ?4 b7C -4 11 1111-1 1 1-1- - - 1 11mm 9? Mg"? Wqule?i?111. 1 ig-w . Ki: my?lcz?muwf?l Wain)? .t .4 1315kmanw>i?hr?uvdff2.. maria} r. A 4 a ?Hana . 1 leikr? 1.44.1Wlu?n?h: 2H 1 u..63.: ww?nurlml t. i i. 4 by rank ugly?r I 14? H. H51t?um1 1&3 1 I 1? 1.1? ?Can .maa rank Hui, a . Flaw MP r59. .. ?r 4 ?Vi-?1 ?g 1 gr with up (an. 3 BOIF: . I M: ?up11,45 Wail 1 . ,l 13w?!? I I 4. I 5311 M?m - -- W. 571F A?f-ZjMINA-5 Hf; Leap-?70- -. . WW WW mngW- ?fw?i - -W.-- :Whm aj?J: 44%: i??ez: - - .- a??ml -- W-- . WW. giro/e [31:17? b6 - .- 576:! 17/104462-1165ij 47? J64 ?at/1W 645/0245 22 MW Mmmr. ?arc-W W- .W- W-WW 66f? Wald/L ABMWW- - W- . - WW- fr): WW WW, 45477~W?f: ?wf?jgt. 46019; TL . . W- - A477..-- .020- 1 - mar/4*! W. W. ?ed/t {Mm/<41 how/Wm: ,cowz/ 1,4,0er W5 ??oiT/V/rf7 ?/jcr/L7 Md Cm?. 141/ 1 f??mm/ by? 04Fwa 11 (N ?0 0?11 ?movcn 6? H53 CW ??41 {m .i CM #164. 7?ka jaw/(Ab 4411114for?. - 13311?? 3? 1? ?3 ?p 11.9, 151?4415' 11%; $31151? 4911.1 ?1 1111 9311 H1 J1n3?5ki?1nilsi ?473 1 1? M111 1 1 1 r,1 111391 1 '5 4 1: 13;? $11 1 i s? ?51 iv? Fw?? ?311 11?. .511.ng 33gas, 5.. 1 ?1 . 45*; 1A1 15?? 1 '11 31, 1' 1" ?avail . 7:119 :"111 an :1 3- 11%? 14:1"5 .n 3. . ran-.1 "-43 112121 531:?; :?31"?1i 111 *1 1-1214.! I . 1; 1 1 .311-1.19 1:11 111.1: al?r-?W; . Jcr?/ah/A? F029 ?9 2 Jowm? 9? 9M4 62'? 474-?43 ?an/7?7 ?173 9/0;ch 22:34,: 2 2/9/2? 99% ?"7333 7 322% 22 22959259 2 _b6 -6 #2975754ybi??r2?-2.2222279. 22,222 70.11! 2 77%[227279 ?.222- -2, -6 2 J5 @2912; 29929.9 22 22 2 222229192 2.69122222 222-222 {{Jeq??r?mqpm 0.244122222222222 - 2?2? 2222 2 2 2 2 2 2222-2 222222214 2 2222 222 22 .22 2 -222 222 22 22 2 2 2.22 1.2-ch 143 v; am?k#5n 1" km 9 i1 i fax/Q [ff/?~54 ?5m; b6 -6 b7C -6 - 0am p14r/HJ4. 4402/; 4.4714 j?j?t . 4 JWWJAM 32/14- {1wa M014 4 4.4.4-4 - -. . - 19-4me M4 7464a,: - 44- fl/?/W - -. - - - -4444- -442_ z: .22W4c444444 -ngy? cmfauJZ+a% 4 m?gy n+4 M?zg444a- am?am?ffr?44-44 -- 7'9 - $94- pf/ucam444/J egg/MMLa4944?u/J4- 4?2 44/441444 -44-4 -- - 4.4 4444-4 -4444 - 49479 44444?4 417444?4444? 444.. 344.2444; 44- .JCM445M 42:44:14 447044 44.44 .4 4444 444 4.4444444- 4264:34- 1W4 44x7?44 -4 4-- 4 4-44- 4 44444444444- - -. . 7?4? 7 ,4-4?ii?f-WV?D? ?4:943 "Tm-c] 444- 4- 44??b'7C -6 444-444 waif-24w 4+ 4- -4. 44.4- 4444 4? mrmw?f?v?f'??y? 444444 44.rwm.? - 4- - -1441 .44 4444.44.44? 74?44444- 44?444 4 - .4 - 444- 4 - 4-4 .444 44:4cc. -. . b6 -4 0,1254: 444 4444444 _4444444444-44_- 44444444g4144 444--44444444444-444 . 7.: :44? .44 4444-4444444 - 94f]! 4 .r NAM my Vj 11'ka ?~35 91th MTV If? A?v? -55. ?l 7 b6-?2 b7C rW/?h?f IA) .543"? 7 my [pcqaxzcz? Hi? . 474 a" ?uJ/Ive b7C 2,-6 5 - Lu?m 1/ - ?w 5m ~14? WW, -5 .. A. 19-m?42348imn-m7 if . th - .-.-- - .. -. .4 7 ?ch:??jwf ?4 ?w Jaw! (79/ ?Hf. 15 - M76) {Ni- [Jail rAmIK/??xmdf ..- - it: ..--.-.- ?(wee-ohm --. -. .- -- Fm- - - t} -. . (fem . .. -- 2 7 . . . Elf/2- w/ -. Jue - ?pwrk 1w mt. Jaw: nip/g?- -- - - .-- -4314 .- -- -AchL .-4: . Lax-Amy! ?amig- ?n Aw? Mhno/T JAme-J-w -.b6 - Mammy (inn/VP .. - Lam MT ?(Melt/Md ?(Burgh {iv?(umft-A?zx?m? 7 - - 1?3: m? 45483381} 1418 . t'I 2.514:4? t? 3' t??vi. . 1 M51: - ?31git"itri?tm (M- . wit . I 33,? ?t I at} r? 3%(1 tt-t ?t at 4 .let 3' it atr. "x *tli "tr! Ni ?11 9-31. t; If .- .2 I is; in" it. Twit u? will ?tt tt A 1* "Jtt?t It?; 31;! 2? a chit{Fl t-?tte NObrtal and t-?tle No. I-: I: $155 If 4: :?jl . ?;?1Date Received 5 1 Sift 11;? multii . a t? t: :f ?th1? I 22tfgz-Z; :5 t! 2 ~21 n?butorH5: at? 1.;31(Address; of ContributorKEEN: . fl 1 .1 . ff: 4.lf?W and State): I w? au?: 515:}. Special Agent); E: I 2 i 31Returned Yes [3 No Receipt Given Yes:E?Aua?dt't ?1 Grand titut-y Metertat- Dtsee minate Onty Pursuant to Rule F'e'd'erat Rules A i? of Criminal Procedure L12: 2 I 4 ?wag qtIn11:1?: :35(if J?Reference. 5 "ta?ai?FW-tgt rt? ??t'tat? e5? at (Communtbetton Enb?tostn gMatenal); a fret; I . 355?? 1 3:1 1.7101 Hitb??fir; ,1 mm 73 . Hit/thanWaiti?ttu?tet-w?els-t?tFEIt-14?? k?w 1180 N. Milwaukee Chicago, illinois 60622 (312) 235-0070 Fax (312) 235-6699 b6 b7C October 17, 1991 Superintendent 1121 S. State b6?4 Chicago, IL 60605 b7c-4 Dear Superintendent We have today _learned from a source 'within the police department who has previous1y proven to be reliable that Commander Jon_Burge has recently made public threats to "blow the People?s Law Office away with a shotgun? if anything happens to him as a result of theo OF. S. investigation into allegations of torture by 'him. This alleged threat was reported to someone in a command position within the Departm.ent who indicated he took the charge seriously. We have also independently learned that the 0.P.S. report recommending that Burge be taken before ,the police board for discipline has recently been forwarded by you to the Corporation Counsel?s office for prosecution. .This development, together with our ongoing conflict with Burge in various cases where he is alle_ged to have tortured our clients, our role in pressing and aiding the 0. P. S. investigation and publicly testifying against him at public hearings, cur?most recent filing of another suit alleging torture by Burge and his men, and our knowledge of Burge? alleged violent propensities, as documented in sworn testimony by numerous victims and by previous reliable letters from an anonymous associate of Burge? 5, leads us to take the report of this threat very seriously. ie-w-eueS-{Fsiy-isl We urge you to take immediate action in this matter, to inform us of what you are doing to investigate this alleged threat, and to prevent future violence by Jon Burge. Sincerely yours, b6 -5 b'7C -5 Attorneys at Law for the People?s Law Office cc: Corporation Counsel i of ??4be (Addr?ss?gof? Contributor) Agent) leen a Na? i i i - i/fo F0412: _dF M7 A: gz? 1500?)?- AMP/?ywwl 7 /577/ #136 -5.J -5 /c/Ar:e_ b6 -2 We! A;f arm/1M? ,4 (MC MU Jaf :axAC% 023.611! IW b7C ?2 rel/64:9 1/0 ?lm; by ngfd'fa, nAfr?nrf [if _m 7' w? mum?ii?s .lr11w. .L 12.1qu b?ufxaft? I a . Ir. athsa .. Jan. ?5 I I. . .32award.MIIlnh.1IE. 5.4.1 WI (?Wul:anz?35Iiiteinfuiuwfr HIEInkue?.EaI..I ??,1?ng WJ A. w??m '0 (9.: .{255 3' 7" A. L- ?k ., fiff/?rffo Mira! . -. 4V: ,Jeh ayaggiam?ivqu [mfg 7 -2 . 7-1-m I. .. ?17 .. .. -31Arx ?Mp "Va Granddw?y gamma. Km?wn offerwu op I 15-23 x; No You WMWM MMWW 1r T030 i 1 . j?u?ws?frd 1 4? 1 4 4? rs?wNA, con/m "24ml ??101H?kkNa. uplupfw . ?1,153 3933; in? 4?s! 14 .2 c? i fix. tr lsxmui lanai? g?xtiteh $121125 ?tetrict @nurt NORTHERN ILLINOIS - EASTERN DIVISION DISTRICT OF TO: b3 -1 SUBPOENA .TO BEFORE GRAND JURY FOR: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below. 5. t6- I PLACE ROOM DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING GRAND JURY 219 South Dearborn street Room 1625 Chicago, Illinois 60604 msmome YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring With you the following documenl(s) or b3 -1 it: Please see additional informatfon on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to deperf b; the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. DATE onoepuystsex :2 Z: Ci ADM ?(if MC ?3 NAME, mo PHONE NUMBER ASSISTANT s, This subpoena is issued upon ap ication . of the United States of America States Attorney 219 8. Dearborn, Room 1500 011316390, IL 60604 (312) 353-1416 'i not le. enter ?none" ?To m: (?one 909M 03mm apphcab Jul 35 RETURN OF 7 7 one RECEIVED BY SERVER DATE PLACE SERVED SERVED on (NAMEscaveo av Tine a STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES SERVICES TOTAL DECLARATION OF I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. I Executed on A Date UH ocular 2:9 submrlacrn zit/c .9 Chwa?o_it eoucq?w Address of Server 7 mroamnpou (1) As to who may serve a subpoena ?3 i manner of its service see Rule 11w), Federal Rules of Criminal! Procedure. or Rute 45?) federal Rules of Procedure. (2) "Fees and miteage need not be te a wimess upon service of a subpoena issued on banal: or the United States or an ??tcef or agency thereot (Rule Federal Rules of Cival PTMbule. Rule 1705). Federal ?utes of Criminal Procedure) or on behat! of man manger: pames and cnmmal defendants who are unable to pay sucn tests (28 USC 1825. Rule 1709) Federal! Rubs of Criminal Procedureff. 19'W'4343?231j?15 8 11.111.31.1.1T.11313111111. . :15111?. I m1 . 1 Ira. IT I. I. . 1-liq 1.1...17? I I #1411 In I 1 1.11196 1. . 1 1w .1 .111 11! II. 1. 1.413111 1111 I 131411.1JHL 11H .1 . 2 1 1. 11.1? I 1 11.. . 1 . dunl 11.1.1.1 11511511. 11M 1.IJI1 1 It. l~ 1 . . m1i1u1 Iuvanm 151? .1 1 .11 I.I1.11435 .1Iwwwuwx . 1 1min 1I11II . 1 I . 1 I .11111mnr. 1111111I111 .11.11: 11 I111 111* 1.1.1 I: 1M1. 1 I .I . 5113.93%. 111.11m 1111w.? 111.11111.1.111 11111.. 11.11 I 11.1111 . .11In .. 1 1o 1 1 141.21? 1H11.u1..y11 LI. H11 .11. I *1 II J. v.15[11.1 .. MIA. 211.. ?nanm N1MW an?. ??wVWwAmim . I ?ir .13.. w. w. . .141.1M.9. .1.- 1.74% w. x. 51I111 .m .rI.1. qttras??mualfigid . . 1 5 ?7 ?/0471, 015;??sz Ju?" A b6 (was 47 . MC /u22 Mpg/17L 177? far? ??ab/ac ?maria 792477/ (m 4017. Ha?" W194 ?yr?m? NM {(1155 en ?777%" 106 -2 5/347 b7C ?2 ?730% tmwp?m Ker/meme? MUM W7 [bman/If?yumwf 7v f?f Mix-@335} ?u sv Fall {Tia 45!. 31 ,w Av, NF - 3?15 1% I I at? Hank?:? W4 1? i I 6'1 A, 3f11"T' 1 WA 1 .. a?n? 3 gnu). I .55! ., 9A . i w- 449<rzne.u%cc Fm ?Haw a u, I ma: ?ape-hymnb7c gamut: Stanza Egi?trint anurt NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS - EASTERN DIVISION SUBPOENA T0 TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY UBPOENA FOR: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified befow. mm A ?matte ea a ?extra: ,Mm?ear . other? -- b3 4me PLACE ROOM DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING 219 South Dearborn Street Room :1625 Chicago, Illinois 60604 oArewim_:u YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(Please see additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted teave to depart b; the court or by an officer acting on behaif of the court. CLERK DATE CLERK This subpoena is issued upon appiic_atio( of the United States of America NAME. ADDRESS AND NUMBER OF S. ATTORNEY 219 s. Deanborn, Room 1500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-1416 'if nb! app?c'abte. enter "none." To be used in lure of A01 P0 FORM 030227 sw- so . lg-Ett-f-?i??ili FBI 1525fStates Attorney ,i a RETURN OF DATE RECEIVED b3 _1 BY SERVER b6 _1 I _5 7 we Puree b7C SERVED I SERVED on: (NAME) SERVE TE Mew/L 4 acct/7? z: 454(45ch STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES TRAVEL. seawees TOTAL DECLARATION OF declare under penalty of perjury under?the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. Executed on I. I Date Address of Server Jr? Jaw/J Dee/amen we: Wit/wag. It; A?r?tsf . INFORMATION k?K .32. r. . '5 .. 4 teak. . . 4.15 Procedure. (Rule Federal Rules o: CIVII r: ages? 3), Rule 17w). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf 0! certam Indigent parties and can-mat defendants who are unable to pay 5., ~11 costs (28 USC 1825. Rule 1705) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)". -- (1) As to who may serve a subpbe?a arid the manner of its service see Rule 17(6). Federal Rm 0! Criminal Prcic'e'dure. or Rate 45(6). Febera! Rules of CM: (2) "Fees and mileage need not b- witness upon service of a subpoena issue}: on beha? o! the United States or an of?cer or agency thereof egFem-ie?; Lafsu?vnru; ubmv Ian in :1 airs ?tunerL. my?. ?aunhww? We . k?luwawmmiin . . ?f I . . *1wnnh, v; I?Lga ?327k ?rm . a .c r. b? :uwu 55', ?mm: m- :a $1 a 71.. ?1 Fi?i?w Vt ToBo? 1? is: 4 and mu DYE: N6 TRIO: 1 . II 1 1 rlz! ?1 A I i ?or: Mined . 73nmamm .mnotooremuvl?aw.? 4 gr 4 Ill I'll. .. .l wk ?1 a "tg?wina?ia?tmu c184 Far .4. 4.5: . raaruzvufin r?iurde gawk: 1 \r1. .. 1! . . I 55.? . liturl19-w?4magFEn-i?4 NHH - ??133 . . . -105 .. b7C v. FMI Jig/ego. ?39. - 55-2 - -- JM-.CM ?aw/0? HI . MT 7,3 . )rvma/IW. 42/2. (ff-24? Mfr?m?{W -413. 6_ M79 JC?/qu 79C: Cm/Uf ?rm/14? Ahg?gb/? . - . 2..-..- .. - A - 155 t: L33trunk FINN T. . . L. #95 a EDIE.aul?v?w .??nvr??353 BluuohMauroT030 I Title: ?1 .l?fiV' Rem/A?! 4? i: zt 1 I 1r?! 3 1 ilk . 9111' JagIx. 53': a t? m- fem/It'd . . . fay; . sin? 1t? I: 9 a. cum mirecujiuthw? uhAn! ifuiv?u?i?r m. 4. ?fh? a k. $4 . 1i. am} LCmmewnm. 1L ufkr . ?nk, Man 67' fuBPaE'A/11-.qu . [$711133 2; 1 ,90?34 a 1? ?Glam 5 1 amleeoEJNo momma-Mo g: 1.111 . .. 4 - A x?umm. gamut: $151125 g?istritt QInur/t NORTHERN . ILLINOIS - EASTERN DIVISION . DISTRICT OF l! TO: b3 ?1 SUBPOENA T0 TESIIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FOR: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and testify before the Grand Jury of the United States District - .-Counet-the place?date, and time specifiedbelowWW WW 1 PLACE ROOM DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING GRAND JURY 219 south Dearborn Street Room__ 1625 Chicago, Illinois 60604 mremome YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to bring with you the following document(Please see additional information on reverse if a This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an offic??'acting on behalf of the court. CLERK DATE b3 -1 r8 CLERK [Alloozk NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY This subpoena is issued upon applicata of the United States of America Lyman-cu States Attorney 219 S. Deanborn, Room 1500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-1416 'It not app?wble. enter ?none." 'To be m: in mom-tom 080?227 f0 157 *6 RETURN OF cerveo om PLACE BY SERVER b3 ?1 b6 -1 -5 JAlt; GE b'jc SERVED seaveo Qty (NAME) seen/so 3y hue Jf??f?intt A F/a/ (mm 66: STATEMENT SERVICE 55w, - .. - Senvgje's DECLARATION I declare under penalty of periury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. Executed on i Date? - ?wt? Jco'f?f we". C/fm'd? 56" {tug/Muf? ?451/ AddressofServer ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (1) As to who may serve a subpoena arid the mner of its sen ,e see Rute 17(6). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 01' Rule 450:). federal Rates or le Procedure 'Fees and Mileage need not be rendered to the witness upon servnoe of a subpoena issued on beha? o! the U?lfed States of an of?cer or agency thereo! (Rafe 45?) Federal Ruies of Civil Procedure; Ri?e 1701). Federal Rute's of Grammar! Prcitedure) of on beh'att o! eertarn ind-gent partnes and comma: defendants who are unable to pay such tests (23 USO 1825, ?ute 1703) Federal Ri?es of Grimm: Pro-dedure)? a) '0 - at? Task Force to Confront Police Violence P.0. Box 478783 Chicago. IL 60647 .312/235-0070 October 3, 1990 Fred Foreman HAND DELIVERED United States Attorney 219 S. Dearborn #1500 Chicago, .IL 60604 we Dear Mr. Foreman, ?tyu?? We have previously submitted to your office .information regarding incidents of torture committed by the detectives at Chicago Area TI?und $the 5direction, and with the participation of Lt. Jon 5The previous response was that the incidents had noccurred more than five years ago, and that therefore your office was unable and unwilling to conduct an investigation of the situation because of the statute of limitations. In turn, we submit additional information regarding an incident of torture at Area 11 thatyoccurred within the five year period. The After-had iqdicates the followzng: On was brought to Area 11 from b5'4 the Itn Police request of Lt. Jon Burge who was seeking cooperation in the investiga- tion _iua?4iLJ?uLlj?xPolice District or a separate charge. The .in which was implicated occured in July of 1J85. Lt. Burge did not have a warrant for his arrest when he ordered to his office in October of 1985. Upon his arrival at Area was placed in :iiez a very small room. Lt. Burge entered the room and cuffed both his hand to the wall behind him where there was a ring placed for such purposes. After being questioned on and off for some time, was brought ,.to Lt. Burge's office. 0 cu _e a that time. The torture inflicted suffocation with the typewriter ov an Russzan Roulette. Lt. Burge put a gun td head and pulled the trigger slowly and deliberately three times. ?ne: Lt: furge con- eluded his torture: he threatened not anyone, saying: "nobody will believe you ecause there' 5 no marks on youJ' 60 par. 18?20) sumac WED stamzio may: ?1 EEOIMS @5513: 0: UCT151330 ssa?s 1 can NEPAQO A MANUAL 0 . {Ff/1:3: E1 {Mm?i if? [775 Chum A 4? ?1 You will recall that strikingly similar techniques were reported by other of Jon Burge?s victims. Other forms of torture have included the use of electric shock: beating on the bottoms of feet and genitalS'and racially motivated verbal abuse and dea?h threats. Lawyers for one of the victims: have documented more than twenty?five examples of torture of non-white citizens by Chicago police from 1972 to the present: with Burge being involved in the majority of them. A_former police associate of Burge's has confirmed the details of Burge's practice of torture in to these attorneys, while an international expert on torture, has determined that the victim's descriptions and injuries are consistent with torture. Nonetheless, Burge has not received any discipline whatsoever. in fact: he has been promoted to Police Commander. It is therefore imperative that the incidents herein be thoroughly investigated with regard to criminal prosecution. I Iremains ready to and can be contacted through his attorney We look forward to your response. 7Task Force to Confront Police Violence b6 b7C b6 b7C 4' I F0610 (Rev. 10-9-85) . TO: DIRECTOR, FBI Al RT EL Attn: Criminal investigative Division Civil Rights Unit 10/ 26/ 90 DATE FROM: SAC. CHICAGO 4 4A-CG-78234) i (SQUAD 12) 1. Title: (use additional page if necessary) COMMANDER NT CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT 7T 1' ?z?mri b6 -2 VICTIM 1370 -2 Re: 2. Office of Origin File No?: . - (inctude alpha) 3. Aux?iary Office File No: - (initial submission only) 4. Jm initial submission mgsupplementai submission 5. Matter Type: (check more than one if app?cable) A. Brutality No Brutaiity Enforcement 0 Law Enforcement C3 Non-Law Enforcement CJ Non-Law Enforcement 8. Violence [3 Racial [3 Religious Ci Other C. ISS Matters 0 Migrant Victim Other 0. Known/Suspected Extremist Group Klan Other Use to describe above (check at! app?cabie) Arson C3 injury [3 Property damage Ci Death injury 0 Cross burning a. Date of incident 7. Date of complaint 8. Synopsis of case: TASK FORCE T0 CONFRONT POLICE VIOLENCE ALLEDGED VIA LETTER THAT VICTIM WAS SUFFOCATED WITH A TYPEWRITER COVER AND HAD A GUN HELD TO HIS HEAD, UNTIL HE CONFESSED TO ARMED ROBBERY. 9. Significant case Ci Yes XZXNO (if yes, provide reason) g. If Lac?. ,v rm Remarks/Administrative suRcHEo memo OCT 2 5 1330 - Bureau 6- Chicago . 5 b6 ?1 b7C ?1 RWH: - (3) ie-aii-etpmietren-irz . FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype Immediate TOP SECRET Facsimile [3 Priority Cl SECRET 7 AIRTEL Routine CONFIDENTIAL UNCLAS UNCLAS Date 10/31/90 1 T0 SAC, CHICAGO (SQ. 12) 2 FROM SAC, SPRINGEIELD (44A-CG-78234) (RUC) 3 SUBJECT :r Commander JOHN BURGE, 4 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS POLICE VICTIM airtel to SI, 10/24/90. 3 Enclosed for Chicago are two copies of an FD- 302 cdncernin the interview of victim conducted b6 9 at th ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF 1370 CORRE Illinois, on 10/29/90COOK COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICE, was telephonically b6_2 12 contacted on the morning of 10/29/90, at which time he b7c_? l3 insisted upon being present during the inte this matter. Aryangements Were made the 14 'ht on /90, and he did in fact appear to be present_at the interview, along with 15 another attorney from the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICE, 16 17 (9- Chicago (44A-CG- 78234) (Enc. 26: 1 - Springfield (44A-CG- 78234) 18 JGC/nle 12"ny 3 351,5ng mm Approved: Transmitted Per (Number) (Time) :35ij a mu 17E if?gif?fzqafii?? uov a 5 1990 FBI cwmso C1 b6 -2 b7C -2 1g-w-4a48ciFBI)--174 i ., I 4- . FD-so'z (REV. 3-10:82) . 1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 3 90 b6 Was contacte at the I ILLIWQIS bW3?lrir-5 DEPARTMENT OF Illinois He was of the official identity of Spec1al Agent (SA) and that the interview was being conducted pursuant to his allegation that his civil rights had been violated by commander JOHN BURGE of the CHICAGO, ILLINOIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, on October 30 and 31, 1985. Was advised that any information he furnished could be ring this interview were both attOrneys representingl fr0m the COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDE. OFFICE, 200 West Adams Street, Chicago, telephOne number I I Iprovided the following information: Onl Ihe left his at about 5:20 PN to 6:00 PM, in his car. He stopped by a (last name unknown LNU at _6 an odress, approximately one bl He b7C_? _6 lef house and was going to drab and r?ns-ne-turnea?on to he Was stopped by tWo plain clothes Chicago police officers. Both of these officers we males and he did not knoW their names. One of them told ithev we ping him for a "routine check" and asked about itold the officer he did not know what he was talking about and then one of the officers asked k0 Open the trunk of the car, Which he did. The office? ?ooked through the trunk and did not find anything. While was talking to One officer the other looked thrOUgh tie interior of the car. without permission. This officer found . land when he opene There were also some on At this point was told he was under arrest, but was not told what he was e1ng charged with. He was handc 1d taken in a "paddi wagdn" to the police statidn believed to be the 7th District, by rmed officers, names unknown. had left the scene where he was stopped to walk Back to their home. He arrived at the 7th District station at about 7:00 In?vestig?ationon 10/29/90 at centralia, Illinois File# SI 44A-CG-78234 b6 -1 by SA /nle Datedicuted 10/30/90 b7C -1 this document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions or the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is toned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency I raw-amagF-an-ws- I (Rev. 11-15?33) . SI 44A-CG-78234 Continuation of FIB-302 of DOB 10/ 29/90 . Page PM, and was placed in a room where there were two plain clothes officers sitting at their desks. His hands were still handcuffed behind him With the same handcuffs put on him by the officers who stopped him. One of the officers at the desks was black and the other white, names unknoWn. asked one of them what he was being charged with and the officer said he did not know. smhe black offic~r then made a telephone call and When he hung up, told that he was going to be taken to the Area II police station On 111th Street. The officer ay Who he had called. Neither of these officers problems. He was in this room for approximately 30-4 minu es, when two uniformed officers, both White males, names unknown, came to get him and they transported him in a "paddi wagon" to the Area II station. he Was still in the same handcuffs. Upon arrival at the Area II station, they took him upstairs to the detectives section and put him in a smal_l room With a steel bench attached to one wal-l. They took the handcuffs and left h_im alone in the room, which had no windows, but did ave a "peep-hOIe" in the door. It was after dark When got to the Area II station. had been in this room for about 15 minutes, When an indiv1dua1, he later determined was Commander BURGE, came in. BURGE is a white male in his late 40's at that time, tall, - . pounds. BURGE said, "You're a big felldw." and what he could tell him abdutl which had occurred several months earlier. told BURGE he did not know What SURGE was talking about. At this point, he Was sitting on the steel bench and Was not handcuffed. BU GE ther left the rodm and .k a short time later asking if was ready to talk. again said he did not what BURGE was talking about. At is point, BURGE to to stand up and turn around. BURGE then handcuffed hands behind him, with the backs of his wands getl put the on very and backed up to the wall and sOmehow fastened the handcuffs to a nook in the wall over the steel bench. This forced to stand up in front of the bench and he could not si' own. BURGE then told him, "You will talk when I get back," and left the room. BURGE came back approximately one hour 1 that time the handcuffs had cut off circulation i_ Wrists and were hurting him. His Wrists were not bleeding. BURGE said something to the effect that he could see the handcuffs had cut intc Wrists and asked if he Was ready 175 (Rev. 11-15-33) 1 . SI 44A-CG-78234 Continuation Page 3 b6 -2 b7C -2 to talk. told BURGE he had nothing to tell him. BURGE then loosen attachment of the handcuffs to the hook and the wall so could sit down On the steel bench. He could down. BURGE then said something to the effect that Would talk before he got out of there and that BURGE had had people Like him before and they had eventually talkedthis bench all night and Was not given anything to eat or drink. He Was not alloWed to use the bathroom. He stated that the door to this room was approximately eight or nine feet from where he was Ef:fing:pn the steel bench, handcuffed to the wall. According to the tightness of the handcuffs left marks on his wrists or a short while, but left no permanent scars. nobody until the next day, When at about 11: plain othes officer, a White male, named came in and asked if he was ready talk. had nothing to say. This officer let athroom and then put himrback_in_?he] room but did not asten his handcuffs to the Wall b6 b7C left and returned about one hour later with another ain clothes officer. The took him to another small room on the same floor, with be] rniture. They 'took the handCL and asked if he was ready to talk. said he had nothing to say and the two officers left room, Approximately tWo hours later, BURGE and another plain clothes officer, name unknown, came into the room. This second officer Was a White male wearing a coa an ie. ieveis3-2,-4r? he would recognize this officer if he saw him again. BURGE said they Were going to take him to court, but instead they took him into office and sat him down in a chair across from desk. The second 0 in doorW of the office, Which was located right. was not handcuffed at this point. started askina _1abouf his told BURGE he did not know what he was talking about and BURGE becam enraged and told the second offi the handcuffs on This officer handcuffe hands behind the ai~. Tue handcuffs were not attached to the chair. SURGE then told lthat he was going to tell him (BURGE) (Rev. 11-15?83) . SI 44A-CG-78234 Continuation 01 oi 10/ 29/90 - Page 4 b6 b7C where were and asked again where they Were andl idec Yned to a swe . aced a telephone ca 0 Inot recalled. and a BURGE then got number on the telephone and toldl BURGE recorded this telephone call and pla ed it back after the call was ed. SURGE then said tha was lvin and that wduld tell him What he Wanted to now. "kind of smiled" at this time and at this point, BURGE pulled open a drawer on the right side of his des pulled out a long barrelled, gray, 44 magnum revolver. knew it was a 44 magnum because he "knoWs guns". BURGE then took out five bullets and put them back in the drawer. bullet in the cylinder and spun it. or I?ll b16w your black fucki his desk, walked over to revolver against the center 0 He left one He then said ?You Will talk 5 out". BURGE then got up the muzzle of the forehead and pulled the trigger. He spun the cylinder and pla forehead and pulled the trigger again. this three times trigger. ed it ck against his believed he did spinning the cylinder after each pull of the could see the single reund in the cylinder. BURGE then put the gun back in the drawer and at this point was very angry. He again said something to the effect "You will talk", and Walked to his right from behind the desk and took a typewriter cover from a typewriter in the corner of his office. This was a gray plastic or leather cove elieved it was probably leath r. BUR Walked Over to and put the coVer over his head. struggled to get up on of the chair and BURGE told the other 0 ficer to "hold the black fucker doWn". This officer stepped up behind the chair and put one hand on each b6 -2 b7C -2 of shoulders and own in the chair. BURGE again place the cover ove head and held the back of his the 0 her hand to press the cover int could not breathe and after off and blew into was ready to talk. one hand and us - 4 nose and mouth. a few secon 5, ma be ree he passed out. BURGE took the cover face to revive him and asked if again said he did not know what BURQE did not was talking about. SURGE said he wduld kill hi talk and repeated the abdve twO more passing out each time. th After the third BURGE not to do it anymore and that he would tell him any ing he wanted to know. p. a - 43? SI 44A-CG-78234 b6 -2 b7C -2 Continuation o! 1:13.302 of 10/ 2 9/90 . Page 5 BURGE did not questions at this point, but told him not to tell anyOne about BE tions and said that if he did, nobody would believe him. was then taken back to the small room he had been placed in first upon arrival at the Area II station by the detective in BURGE's office and the handcuffs were removed. b6 c1dent stated that during the entire 1 BURGE's office,? there was a in his sitting in the office next :o w1th the door open and he could see and hear everything that happened. stop it. In fact, he Was laughing while it wa the white detective in office. He did nothing to 5 going on, as was Later that day, land a 'istriCt attorney came in the room with a statement for to sign. atement was already prepared and ready or him to sign. did not read the statement, but they read part of it to him. They did not read the art abdut ts to ead part about the was left in the room and at about dark was brought some 1c en to eateat. Later that night, he was transported to the police station at 11th and State, where he was kept overnight and Went to court the next day, November 1, 1985. did added that at no time Was he advised of his rights by BURGE uring his questioning. When he first saw SURGE, he told him he wanted an attorney, but BURGE said he was not going to call any attorney and not to even ask him about it. SURGE refused to let him make a telephone call. did not receive any medical examination for any possible injuries suffered during these incidents and stated that he has no scars:from his treatment by BURGE. The folloWing description was obtained through observation and interview: Name: Previous Name: Sex: Male 1g- 1.8g 44A-CG-78234 Continuation of of Race: DOB: Place of Birth: Height: Weight: Hair: Eyes: Social Security 'Account Number: Inmate Number: Wife: Address: Children: Arrests: Black 10/29/90 b6 ?2 b7C -2 . Page 6 b6 b7C (Rev. 3-29.35) . . i . FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype [3 Immediate DW {3 Facsimile Priority C3 83 AIRTEL Routine Beam Cl UNCLAS 0 Cl UNCLAS Date 10/24/90 1 To: SAC, SPRINGFIELD 2 .Fnom; SAC, CHICAGO (X) (SQUAD .12) .3 SUBJECT: COMMANDER JOHN BURGE b6 -2 CHICAGO ILLINOIS POLICE DEPARTMENT b7C ?2 5 00: CHICAGO 6 Enclosed for Springfield is two (2) copies of a letter 7 trom the TASK FORCE to CONFRONT VIOLENCE and two (2) copies of a court transcription. 8 I On 10/23/90. victim?s AttOrnevJ 5?5 9 lwas contacted regarding victim?s whereabouts, ?10 permission to interview and any knowledge of the allegations set forth in the enclosed letter. 11 :Istated .he had heard of the allegations in the 12 enclosed etter but had no first?hand knowledge as he was not the victim?s Attorney at his trial. ?He stated he picked up victim? 5 b6 _2 _5 .13 case 0 incarcerated MC _5 at th Illinois. He 14 stated he Wished to be present during victim? 5 interview and indicated any contact with the victim should be coordinated 3.5 through him. 16 l7 2 Springfield (ENCLS. 4) - 18 Chicago (44A-CG-78234) qc?meccs. 7713f - . SEARCHED TINDEXE 19 rcb?m/ SERIAMED 20 OCT 24 1390 21 Fe: cameo Approved: Transmitted Per (Number) (Time) 44A-CG-78234 LEAQ ?a . 3 Interview victim. DIVISION AT IS InVestigation continuing. 2* 9234 5 SEARCHED INCEXED smmzagzapmn??lpz: NOV ?1 4 1990 t;2? AG923; 3- 7.97 ?outin'g Slip! FD-4 (Rev. 5-31-84) we 11/7/90 To; (3 Director An: COMMANDER JOHN BURGE, t3 ASAC 7 - Supv. 7 Chicago, :11Rotonl - '2 3m 7777* :77 7 7 77 7 7-700: CG 7 gyms: - RE: 781 ai7rt7e17 to CG, Rm dated 10/31/90.? ,9 Acknowledge ?3 For Information ?3 Return assignment card f3 Assign Ci Reassign Ci Handle 63 Return file Ci serial Ci Bring file ti Initial return 7 7 I3 Call me 0 Leeds need attention 13 Return with action taken ?73 Correct Open case C3 Return with explanation [7:3 Deadline 7 7 0 Prepare lead cards :13 Search and return :3 Delinquent 1'3 Prepare tickler See me if} Discontinue {3 Recharge iile? serial {:73 Type Expedite 13 File {3 Send to Enclosed for Chicago are two of ?an re interview he "1"2 conduct on 2 at . 7 uzno?EZC .by SA to replace_FD?302s sent with referenced airtel. SAC, P. WRIGHT mSe-ereverse side Of?ces rin field it us 6.9.0.: 1933 - 202-042185015 F0491 533?? 4-21-80) . Memorandum ?i d? 7? Date [j/[li/QO Sfmivxos?gievlc! RUC Subject: cal/urns '44? W30 LH [3 File Destruction Program hC bicag "'IL-Lluots Pozaace DEFT b6 -2 taxi-3M b7C ?2 CK 00: CG- Enciojsed are items. These items are forwarded your of?ce since: All logical investigation completed in this Division 3' cur . KYou were 00 at the time our case was Enclosures are described as follows: b6 -2 $79-$02. Cow-x33 o?g? b7C -2 (3h Enc. i . .. . jw? ReEord Request rc-zz: (Rev. 3'31-08) Date, I I Birth Credit Criminal Death INS Marriage* Motor Vehicle Other Driver's License I Buded b6 ?1 1378 1 Return to File number i . r2. x? mm 44 Nam and aliase ic?an?l?, or employee, and We A 6/38 60/61/ Jami! 6171/ ha Addresses A Residence E/ea IN (or/M? I I Business former *Date and place of marriage (if applicable) 9/6 1/ (09470 Jaime. (J Ref?) 8+5 wobc Race Sex Age Height weight; Hair Eyes Male [:J?female Birth date . Arrest Number fingerprint classification Criminal specialty Specific information desired Results of chdik WW 0/7 wag/kw We.) 24:11; Social Security Number 1w .l ~2oz c. Cheetah Teachers consider taking strike vote 0 Board of Education made no 0 er of asalary increase after' a; ?full day of talks Thursday with the gQ?cago Twohers Union, prompting union leaders to ask teachers whether they want to vote Tuesday on a possiblestnk Before ?Ihmsday?s talks, union of~ ficials held out hepe that they coitld stop th? clock on the process that allows teachers to void their three- year contract and vote 9n whether to strike on Non-18. But school board negotiators made no proposal for a raise, promising only to commit a por- tion or any money that they may get fr9ih the state legislature or any other source. The two sides are scheduled to resur99n'e talks next Thursday if Lawsmt charges police brutality A man whoseI murder conviction was overturned because Chicago police beat a confession from him in 1983 ?led suit Thursda in feder- algscourr'?h'?'r'grng'th City w'r'Th" promoting cpolicy 'of polio: brutality and torture. . 0 Banks, who Was impris- :ormo rethan seven years he- foxie ?a higher;re court reversed his con- that Atea 2. detectives twice put a plastic bag over his head to coerce him confessirg. Champ . "h nese business executives and three Pa er! and Charles Gitmhard torturing menaraecuw Cmdr. Jon Burge, 'then In charge of mama-rum: 'crim'cs unit of ?encouraging and supervising this: violence.?? A spokesman for the Chicago Po; lice ment had no comment on the' wsuitas which seeks $16 mil- lion indamag messiah; all ?ed mo dents in us most! mews beath by Arenan 2 detectives between 911972 and 199895. . 9 I On Leong plea Withdrawals sought 9Ti9r99r9?e 9919 l? M9199 pea _gu ty to gam ng-reiat charges' in the On Leong federal vestigation have indicated they want to withdraw their guilty pleas, lawyers said Thursday. The govern: ment will the plea with-j drawals by Irving Chin, Dr. Chi Chakheung and Yik Norm Moy,? according to Assistant US. Atty. John Scull. Leung and Moy testi- fied at the marathon 0n Leong trial that ended in mistrial for Chi-1 (hinese merchants associations fan key racketeering and gambling charges. 9 9.9139 Metcalfe Buildin999g: gets of?cial naine In a show of unit, politicians? {oined together Thu to o?icial? .1 gm name the new Ralph F. Metcalfe Building after a summer of -. rancorous debate. 1 The brouhaha? 'over naming' the A Lw -1, . MW ?El??1m? .. b6 b7C v?wv?Wu?r Area 2, Robbery Chicago Police Star 81.4322 1 G. BURGE JON Area 2, Cg. P. D. Star #1h322 - -1 1 ?4 .5/74 P12 apartment ?v 92?350-Sub1u-87e MW ?6 -6 Wast?h? 1; ?5 1 :93 Q3 3/73 an 2010* 313 UN 92 7/71! r? 1. urn. it?? I 1: 2- '11fo 1 4711??:252 r?ik-uth?m: ?3 1 1 4:1? 1,161- ~5 415.11% 411,111+ :?.1213 1 .14; 14:11 3" 211??. .. 400-125-4735 p.57 . 1: Zuwrvwo:/77' a1?; ?67 9' 1 1. 11-7,. .. .1 1 91.: 43 hard. if .- 4?5! {1:11 w; .vr 31? [004/5511 11(111 .5111$31,511. I :t 1 w3?kzr11?33! . .111 :1 ?11 ?51 ?air?? 14 - 1.. i. 3: ii: ?213% 3?31;in :11; .. 9 ?r 4 niaS?; 1 y? 1 1 1.14.3. ?2 1? 1 3?11. . -1 ,1 1,19 4? 1m ??1:"17' $1,114.14 Mas muggy), JON . TRUE: F0: CG CASE NO: 044A-0003630 NAME TYPE: MAIN REF: 00: 00 CASE N0: 2 VIOLATION: CR SERIALS: 2 RACE: SEX: ID-NO: DOB: STREET NO: CITY: ST: - NEXT INDEX E1 - REQUERY EVENT DATE MISCELLANEOUS: CIVIL RIGHTS, ALLEGED POLICE BRUTALITY, VICTIM, COMMANDER JON BURGE, CG PD. - NO: 001 REC-NO: 001 022189 MODIFIED: SPECIAL: COUNTRY: LOC: b6?2? b7C ?2 F7 - ADD ALIAS F8 DELETE E10 INDEX F3 SUMMARY F6 ADD INDEX MODIFY SHIFT-F10 FOIMS . land (?ma/mo Firm, 19W?49436Fi?lj-2m CITY OF CHICAGO ROSARIO INTER-OFFICE No YES NO COMMUNICATION 7 - . . 21 NOVEMBER, 1991 ?szi _3 A 7? I ?7 -, UNITE I STAIES ATTORNEY _3 . on 3? 2. 219 OEAROORN OO #15 JON BURGE CR. I 123543 3. 5 l- 2 some OFFICER b3 ?1 8 RECORDS SECTION, Ir??mm. GRAND JURY - b6 ?4 kn. a; -, ?a _kf7CH-4 THE COMPLAINT REGISTER INVESTIGATION IS BEING TO YOUR OFFICE, AS ROOUESTEO. A . CR. 123543 OFFICER ROS SECTION, AFFAIRS DIVISION l.l..l 7 A if" - Rom"; i EXTRA c636: CMQIEIEKTIONIS i632 DIRECTED f6 de??fzvaEe? if ADDRESSES. HACE ONE OR 1W0 FORM SETS AI THE MCK OF IHIS WHEN IYPING. NOTICE IF YOUR APPEARANCE IS NOT REQUIRED BY THIS SUBPOENA, PLEASE INCLUDE A COPY OF THE SUBPOENA WITH EACH DELIVERY OF MATERIALS PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUBPOENA. MATERIALS ARE BEING DELIVERED BY MAIL OR IN PERSON, RATHER THAN TO THE SPECIAL AGENT, .THEY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: UNITED STATES OrrIcz_ 219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET - ROOM 1500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 b6 3 ATTENTION: AUSA HR: ?3 .f .a ?If you have any questione, please call the Assistant United states Attorney (You will fina the name and phone number of the AUSA in the lower right-hand box of the subpoena.) Memorandum To SAC, CHICAGO Date 11/27/90 From SA (SQUAD 12) b6 &mka: COMMANDER JOHN BURGE GO LINOIS POLICE DEPARTMENT I . VICTIM Due to the writer' 8 transfer to another Squad, it is requested this case be reassignedChicago 06' 33m 3333, ?33 NOV 27 1 90 CAGO s? HOUSE OF Smarty. Illurtmn?mr by Allen ll lly John Conroy In Chicago police document: February 9. 1982. is? recalled as cold and ov-rcast. At about two o?clock that afternoon. Gang Crimes ollicers \Villiam I-?altey. 34. and Richard O'Brien. 33. were in uniform. cruising south on Morgan. when they ver- oed in on a brown. two-door Chevrolet Int- pala. \V'hy they stopped the car is unclear. Ollicer widow? recalls that her hus- band had a sixth sense for spotting cars in which the police might have an interest: even when he was otl'duty. he had the habit of pointing to vehicles and saying. ?fl'ltat car is dirty." On that cold day in February. he may have had a feeling that the ?73 Int- pala was dirty; I it: would have been right. The occupants of the car. the brothers Andrew and Jackie Wilson. had committed a burglary less than an hour before. The take had not been specutcular: some clothes. a television.a lifth of whiskey. some bullets. and a iar of pennies. Jackie. also known as Robert and Bubbles. was driving: - Dz'ff??b?en at?Area 2.77,: he was wanted for 29. also known as Joseph. ?l?ony'nnd' Gino. had a chrome-plated .38 under?ftis hat on the front seat; he was wanted on two war- rants. one for parole violation. the wife: for bond forfeiture in an armed-robbery case. 'l'he?tales told by witnesses and partici- pants diverge at this point. but it scents like- ly that Jackie saw the lights flashing atop the police car and pulled the Impala to the curb at 3103 S. Morgan. Ollicer O'Brien left the driver's seal of the police car and approached the Impala. Jackie got out of the ear. and O'Brien allegedly inked about seeing one of the men throw a beer bottle out the window. lle? asked Jackie for his li- cense. and when Jackie said he didn?t have it. O?llrien frisked him and then decided to checkout the car. . a At about that point Andrew Wilson got out oftlte passenger? seat. and in the next 30 seconds a tragic sequence was played out: Ollieer ?they: having come to the passen- ger side of the Impala. picked up Andrewthe. angrywe.- - and? edit: - i if at ?hither: . ?r twat NV it 39mg?. a we. HQ JP ?qtn 4? ?n i? . in ?fir" ?3 . ~2 ?i :pa{I'n f: - ?Ilji 3 .Lmtj to. lift" 33at: r-{tug. . ?s-I - . - a sis0717178 C1705 OCkf?" 1? 11?" i3? .H - Could it happen in a Chz'dago polio? simian? Reader .. 710 .. Vol 1? .H, . 5.. - iacket from th?ewfront seat. He may have found the bullets from the burglary in a pocket. While he was holding the iaeket. Andrew moved in behind him and stripped him of his gun. The two men began to struggle for the weapon and slipped in the wool. Andrew Wilson pulled the trigger. perhaps accidentally. perhaps riot. and a bullet went through the head of William l-?ahey. Meanwhile. on the driver?s side. Of?cer O?Brien had leaned into the Impala and found Andrew's .33 on the ront seat. ?car- inga sltot. he backed out of the car. pointed his weapon at Jackie Wilson. and yelled. ?Freeze.? Jackie froxe. O?Brien. probably unable to see his partner. took a step toward the rear of the car. Andrew Wilson shot him once in the chest with l?ahey's gun. . Andrew then yelled at his brother. tell- ing him to disarm O?Brien.- Jackie yelled back that the cop was still moving.?l?he old- er Wilson climbed onto the back of . the Chevy. pumped four more bullets into ?Wt: e?w walnut-atom ,N-tr"mimic-duh [Hg-?8 I .a as .. I i=o-w-4oaateoil-2; 4 5? ?Samoa Iron page I O'llriEn. slid ml the ear. and picked up O'llrien's gun. The brothers gotbaclt into the Impala and sped otl?. leaving the two po- licemen bleeding in the snow. As the Wilson brothers pulled away.a man named Andre Coultcr was driving north on Morgan ?with his friends Dwayne Hardin and Louis lloolter as passengers. At the scene of the shooting Coulter pulled to the curb and the three men warily crossed the street. Coulter put his Iaeltet under 0' llrien's lteadand llardin picked up the radioin the police car and informed the dis- patclter that two police ollicers were down and bleeding. Almost simultaneously. two residents of the block of Morganwere reporting the same news over the phone. In no time tlte scene was crawling with cops. O?Brien and l-?ahey were loaded into a paddy wagon and driven at speed to Little Company of Mary liospital. O'Brien was dead onarrtval. li'ahey died 20hourslaler. The police began to track the killers with fragments of information.- Andre? Coulter said the getaway car was a late- ntodel impala and he thought he remem- bend that the front grillworl-t might have been damaged. An electrician who had been doIng a iob' In the neighborhood re- ported that the car ?as It brown Iwoodoor. Other sIlesI?ribId tlte Ittgilit'cs as him its to their .leI. and 'l'yrone Sims. who had I-atnessed tlie shooting from his front windr helped put together 'a poliIe sltetcb: A bulletin went out Ior a I977- 80 (.hevrolIt lntpala.bronve. rust. or burnt or- ange in color. a two-door model with "pos- sible damage to ft ont grill on drIIcr's side." Lieutenant ion IlurttC. commanding ollicer of Area .2 Violent Crimes. was oll' duty when the incident occurred. lie was at .1 car wash at 37th and Langley when a de- tective came running through looking for Iitt? Vehicle. ?It dk?lt?CliV? ItIlIl llurge of tin shootings. and almost simulta- neously llurge' beeper went off. I to hisollice to take charge of the investigation. lle would not return home for five days. I. (.9 A jl some (Ill square miles of the south side. was headquartered itt rt briIlt bttildittg at llte corner of Street and Cottage (irove Av- ettIIe l'he cop-I who Ialled it home were basing It tent IvIntI r. At times it seemed almost reasonable to believe that son Inc had IleI laIed open season on poliII-Itten. Fm? ollicers had been shot iIItlIe mm more titan .1 month. (The victims. Itsi. le front Faltev and O?Brien were two deputy IlII-Itll's. sltot :tn ItrntIIl tub bets at a MI 1 tonald s. and [antes Mode. :1 IoolIiI top. ulto was shot dead on It A bus \thIle a robbers .IttspeII named l' Edgar llope.) As .1 result. leellIIg?I two high when the police set ottl to Iind the hilt rs ol' l?altev and O?Brien. A grid search was set up to ?nd the Impala. and a" itottse-byIImItsI' canvass began itt tlte area shooting. I: brought I?sI'ess. began hiIl-tingdowndoors. Al- I'in bmitlt IlaInIed that plaintlotltesmen pointed guns at the he. Id of their l2 year- old daughter. Adolph Thornton reported that It? policeman had slIoII "l horn- tons net I sear-old (?Ierman shepherd. il- liam Phillips. 3? .. It .lticago lireman. Iont- pl. that be h: en arrested for stand- ing on a street lltat one of his teeth was knocked out the process. and that be was later charged with disorderly Conduct. The \Villie Ilatrnw ul Operation l?USll said Ih It tn the neighborhood Ititlts? shooting. every young black male in sight was being stopped and questioned. and the Defender qumed II woman who said she'd sent lter sou away because ?the police were ?my. picking up kids who clearly did not match the description ofthe two men uho were named.? Renault Robinson. director of the Afroq?uncrican l'oliee League. called the dragnet I?sloppv poliIe worlt. II math of rat isnt.? He compared the police action to that of .1 southern sherill' leadingrt posse that turned into a mob. JesIc jacitson announced that the black com- ill tile it? 3a: {its At that time.Area2. which sprawl: over .. imuni I- I i .I i ?Tm "ih'f'm- imp.) Jig-y r. 1 .1: I Flam" I I 6 ?r Ail}; II- 4 41.3.3- if occupation." that the Police D'e- was holding ?the entire black . if Iotnmunity hostage for the crtmesofuvo. i - 7 J. I emperation. not the dragnet or the police Ironically. it was pure luck and citizen" eIttlutIiaIm. that broke the case. yrone the who had witnessed the shooting from his front window. was shown a large batch of mug shots and tentatively identi?ed Donald \Vhite. also known as Ko- i.IlI-. the shooter. II'oialt. it turned out. had whom: to do with the murders. but by the of Ioincidences he knew who the nutrderers uere. lie lived next door to the house that the \Vilsons had broken into on I 'cbtuars 9. and .tIIordIItg to poltce reports. the loot from the burglary had been divided at his house. ls'oiak explained that Andrew Wilson was plotting the ia?rlbrealc of Edgar lope. the map It ho had shot the rookie cop . on the (ETA bus on February 5; Wilson needed guns for the iailbrealt. Koialt said. and the burglary had been carried out with tlIat' In mind; the burgla?rs had found bul- lets. but no weapons. A lIoIly-aItd-t?ender man named Solo- mon Morgan. who had known the Wilsons for ten years. also lingered the two brothers. -. After tlte shooting. jachie Wilson had called Morgan and asked him to paint the ar'sgrillts?orlt. Mor? gan. realizing that the description of the ltillers' cur matched the vehicle he was sup- [towed to paint and repair. called the police. And so the police began to concentrate 'ltei ell'orts on Iinding the Wilson brothers. \Il-o were separately moving from apart- ment to on the south and west sides. various leads. Lieutenant [huge and his tnen surrounded a building "-05 W. Jackson at about AM on 's'uoday. February l4.- llurge was the first man through the door. and be arrested An- drew Wilson Iiringrt shot1553atlas living under martial law.' In - . LQWI .tr zonei . . under economie.politieal.and'v'c . . In. '4 Not long thereafter. Chester Batey. a po- liceman with the 8th District tacrical unit. received a call from his father, a minister. who said that a member of his congregation ?knew where Jacltie was hiding. ilatey down a passing police car. and at ll: 05 that Sunday morning. he and assisting policeme'n from the 2nd District broke Into lthethird tloorapartmentat $1578. Prairie. :?l?he man inside denied he was of the manhunt. but at the poli. Itauon he adntitted he was indeed Jacki; \Vrlson. i A Both Andrew and Jackie gave inculpato- iry statements at Area2 .T hey were tried to- ggetlter and convicted. Bodt convictions llwere reversed on appeal. The two brothers lwere then tried separately and borh were iconvieted again. Today. more than seve iyears after the murders of Fahey an Brien. the Wilson brorhers should be lit- ate more than tragic foornorcs' In Chicagos history. of consequence mainly to the chil- left without a father. the wife left with- .jout a husband. the mothers and fathers left iwithout sorts. and the policemen left with- Ioutcomrades. i Instead. Andrew \Vilson comes back to Lhaunt the city. [telling a bizarre tale lit for [some third world dietatorship. in It civil suit against the city of Chicago. the Police De- partment. and various detectives from Area 2. Andrew Wilson savs he was tortured. You tnight be tempted. as manv? have lbecn. to dismiss Wilson?s claim as a con?s tale. but the iudges of the illinors Supreme didn't. ln granting Wilson a secon criminal trial. they wrete, he evident ;herc shows dclearly that It hen defendant i\Iasarre sled at 5: l5 am on February Id be may have received a cut above his right but that he had no Other Iniuries: it isequat- I) clear that when the defendant was taken bv police ollicers to Mercy llospital some- time after to o'clock that night he had :?aboul I5 separate iniurics head. ?chest.?and leg. ?he inescapable conclusion is that the defendant sullered his inIItries while In police custodythat day . . . '_t-ga-7oI-ao48t:Fntl-22 I "Yo ou might be tempted then excuse the poliIe. assuming that' In their outrage the death of a comrade they inst Ion- ttol and heat Wilson tip. \Y'Ilsun II Is not complaining of ?a heating. Ile Iotn- plaintng of burns and electric shoIk. the shock deliIered by thI Ilille rI devII es his genitals. his ears. his nose. and his lot- gers. Alter eaamining tlte tlte deputy IltieI ttIediIItl esauutter (.ook (.ountv. initially a skeptII. a believer. . Perhaps you are believing that eIcruciattng pain is fit punishment for It man who killed two cops. Iiut ?hat if it turned out that it was not Itter'ely Andrew Wilson who was tortured What if a parade of men arrested lIv Iletee- lives at Area 2 over the course of a decade also claimed that they had been interrogat- ed by electrical means. or had plastic bags put over their heads. or ltad their lingers put in bolt cutters. or were threatened with .IIeing thrown oil? a root? What if there was no connection at all between the alleged. victims. no evidence of any collusion among them. and yet they kept pointing to the same police station and the same group ofollicers? i i We expeCt charges of corruption to sur- face periodically on any bigIcity police force.but normally we can take comfort. at least. In the Iva the charges come In out at- tention?an hoitest cop wears a wire; .1 fed- ral age ney does Its iob; a bum state? attor- ney decides he can?t look' the other wa or a newspaper commits great resources to an investigation. liut the charges of torture at Area 2 did not get In proper hearing until a convicted cop killer filed a civil lawsuit. Andrew Wilson's suit 'came to trial last February to the courtroom of U. 8. Dis- trier Court Judge Iirian Barnett Dull?. It chargedthat variouspolicemen beat Wilson after his arrest and arriml at Area 2; that they put a plastic bag over his head so he could not breathe: that they burned hint. first with a cigarette and later on a radiator; that Detective John Yucaitis began the elecrric shock and Lieutenant Jon liurgc carried it to great that detectives hook In the?dress for vein. i. In . a er.- 5?1 .. 13%; I- V. 13:? anti}? 1' dig?: Egg u"Iii Im :13";ka \K?qgu .14?534 'Era'lry? . In mem BUYSC W33 awarded" .zsfi. Andsohas gorie Burge?scareer.His per- Patrick 01 lara and William MeKenna par-1 I II tieipated the conspiracy by making no :3 .the, A If commendatton i0! bOIh mention of the torture in their reports on the case; and that it was a de facto policy or custom of the city of Chicago and the l? - hce Department to ntistreat persons sus- of killing 'poliIe IItIicers?ipmther .5241. men back to safety amid' Incoming fire. He also was given the Bronze Star for merito- ,rious service. the Vietnamese Cross of Gal- 33"; lantry?. and a Purple Heart (thch he says' words that the ill treatment It: ?'Mttiycn to him forashrapnelwoundthat spreadand well. known. et?en at the highest' II the pattntent. and did :31: [?took an honorable dIscharge In AUEUSI attithing about it. Wilson asking for a 196,9 i? work "?835 station. and 39' Sit) million in damages. 'lhe outcome i010!? POIICCI In March I970 3? would hate no died on his IrImInal con. theagconzi ItewasofliCIallyaCCepted. vietion. ?Ir OnJanuary 26. I972. Patrolman Burge, Although Wilson was suing six dcrI-mti . are 24. responded Ioacall of ?woman with ants(the I'ottrdetettives. fIIrIttI'l'I?olice Sui --1 gun" 3? a 3? 65th and Wood perintendent hard llrzeI/ek. and the if lawn. When he arrived he saw Erma eitv). it soon became apparInt to everyone M90432 22 on the telephone and in the courtroom that the real showdown pointing: 22 caliber derrinacr at her own was between Andrew Wilson and Jon llu'rge. as llurge was the commander of the unit and allegedly the perpetrator-in-cluei'. 0n the surf.- II the battle seemed to be Ii . i . Jon home was born a fer days . Christmas I947. the second son of l' loyd and IE the! Iiurge. lov.d of Norwegian Ile' scent. worked for the phone companv in a blue-collar iob. lithel. who was of Ger- man. l5 Irish descent. went to work when her r'son Jon was about ten years old. She ?wrote' 'a fashion column for the Morale; Daily News. did some Inodeliniz. IIrgani/Id fashion shows. and once mm '2 er. She said she wanted to go home to check on her baby. and Burge and another of?cer escorted her?there. Once' in her home. Mrs. Moody. still holding the gun to her throat. said she would like to sec'a member of the clergy. Burge made thecall. and he and the three priests who responded did their best to soothe the distraught woman. After 'about an hour and a half, Burgc began to feel that Mrs. Moody was likely to pull the 1 trigger. so he signaled to the other of?cer that he was going to make a move for the gun. Burge pounced. Erma Moody pulled the trigger. Nuthing happened, as Burge had managed to iam his thumb Int0thc fir- ing mechanism. In recognition of that ef- fort. the Police Department gave Burge his first department commendation. liurge was commended again in 1980 for an incident that occurred while he was otl? duty. lie was in the vicinity of and Western when he spotted a car containing three men and felt that. as Ollicer I?ahey might have said. the car was dirty. lie stopped and waited. One of the men got out and walked? Into a nearby i'otomat. A few minutes later. the man left the store in a hurry and iumped into the car. lIurge ran into the I-?otomat. learned it had been robbed. and followed the fugitives in his. interrogation (among 'many Olh? Ihmg?) own car. When they stopped at a red- light.? He volunteered twice to go to Vietnam. .. Ilurge pulled his gun. snuck up behind 'lhe first time he was sent to Korea. 'l'he :3 them on foot.ordered the too out of the car. second two he get what he asked for. - .35. and placed them allundcr arrest. . Jon liurgeI was a good student at Booth High School and went oil' to the Universit't .2. of Miwouri with great expectations. lie IttaIIageIItIIllunk out. howeyl?r. not long '1 :Iisnrriutl. In an intenicw last Septeti - he told me that was enioying lIiInsI-l to ?IuIIl'e . so two 'Itsked leaI?I I. lticttgo he worked a stall Iierk in a supermarket for eight Ind ioined Anny. thre he eventually attained the rank stall? gI-ant. Aiong the\ In)" he served time as 1 school. ?here he reIered IonIetr?tInIngIn .. i It". In II Well-Ear?- laid him up for "about If) iitinutes' lie . tltroat' She told Burgc not to come any clos- . it .3: times or leaving a bunker to drag wounded" .. - In.~ I sonnel file contains I 3 commendauons and a letter of praise from the U. S. Department of Justice. He has been promored repeated- ly. has served as commander of the 110mb iand Arson Unit and Is now commander of the detective division' In Area 3 When he ._.took his seat in Judge Dutl?s courtroom to ianswer Andrew Wilson's charges. ilurgc outranked 99 percent of the policemen' In thccity. I. . i i i Andrew Wilson declined to be inter- viewed for this story. so what I know of his background comes largely from police rec- ords and a presentencing? report written by social worker Jill Miller iini?l938. Miller?s report indicates that Andrew Wilson was the third of nine children. born on Octob 8. 1952. His father worked as a machineI '1 erator in a soap plant 50 miles from Chica- go. and his mother workcd as a waitress in various restaurants. While the parents were working. the Wilson children were taken care ofby relatives and by the oldest child. a daughter named liobbie. who was two years older than Andrew. Perhaps the children . hungered for attention. but their materiai - needs were taken care of. When Andrew "was II. the family moved Into a three- bed- room split-level house In Morgan Park. a house described In Department of CorrecI tions records as neat. clean. and nicely for- nished. with an electriciorgan and a small library. Those records also indicate that the family regularly attended church services andithat ali of the Wilson children could playthcorganby car. i . Andrew. however. probably had SI, sort] of cognitive dif?culties from birt . l. When he was in first "grade. he was diagv nosed as ?cducable mentally handicapped" (liMl i) and was therea fter tracked as a slow learner. At the age of seven he scored 73 on an IQ test. a score that would qualify him as ?borderline retarded .?iAt age it he scored 78. At age 15 he scored 70. Yet various professionals who hairc come in contact with him as an adult have said that hers of average intelligence. Miller?s report eon- a. i i i i eludes that Wilson was nor dia erly as a child. that ashovm gsiig?b 33 probably the result of a learning disability that was never identified or treated. i .. a. .1 . . i . Andrew Wilson never learned to read. II he began to skip school and to period- ie all} run aunt lront home. sleeping old ?cars in the parents told correttional II they would hint. .. II Ilidnt Itelp.- .- .. ittst Iouldn?t controlhim." l3he ?as school for with behavioral prob- lems. Al he started stealing. I le was com- mitted to another special school. ran away after six weeks. and ended up in the Home. At I5 he recorded his first convic- tion for burglary. after which he spent time in the reforntatory at Saint Charles and in the iuvenile detention center at Sheridan. At about tltis time Wilson was given a neurological exam. the results of which suggested an organic brain dysfunction. A reformatory doctor put him on tranquiliz- ers for emotional Ihsturbance and hyperac- tivity and on an anticonvulsive medication used t'of treating seizure disorders. Miller? a report indicates that Wilson functioned well on the medication. well enough that alter about two years doctors decided he might be able to unetton normally without it. His prescriptions were stopped about three months before he was paroled. Miller notes that he es'perienccd some dilliculty afterward. inIluding ansiety. irritability. and depression. She goes on to say. "It ap- pears Irom all available records and An- drew?s statements. that he was never again given a neurological exam not assessed for his need for anti-convulsive medication." Andrew anl? at the time of his release. He returned to Morgan Park and his par- ents found him iobs. lie worked on a clean- ing crew. and in I970 labored briefly as a busboy at Schulien? restaurant on Irving Park Road. llut he took again to theft. lie was arrested tn Cetober I969 for unlawful use of a weapon. received a year' probation. and was arrested eight days later for burgla- ry?. In I970 and again in I97l. he wasarrest- ed for burglary and served brief sentences. At some point after his release from the iuvenilc facility in I969. Wilson began a re- lationship with a woman who lived in his family's neighborhood. They never married and never lived together. but their relation- I it?; I- I I ship survived several of Andrew'st terms. 'Ihe couple had two daughters. born in at Olilljw?llcnough l97l and I973. Miller reports that \Vttson'}: I ~3 sum- it ?nether incident. Andrew was al- girlfriend believed him to be a good father leg ed to have robbed a clothing store. leav- and said he was very generous with his?; inglackie behind posing asavictim so daughters. During Wilsons subsequent he could tum phony description tome po- stays in prison he took up knitting and cro- cit INC- 'cltelittg. and his daughters. wltoi?ltre now On I ebruarys. I982. Andrew. disguised teenagers. told Miller that their father has ?ii; Mil postm.tn.c1rr:eda package home knitted them numerous scarves. hats. and of 56-year-old LeVada Downs. When she headbands. he girls that when named the door to take the package. An- they talk to him on the phone he' tries 10.33%" drew pulled a gun. Jackie sieppcd- 0i" of teach us manners . . . wants us to be pol-l mghiding. and the brothers forced their way had always talks to us about school" it Inside. ?lhey tied up Mrs. Downs. ran- . .. how important school is. especially?.i her house. and ?Cd 5700 In reading. . . . He tells us . . . ?hp good. and all; currency and -33 the same when you read in class. read for me (Lethal 0lltcer0 llrienwould find onthe front lloth daughters are bright and academically 11* seat of the Impala the following day. suscessful. After. sentenced to death in his \\Ilson. however. knows them mostly by Wilson wassent to Menard Prison phone. as he has been incarcerated for all and then to Pontiac. Menard he contin- but about four months of tlteI ast l5 year;. 311: I975 he took up armed robbery. lie was . .. attend I rotestant servrces until Al" thereafter sentcnIId I6 ms for the :igust I983. when he asked to attend Roman robbery Itl'tt suburban police ollicer and?a ??mmhc, chapel. and Mm" ?m i. -333} According to Dog IDepartnIent of Upon penitenttarv a. 1 Corrections! records. he attended Catholic he Is described In prison ollieials as ag- "5 regularly from Andrew gressive hostile. negativistie. tmeoopera- says that his reasons for sztehIng to tlte u. e. and need orb-?h. education. I le was Catholic forth are personali?he say only transferred to Menard 'and Worked in the t' I thathe . hen until he retells-d a Ionduct report I Mm": Symmanmz. personal I possession state Itmll- clIaracterIstIcs. called an crtI' ?--live pieces of fried chicken and spentmuch three oranges. lie attended Protestant ser- t' l9'67)" InSl'IlUlI'o?nsme functtons well vices. participated religious counseling. that functton the and was eventually reassigned to the kitIlI- it: is 39'6?? - - - Emo- en. Ilis correctional counselor noted that he functronsatan Wilson responded well to personal cOunsel- and been unable ing. llewas paroledtn October Will. i to accept delayed gratificationluring the nest three and a halfmonths learnednot ?0 mill for ?(his he has wanted; he saw his daughters almost every day and take ?r did odd hits at a beauty parlor in exchange Mm? 5 analysis. however. not t?or beIItg allowed to sleep there. I le re- he knowledge. In the public mtnd. Andrew Ill??ul tuhisol Ilprol'ession. Ilispolicc tile \Y'lw? ??35 ?0w" 0?3" by label cop indicates that he participated' tn four armed ?0_\Vlten opening arguments began roltb- :rirsintlte.t fatal ??ch Duff's last encounter with ollicers I altey and 0' Ilrien. I-ebruary. {hc ?33m? him ?we m0": In one Incident. he and his brother Jackie ?Mid?ablc- ??35 a murderer. are alleged to have robbed acamera store by? llurge was 3 war hero. Anarchy was pulling guns on the two clerks. tying them 1 underclass ?'35 havtng a 80 aid the establishment. In more than one sense It I with In Ie and leavin them in the base- 1 It seemed to be a confrontatton of black ver- ment. him which they allegedly relieved :3 VI: suswnite. II ,'three' customers of their? cash' and walke ll Nollie . xv . I. distill. . 0 i be zr?1rhh'lg udgc Brian'Barrtett Dull Is 'an avu'ncu- f! lar Republican with gray hair. a winning smile. an aversion to the death penalty. and a fondness for quoring Shakespeare from the bench. Ile' Is not. however. a popular man in the federal courts. Last March. Clu- taco Lawyer surveyed 348 attorneys who praetice in federal court. both prosecutors and defense lawyers, asking them to rate 20 iudges on the federal bench' to the. North- ern District. The survey asked ('Ighl ques- tions dealing with knowledge 'of the law. . ability. fairness. ef?ciency; and ecurtesy "0f the eight questions. pull was rated worst on five and second worst on one Chicago forever reported?; While respon- dents conceded that luldge Dutl' worked hard and was a good case manager. 76 per- cent thought his understanding of com issues was either poor or' very poor. 74p cent thought he was nor c0urtcous to law- )ers and litigants. and percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with; the statement that Doll?s legal opinions are clear and? well-reasoned. (Judge Dull declined to be interviewed for this article. citing a stan- dard policy of not commenting on pending matters.) her the Wilson case.?: Dull" courtroom 'was laid out with three tables. one behind the other. to the iudge?s right; the Iur'y box? was on his left. \Vilson' attorneys occupied the lirst table. a most unfortunate place- ment. as it put them direCIly In the iudge?s line 'of ?re. Wilson was represented by the l?eople? Law Ollice. a group of lawyers spe- people In the legal community refer to cializing In civil rights cases whom man ni ply as the PLO. Three Other firms had bI assigned to represent Wilson but had found ways to bow out or evade the responsibility. and Wilson had reieCIed a fourth be- fore settling on the PI .0 he attor- neys were a geographically unlikely trio: 1 lint I aylor. a lanky. gray- -haired man who hails from the Boston area; jell'rey llaas.a "unsuited-Intuit!? .- "o Is Section! House I "tram-I'll [urge- 9 bearded. dark-haired attorney whose speech has traces of his Atlanta upbringing: and John Stainthorp. who wears sideburns reminiscent of Civil War generals. and who hails from Preston. a city in northern Ii n- gtand.?l?ayior and Haas ?rst worked togeth- er as lawyers for the survivors of the infa- mous l?anther raid of December 4. I969. during which the Chicago police killed Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark: Taylor and Haas. alter 2 l3- year legal battle. won $1.85 million in dam- ages from the city. the county. and the fed- eral government for the survivors of the raid and the families of Hampton and Clark. The l'eoplc?s Law Ollice has since taken on many unpopular defendants in criminal cases and has a steady track record of not rights suits many against the police. In style they are zealous (their opponents in the Wilson case would accuse them of con- ducting a holy war), fearless. and rarely concise. The city?s lawyers?James McCarthy and Maureen Murphy. both from the otlice of the corporation? counsel?sat behind Wilson' attorney s. 'l'hey plaI ed second tid- Ille to the third table. re sat William Runkle. defender of the four accused po- licemen. and his associate Jetlrey Rubin. Kunkle. a partner in the lirm of I?helan Pope and John. brings to court It righteous air and a keen legal mind. He seems a born prosecutor. yet he began his Chicago legal career as It public defender. I Ie switched to prosecutor in I973. when he bec.'IIne an as- state's attorney. and live tears later was the poIItIoIt deputy. the third highest rank the state's attor- ney'I IIlliI e. After ltItnoIrat ItiIh: In] M. I talII IookoIer the mike from lie (.arI-I. II .II raised a non II rank. taking over rIIs litst on luly .5. I98 3. Along the war he proII-I Itted some of the tuna? 's most infamous Irimtnals. including serial killer John (iacy and sever- al men accused of killing law-enforcement otliccrs. Kunklc was the prosecutor who lirst eonI-irted Andrew Wilson of murder- 4 Five cops had been shot m" Area 2 wi'thzn littlew more thait'a month. As a result ,"feelmgs ran to nd the killers ofoffzeers 1' alley and O?Brien. jerse - facleson announced that the black was li'rnng under martial lent; in our zone.? any Qty In a; "3 htghiwhen the police set on at It'll? - ?up I g-33Ital"; ?res, . I . ing otliIers l?ahey and O?Brien. In I981: having left the states attorney's of?ce for I'helan Pope and John. he returned to the criminal courts as special prosecutor In Wil- son's retrial and he again prevailed. lle re- cently served the U. 5. Congress In the cth- -- ics investigations of House 4"Speaker Jim Wright and Representative Newt Gingrich and he has twice been on the short list 'of' candidates to become U. S. attorney. Kun- ?kle is a great favorite of the federal court bull's. the group of retired men who hang around the llirksen IlIIilding following chI ebrated trials Ilti way some Chicagoans fol- low sports teams. During the course of the': Wilson trial. the bulls included Kunkle on their list of the ten best attorneys in the city. Kunkte is a man who takes up a lot of room. At a defense table that seated four per. Iicemen of considerable heft (I suspect their? average weight was about 240 pounds). 33?. centd have been mistaken for one . ut the defendants but for the quality of his attire. A brutal cross-examiner. 3 he tIlt- It'll Iithhissarcasm.Ivithhisin- .33 3I-Iedul." his anger at a witness 3he tfoe'II or upstanding cili- 'ren: ll I..al I-s no Ihtl'erencc. II is far easier to?? imagine a lodge being intimidated by his kle than Runkle a iud'geiI and there were I many times in Judge llutls courtroom when' It seemed the real power II as not 3 tlIebenIh. Runkte and Wilson were by no means strnIIgIrI. having l'ItceIt oil in courtrooms to ice be fore. and the fun prosecutor on: by no means circumspect about how he {eh about the plainlill?. timing the course eta deposition Islam in Pontiac in Decent Ier I933. Wilson broke II while he was talk- .ingabout being shocked. was smile broadly and say love 333333333 ii x'c51 ?o .. words? it 33A: "lhconc?k?g?f 33333.; 333.333.3335? ?Jj daily basis, and so his appearance on the witness stand, seven days after the Start of the trial. drew a good number of spectators. among them policemen. lawyers, and rela- tives of Olliccr Fahey. Wilson's mug shot had appeared several times in the Tribune, and those of us who had not yet set eyes on him were prepared for a thinly bearded des- perado. Instead he appeared clean-shave3n, 33, a short. trim. balding man, neatly dressed' In a blu??sweate r. blue shirt, and tinted glasses, all' In all 3a far more presentable ?gure than the man in the mug shor. After being sworn to tell the trials. he sat down, and from that moment almost until he {nished testifying he assumed a crouched posture. leaning forward. his arms resting on the witness box. his head iust above his hands, appear- . ing to be even shorter than he was. In re- 3 sponsc to John Stainthorp's questions. he stated his place of residence as l?ontiac pris- on and his term as natural life without pos- sibility ofparole. Q: How old were you when -. .: 3..you left the Chicago public; school system? I A: ldontknowllid you graduate from elementary schoolthe time that you last at- tended a Chicago public school. were you able to read? A: No. Qt And are you able to read 303. day? N0. 1" Q: Areyouabletowrite? A: Whatlknowhow. Q: By that you mean you can . Iopylettersyou know how to spell 3.3333 . i?ihuw "LA?ii ?fir- Do you know how many r? -.- . pvordsyou knowltsnotthat many Wilson went on to relate the events of February 14, I982. from his point of view. He claimed that upon leaving the apart- mc'nt where the arrest had33taken place, Burgc told. his men nor to assault the pris- oner. adding ?We'll get him at the station)" . When they got to Area 2 headquarters, Wit- son said,- he was taken into a small roorn, thrown to the floor. and beaten; then he was kicked' In the eye?the kick t0re his retina hej said?rand someone took a plastic bag out of the garbage can and put it over his head, causing him to sutl'ocate until he bit a hole' In the bag. That session ended, Wilson said. when Burge walked In and told the as- sembled' cops that ?he wouldn't have messed my face up, he wouldn't have messed me up" -in Other words. that Wil- son?s assailants had screwed up, that they should not have left any marks. Wilson testified that he was ther't taken to Interview Room Number 2, and that Burgc said something on the order of "my reputa- tion is at stake and you are going to make a statement.? According to Wilson, Yucaitis entered the room a short time later carrying a brown paper bag from which he extracted a black box. Yueaitis allegedly pulled two wires out of the box. attached them with clamps to Wilson's right ear and nostril. and then turned a crank on the side of the box. really can? I explain it." Wilson said. ?The ?rst time he did It. it lust hurt. I can? I explain It. When llurge was doing It I can explain more because he did it more. . . . It hurts, but it stays In your head. It stays in your head and it grinds your teeth. . .3. it grinds. constantly grinds. con- stantly. .. . The pain iust stays in your head.. . . It's iust like this light here like when it tlickers. it Ilickers .I. and your teeth constantly grinds and grinds and grinds and and grinds and grinds. All my bottom teeth was loose behind that; these four or five of them. and I tried to get the docwrto pull them. I to said he wouldnt pull them because they would tighten back tip.? lle'pt hollering when he lYu caitisl kept cranking," Wilso '3 stopped; because some n33git: o'l'fv?i'l $3},qu .. l?-q 22h tutnedav' 5?43? . :3 I Eli? eohtmed from page to door, so he went to the door and see what they wanted." thn- Yucaitis came back, .. Wilson said, he put the device back' In the . If?; ckbox'aboutan hour lat-. bag and left. Wilson testi?ed that Burge re-I er. . "new. Ethan." eat at ?nun cup; In! A What, If anything, did 3? My hue . Commander Burge say when he - m, -I - came into the room? - i main . Orr?!? - . - . i According to Wilson, Burge put one clip . -. each of his suspeet?s ears and started Ii- '3 .- . . cranking. Although he was handcuffed toa 3 .. .- - mg the wall, he said; he could move his DarrellCannmr drew this picture a: part of . 3. .3 - . shoulders, and so was able to rub the clamps off his cars. ?So they got tired of me rubbing the wire of! my car. So he unhandcu?'ed one of my hands, unhandculled the left hand, and he tried to stretch me across the room and the radiator Was right there, so he was trying to stretch me across, across the room, and wasn? going. So the of?cer, the orher of?cer was there, he helped him, an'd,? tlte?y imtl?t stretched me across. . I . they hook-u -t meunio the other ring over there.? Wilson said. that he was now unable to an a?ddw'r in which he alleged thatAreci 2 - o??icers tortured him in November 1983. - w'l?ltat box . . . took over. That's .- radiator didn't even exist then. Q: rubthe clamps?oillmears; each ofhisout. Stretched arms was itaniietill?ed to a ring in the wall, and between fhe rings was a radia-, torthatltis chest sometimes touched . At. .1 So i don?tknow if he put I it?back on my ears or what, but it didn?t last long because he put it - on my ?ngers, my baby ?ngers, . nn out; ?nger and one on the . other ?nger and then he kept . cranking it and kept cranking It, and was hollering and seream- ing. was calling for help and stufl?. My teeth was grinding, It .. flickering in my head, pain? and _allthatstull'..: .- Q: While you 'were stretched ?n Up and down, up and down, you know, right between I a across in this fashion, .were- you .23. . . aware of whethenogtotftge radia- . tor washo? ii. Egypt?? . A: wasntipaying nouns-naps. tion. but It burned? me still. 1.3m didn? even feel' It. . . .That radia- the course of his testimony .flilr?l?aboutithe electrical devices, Wilson cam; 3,,was taken by AssIstant States Attorney Lao-- close to breaking down. The ?rst time cam a wire sticking out with the thing and It slammed think that?s when i started spit- 'ting up the blood and stuli. Thcn.?after- Stainthorp asked, ?And when he brought the brown paper bag back, what did he do with it?" Wilson?s reply was, ?i '.want to leave,? and the iudge declared a tor . . . it wouldn?t have mattered. what was happening. The heat' The box existed. . . . . After Commander Burge stopped with the crank . machine,whathappened next? A: He got the Other one out. 3. black and' It? round and? It had 3 31 iminutcs later, ?when Wilson said that some- .ni. I: :how? during the course of the electroshock, the alligator clip had come loose and he had gettert it in his hand, but the maneuver had done him no good, as he was simply . shocked there as well. He lost his ability to "continue the story, and Was urged by Stain- ;Il?thorp to take a minute and compose him- Wilson said that later, after. the electro- 1. ?shock was ?nished, he was taken to anOther E?lpolice station for a lineup, and that there he igOt a mouthful of the lieutenant? gun. lBurge, he said,? ?was playing with his gun I. . . he was sticking it in my mouth and . . . he kept doing it, he kept clicking it and he had' It in my mouth and Stuff. So he ?nally pulled It out At 6: 05 PM, after 13 hours? In the custo- dy of Area 2 police, Wilson gave a statement - in which' he confessed to the murders of oaliicers FIahey and O?Brien. The statement a cord on? it. He pluggcd' It into i ,7 the wall. . . . He took itand he ran' - .3 {If it up between my legs,'my groin . . area, iust' ran it up there very gen- . '3 5 my legs, up and down like this, i real gentle with it, but you can - .3 feel it, still feel hen he iahbcd into the grille on the win- dow. Then fellback down, and! 1 I he stOpped. Hyman in the presence of Detective um? stin?w short recess. The second time came a few ?treated. Wilsuii willed ti: 5 neonatal?! i tiara am a court tutu tiIcII us- parture, Wilson was left alone with 1another detective and [Mario Ferro and William Mulvaney, the two of?cers assigned to the paddy wagon that was to transport the pris- oner to the lockup at and State. 0 the stand Wilson claimed that he was beaten again at' this point, and that his penis Was grabbed and squeezed by one of the of?cers, the same one Who would later club?him on the head With a gun. Wilson said the deter:- tive told Ferro and Mulvaney that when they got to the lockup they should have Wil- son put in an occupied cell, so it could be said later that 'orher prisoners had caused hisiniurics. Ii if that plan existed, it ran intoia hitch when the lockup keeper at arid State refused to take custody of Wilson, net want- ing to be held responsible for his iniuries. Police p'rocedure dictated that Fe?rro? and Mulvaney should then take Wilson to a hos- pital for treatment. Patricia Crossen, a nurse who was? working' In the emergency room at Mercy Hospital, testi?ed that crro and Mulvaney 'entered at about ?:40 PM, saying that they had come lust for the pa- perwork, that if Wilson knew what was 'good for him he would refuse treatment. Crossen said that Wilson did initially refuse t'reat- but changed his mind whenia ordvrIlt zitsureil him he had the right i be nexamined by Dr. Geoilrey Rom, till: . ti-sttlicd that, iust as he was about to suture a wound In Wilson head, Ollicer Mulvaney pulled out a gun. Korrt refused to treat the prisoner while the gun was out and walked out of the room. Nit-?r lu' mg left alone with l- erro and Mulv?anu in the examination room, An- drew Wilson decided to refuse treatment, signed a statement to that etlect,and was re- turned by paddy wagon to the lockup at and State. The following morning. ilson was tak- en to 26th andCalifornia for arraignment and admission to Cook County Jail. Ordi- narily iail authorities take only a mug slt0t of an arriving prisoner. in Andrew Wilson? case they took pictures of hiI tizoholeh dyso as not tobe blamed forltisi .. We inl- lowing day. Dale Coventi i- I. ?the de- fender appointed to defend Wilson; ar- ranged to hat-elfmore pictures! taken of the I I 'prisoner, paying partiCular attention to Wit. - son's ears. chest. and thigh. lilowups of the Coventry photos were the most troubling eslidence against Oom- mander liurge. The chest shots showed marks where Andrew Wilson said he had been burned against the radiator. A picture of his thigh showed a very large burn mark as wit. The shots of the ears. however. were the most curious: they showed a pattern of ll-shaped scabs that seemed inexplicable unless one believed that alligator clips had indeed been attached to Wilson?s ears. I i The cross-examination of Andrew Wil- son by William Rookie. the policemen?s at- torney. revealed that the police also be- lieved that those ill-shaped scabs had come from an alligator clip. In Kunkle?s version. however. there was no eleCIrieal current: he wanted the iuty to believe that Andrew Wil- son had found a roach clip between the time he left Area 2 and the time he entered Cools County Jail and that he had placed it on his ears and nose in order to support his cock- and bullstorv that he' been subiected to elecnical shock. Kunkle claimed that Wilson had gone to this extreme because he reali/ed he had confessed to a death-penal: ty oiTense and he needed to do something to have that confession suppressed. l-{unl-tle appeared absolutely eonsinced of the righteousness of his cause as he be- gan- -his cross-es \amination of Wilson. The former prose cIutor began by asking detec- tives O?l lara and to stand up and O?Hara had been the first interrogators of Wilson. at least in the Po- lice Department's version of events. and they? were the authors ot'the ?Cleared and Closed? report on the ease). Kunhle asked Wilson if either of the two detectives had ever laid a hand on him. Wilson said no. (Wilson?s attorneys were arguing that lara and McKenna were the nice guys in a good guy-bad guy team. that the two men had taken Wilson?s statement but had cho- sen to overlook and cover up his torture.) Then Kunlde went to work on the charac- ter of Andfew Wilson. trying to change the iury?s impression of him from viCtim to pre- dator. from a bloodied and burned human being to a man who made his living with a gun. I 11391:? :a Mr. Wilson.? between At't- '31?:th gust of I931 and your arrest on February Id of I982. did have .?fz?i i bit? 3?11 A: No. Q: Were you doing any lsind of work yourself? I A: On advice of my eotfli?sel JII?E?tr?t'i am not going to answer that . . . . . on the wounds that it might' in- ., eliminates me. 2:53;: Q: llow were you getting money during that period of 1 film?? Z- 1 At" the advice of tuy? "i counsel l'm not going to answer 1 .1 that on the grounds it might in- s?tgm?tif Az'tt?No?yes. working at the . Eel I. .5 hid. tannin; .- 11. .1113 ?it? A. Whed did you'patntr' . 13.3.; .32 3.1- A: Inthe70s. ",gI . 13? i? . ?1?1333'?g?is?1 5.133;; Q: How many painting . 1 "513g. gig-M5: ?95 you have? . - Mercy Hospital documents indicate that i: A- Onlyone. {do when Wilson firstarrived at the emergency QgAnyotherio . .I 1. . 1.31) i Q: When was that? - 1; ?y if}; A: lthinkitwasinthe 70s. Q. llowlong? am 1 3:19:23; A: It didn't last long. maybe 3 ii!" week or so. Kunlde?s cross-examination was quite . :Utheatrical. When he tore open an envelope. you could hear the rip from one end of the courtroom to the other. He tossed guns room, he said that he had received his iniu- ries after falling outside the police station (the documents also indicate that the po- licemen present were cncouragin'g Wilson to refuse treatment); on the witness stand. however, Wilson denied making any state- ment about falling. Kunkle also raised questions abour the allegation that Burge had put a gun in Wil- son?s mouth. if it had happened in the line- up room at Area l, as Wilson said it did, liurg'e would have had to have been ex- criminateme. . onto the defense table almost carelessly. He - - Wilson came across as superior. even arrogant and a. - rnldir?il'fumde You l0 $40501? imilson seemed cowed at times hostile at . se :00 or ing truant. or you moan-,3. . didn't playing ?ka. is lit-ll Kunlde gor Wilson to admit he had seen 1 rittbt? And - '1 3 Wilson it i .1 - Q: Did they you any suddenly came to him that he had been rs??din?-?l Mosely? wearing boxer shorts when he was arrested. y. A: NO- not long underwear; that admission might - atlect the' tury?s belief' in his claim to have . 1 been burned on the thigh by the radiator.: a Q1 What did ?my teach you a! i" (The police and the city contested not the ti Moscly? - existence of the thigh burn. but the time at A: llow10 futshoes. 1 which it was received; Wilson might have - Q: Did received it. for example. the day before he? shoes? was arrested.) Wilson also claimed that AtNo. . ?1 when an assistant state?s attorney and a Q: Did YOU have :1 50b of court reporter arrived to take his confession I any kind? on February he had told both men that A: Yes. he had been tortured;both men would later? . Q: When? 111' take the stand and say they had been told . A: I do?! know year. I n0thing of the sort. Wilson claimed he had .. 1vas11ashingdisltes. I never been read his rights; the statement Q: When wasthat? recorded that day, however. opens with the A: 1 ?th 705.) state's attorney reading the Miranda litany. I Q: ow ong. I. 1 Atldon'tl-tnow. 1? . i. Q:Amonth.ayear.ten yearsdon't know about? 31;; . 1. probablya month. . I 1. 3 (3:;1ny otheriobs"it.?ii . - .11?lI?aintedi. at LII-I 1, 11a331,: - . 1.1111. a ?1:13:11 1-95 1 anon Fat as a .1 ?411: 51.37, 1* . ?xi-?1 a . ?l?553w 11 ?117% (.- J. -: 1?11}: t1 ?1:1 ?wteti" 4thth 3" "Sf-ft"; in ?37? it?s?tfir 1 -. ??uids-r. Vim.? in: .1 1 it 1- 1?7 4.1.11? ,1 $1 aha-112.11% an. 21 - Sod-on 1 House com-awed tum page 21 tremely reckless. as anyone on the Other side of the one-way mirror would have been able to witness the act. . Under Kunkle?s questioning. Wilson admitted that in earlier testimony he had 'claimed that one of the cops at Area 2 had burned him with a cigarette. and that he had omitted mention of that burn this time around. Wilson claimed he had not men- tioned it because the burn was on his shoul- a: tened. almost unbothercd byt?l'he proceed- ings. During another sidebar he ioked with a TV courtroom artist who sat a few feet away. motioning as if he could hold back a double chin. llurge is the ?rst to admit that he is nor in peak physical condition; in one deposition he?described himselfas fat. and when I asked him to describe himself dur- ing the course of an interview he said. "Ov- erweight. I'm six-foot-one. hog-headed. ?red-faced. about 40 pounds overweight. and not in as good a shape as i would like to be in." He de?ned ?hog-headed? as having a round face and a large head. Runkle took Burge through each?ofWil- son?s charges. which made for a series 32.s-iadaft-if. i? 'Ifthe moment of' his arrest. Burge maintained that he had-instructed his men to treat Wilson ?with kid gloves"; that Wil- :4 son was taken direCtly to an interview room at Area 2; that he gave an oral statement admitting his role in the shooungs to detec- tives O?Hara and McKenna between 7:00 and 7:40 and that he gave a written statement ll hours later.- .. i ?t?h 1?34.ngI f? . re ?39 .- 1-0Burge said, he let?thc men under him ques- tion the prisoner and never cven?entered the interview room. Burge maintained that he had_seen Wilson only once all morning ?when the prisoner was taken to the bath- room and was escorted past the command- er?s open door. The commander said he heard no screams. no cries for help, and that at any given moment. ten to a hundred Wilson?s attorney. Fliht Taylor. tried to ether policemen would have been on the disturbthe cool-headed.professionalimage 1? WOW ?901' 03' Area 2. ostensibly Within the commander proiected by addressing 3 er? hfiyn as ?Defendant Burge." Taylor's cross- Detective Yu?caitis ollowcd Burgc tc examination established that Burge was .i Stand and ?'15 equally personable and familiar with electrical devices operated by case. He denied striking.shocking. beating. a crank, having used ?eld telephones dur- 3 0! 14?an and ?id ii!? only role was to drive Wilson back to Area 2 after ing his service in Vietnam. When ques- i tioned about the investigation of the mur? 1 ders of Fahey and_O?Bricn, Burge said that . he had gone without sleep for ?ve and a half to six days. that he drank a lot of coffee, that j. he smoked two packs of cigarettes a day. and futthright denials. The attorney then asked the tee? mend er his net worth. which would a factor in assessing damages if the in: x. sided with Wilson. Burge. who has nev- er - irried and who has no dependents. said der. and his shoulder bore a tattoo. and he knew that iuries generally do nor like tat- toos. Kunkle asked Wilson exactly what his tattoo depicted. Wilson said it consisted of a rose. a noose. and two shovels. that it had the arrest and to stand guard ouuide the in- terview room where Wilson was held. There was some dispute about exactly which interview room Wilson had been taku en to. Burge initially indicated that Wilson been done by a iailhouse artist. and that it had absolutely no signi?cance. Omitting mention of the cigarette burn in order to hide his tattoo seemed to be I about the only attempt Wilson had made to .rc?nc his performance for the iury. lie was sometimes shortdempercd. sometimes sul- . den. aiid his posture conveyed the impres- sion that he was constantly ready to duck an incoming punch. He referred to a court re- porter as ?the ponographer" and to various policemen as ?the heavy-set stud." the "young stud." and the ?blond-haired young 'dude." A witness trying to impress the iury might have cried at the points where Wil- son choked up; Wilson asked for a recess, as ifhe were too proud to cryin public. Commander Burge. on the other hand. sat tall and erect and seemed completely at case on the stand. At one point. when the iudge and the lawyers retired for a 'jside- bar"?a privateconfercnce out of the iury's carshor?the blond commander cont'ersed with the U.S. marshal. an attraCtit-e young woman. and he laughed. seeming unthrea~ that his assets were minimal: he? owned nei- 'ther house nor car, had some equity in his boat. a few thousand in a money market ac- count. a few thousand in the police credit union. a few thousand in debts. He con- cluded that his net worth was minus $17,000. Kunklc walked him through his military career. asking him about his deco~ rations; Burge listed them matter-of-factly. making no great attempt to milk them for the sympathy they could engender. Kunkle asked about his police career. and Burge sketched it in with no elaboration. making no mention of his department commenda- tions. The bulk of Burge?s testimony dealt with the manhunt for the killers of Fahey and O?Brien. the arresrof Andrew Wilson, and Wilson's passage through Area 2. in Burge's version. Wilson?s only iniury was the scratch on his eye; he was not certain whether Wil- son had the iniury before the police found him or if he sustained it when the police. - applying reasonable force to a dangerous man. shoved Wilson to the ?oor to handcull? I I .: Cf.? that it was the biggest investigation he had 3 ever handled. He said that the arrest had u; not been handled as he would have liked to . have done it: iust before it happened. Depu- ty Superintendent Joseph McCarthy had shown up with about ?ve men from Gang Crimes South. the same unit that Fahey i and O?Brien had been assigned to. and an- nounced that they were going to be in on the aetion. Burge thought that it was a bad idea for friends and comrades of the dead i of?cers to participate in the raid, but since i McCarthy was deputy superintendent. Burge felt he had little choice in the matter. Burge?s most peculiar admission. how. i ever. was that he had personally interviewed jig Sebastian Ragland, a man who confessed to the killings of Fahey and O'Brien not long .: after the shootings; Ragland had had noth- 3 ing to do with the crime. and Deteetive' O'Hara. who ?rst interviewed him. told Burge that Ragland would have confessed g" to killing Cock Robin. Burgc interviewed .5 him anyway. Yet when Wilson was arrestedhad been taken to interview Room Number 1. but later said he could net remember which room the prisoner had been taken to. Other detectives maintained that Wilson was in interview Room Number 2, and that the radiator in that room? had never worked. In support of the theory that Wilson was not burned by any radiator. Kunkle pro- duced Dr. Raymond Warpeha. 2 ha! man with a thick mustache and gla director of the burn centeriat Loyola Medi- cal Center and chairman of the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the hospital. On the witness! stand Warpeha claimed to have diagnosed and treated 6,000 to 7,000 burns, 3,000 of them maior. in preparation for the trial. he said that he phoros of the radiators at Area 2. reviewed Wilson?s medicalfrecords, and ex- amined the prisoner. Theirs-cords seemed to re?ect some disagreement on the part of the various medical personnel who had ex?- amined Wilson at Mercy llospital and at Cook County JailWan hull-23 try-a- - ii l'ii?tltt i. 's vi't- .?i-?tvv .s I .he 'iti. ii. I . ?t at full. i . - - .. dirt is .- . v? si'k? - 34.4%: 3? i 31?? . 0? I I 4 "sitlawn-726.1990 2) marks on Wilson's chest as burns. while 0th- ers had referred to them as abrasions. War- peha concluded that the doctors and the nurse who had diagnosed Wilson's iniuries as burns were mistaken; the wounds on Wil- son's face. chest. and thigh. \Varpeha said, were friction abrasions?vwounds caused by friction rather than heat a "rope burn" or "floor burn"). Such wounds are dry. do not blister. and do not produce fluid. ?Analyzing the phOtographs of Wilson's in- iuries from the iail. arpcha said he saw none of the blistering that should have oc- curred had the prisoner been burned by a hetobiect. Warpeha's diagnosis was important be- cause it allowed the' iury to consider the pos- sibility? that. Wilson?s chest had been scratched and not burned. and that the scratches had occurred when Wilson strug- gled with Of?cer Fahey. or when he crawled Upon the car to shoot Of?cer O'Brien. or when he rode in the paddy wag- on from Area 2 to the lockup at Ilth and State. . Warpeha was an eminently qualified wit- ness. but a stranger to humility. At one point in his testimony he seemed to indicate that he believed there were only three phy- terms in the city ho could diagnose burns properly?himself. of course. among the trio. He stated that he charged the defense $500 an hour for his services and that he had thus far earned more than Si2.000 on the case. a statement that caused a great stir among the court hulls. who realized that. as taxpaters. thev were fooringthe bill. \t ilson? attorness had also presented an expert witness. [in Robert dep- til} chief medical examiner of Cook Coun- ts has an unusual countenance -a beard no mustache. and dark. deep-set eses?and he was an unusual witness. As a forensic pathologist employed by the coun- ?.he spends a good portion of his time working with policemen and testifying for ?He plugged it into the wolf: . .He took It and he ran in tp between my legs, my gram area, just ran 1t up there very. . gently. . . .Then he jabber! me with the thing and it slamth'ed me. . . . Then I fell back down, and I that? when I started spi'ttmg up the blood and stu?f?.- - 1" the state. His iob. day in and day out, is to determine what weapons. devices. or acci- dents could have caused various iniuries or death. and as a result he is recognized as an expert in the identi?cation of burns. Fur- thermore. in his spare time Rir?schner does human rights work, and he has taken part in investigations sponsored by A'mnesty inter- . national. Physicians for Human Rights, and the American Association for the Adv vancement of Science' in Argentina, Kenya, Czechoslovakia. and the West Bank. He serves on the clinical committee of the Up- town-based Mariorie Kovier Center for Survivors of Torture and teaches other phy- sicians how to diagnose and evaluate vic- ti ms of torture. In a deposition taken five days before the trial started. explained that he had become involved in the Wilson case when John Stainthorp. having heard that the doctor was an expert. ?on torture. called the medical examiner's of?ce and asked to look over \?i?ilson' ?le. said I would review it.? said. ?and i told Srainthorp again that i was very skeptical because I have been around the medical examiner ?s of?ce for ten years. lot of close contact with the police. and i think i hate a fair idea of what goes on in the po- lice stations when people are in custody . . . and I said I you never heard of anything like this' an Chicago. and I said that it does seem verv unlikely? to me that this would be the case. But Mr. Starnthorp sent me the medi- cal records and portions of Andrew \Vilson' I. deposition . . . and I must say i read it . . .. and I called Mr. Stainthorp and said, 'This guy has been' {Ortured. Ithinkthere' is a very high degree of medical certainty to say this man has not only? been beaten and/or kicked. which. Ict' 5 "face it. occurs in custo- dy. but that this man has received electric shah In that deposition. went on to say that Wilson's description of what had happened to his body and his dif?culty in telling the story without breaking down were consistent with the experiences of oth- ers who had .bcen tortured with electric shock. ?These are not the kinds of things that are faked." Kirsch ner said. "This is not general knowledge . . . or things you pick up through your general reading. . . . This is not information that i would expect to be ?oating around the prisons. passed from one prisoner to anOther. . . . These are things that you have to delve' into Amnesty international reports or orher human rights reports. These" aren't the sort of things you pick up on the newsstand or late] going to ?nd' in medical or law iournals for the most part." ,i was clearly? a very dangerous witness. for more dangerous than even Wil- son himself. and Kunkie did not want the doctor' 5 opinions to be heard? in open court. With the' gory out of the courtroom. Runkle argued against allowing testify as an expert witness on the subsect oftor- t'ure. lie said that the fede ai court had nev- er recognized rt torture expert and had nev- i I :1 L.- a with l. . i vivid: er recognized torture as a ?eld of scienti?d - expertise; that even those working' in the field had Written that there had not been enough study done to draw a scienti?caliv? sound pro?le of torture victims. Further more. Kunkie argued. had; no personal experience with the machinery of electroshock and had never seen anyone who had had an electrical device attached' to his or her ears. Judge Dufl?said' it was "a tough call. He professed admiration for work and at one point soggest- ed that more attention be paid by ner' a human rights colleagues to abuses' committed by the British' in Northern ire- Iand. in the end, however, the iudge sided with Kunkic. was allowed to tes- tify as an expert in identifying burns but was notallowed to say anything about tenure or abour the credibility of Andrew Wils'on?s account. Duff also ordered that curriculum vitae should be purged of 1any . mention of torture and human rights? activi- ty before it was submitted to the' :ury.? . testimony stood' in stark con- trast to Dr. Warpeha's. The deputy chief medical examiner said that when forensic pathologists set about determining whether a wound is a burn or an abrasion. one key facror' :3 the border of the wound. An abra- sion. said.? is always accompanied by a scraping of the skin. while a burn' is marked by very sharp margins. pointing to phoros of Wilson' wounds. stat- ed that the chest. thigh. and cheek iniuries had very sharp margins. that there was no evidence .'of scraping. and that there was also evidence of blisters. The wounds; he said. werethereforesecond- -degree burns. In making his htsown study. had been viewing eight by-tcn- inch photos of \Vilson' iniuries. and It 'was only rust before he entered the courtroom that he saw the same pictures blown up to two feet bi three feet. carried a magnify- i ?not Immaw 1 a 'i a retransmit- 23 I I h! an RIADIR - sun-m Hottse I I Int-mud let-u lulu-2 ing glass with him. and In the course of ex- plaining that the bounds on Wilson's ears were punctate abrasions. he noticed that In one of the enlargements one mark washoth darker than the others and out of line. While onthe stand hecametmheton- clusion that that particular marl?. was proba- bly? not a punctate abrasion. but a spark born. This casuallI delivered remark IIas partieularlI threatening for the defendant?. Their roach-clip defense could support abrasions. It could not withstand a spark burn. When Kunl'tle got the chance to cross- caamine he worked up a great deal oi indignation. mocking the doctor' lltII- hour magnifIing- -glass discovcrI. lie asked how many live burn pa- tients the doctor had examined. who works on the dead. said he had seen fewer than a dozen and that only two or three of those had radiator burns. l-{unkle tried to raise suspicion about obiectivitI In working on the fact that the doctor had waived his usual fee for serving as an espert witness; the implication Run- kle wanted to impart was that the doctor had some vetted interest in the case. that Warpeha was more trustworthy because he had tobc paid. In the end. however. after testimony and/or a deposition from two expert wit- nesses. one emergency-room nurse. and four doctors who had seen Wilson between February 14 and February l7. it was dif?u eult to imagine what medical conclusions the hay would come to. he nurse clearly said she saw burns. the docrors recorded burns. lacerations. and/or abrasions. and the two experts were poles apart. 9 in 3nd around Wilson?s ac?count. the po? licemen?s stories. and the medical testimo- ny.there was also acase building against the city of Chicago. Wilson's suit alleged that . i there was a custom. policy, or practice of al- .. Iv . ?Tia-auto an - f'a?v 3Tb If?. .a I. my.? I I, I :?ri 31.331: -. .. fir-J t?l Wig?; - tits.? Fifi-ii ?13{31? in1i.- ?r wise allegedlI connected with the shooting head cuttIng off his air' suppl that his' Iii: does not work I . lowing the police to ?exact unconstitution-Ih? aI revenge. punishment. and ?lo that end. Wilson's attorneIswroduced four I ietims of the Police Deparhttent' en-I thusiasm In searching for the killers of Fish-3;: eyand 0? lirien. I he first vicrim presented was Mrs. Iulia Davis. a middle-aged black woman who? seemed depressed. intimidated. and out of her element when she took the stand. She testi?ed that during the canvass of 'the neighborhood amund the sit? of the shoot- ings. police had broken down her door. r'an- sacked her bedroom. and seized her son. Larry Milan. hitting him with a hilly club and a flashlight In the process. She said that her son. who died in I984. was heldl for three daIs and came home with bruises on and legs. I -. James McCarthy. the city corporation counsel. went after Mrs. Davis bI asking if - this was the first time the police had been to the home. It wasn't. LarrI Milan was a prominent member of the Black Gangster Disciples and known to the police. ?Isn"t It true." .\lcCar_thI asked.? 'that your son spent time in prison for arson?? Mrs. Davis said It was true. although It seemed to have norhing to do II ith the matter at hand. went on to ask why. Mrs. Davis had never ?led a complaint against the of fi- ceIs who'd allegedly beaten her son and broken down her door. With no sense of outrage in her voice. Mrs. Davis replied. thought the police could do anIthing they . wanted Roy Wade llrown. a stodey. well dressed 26 yearoold with a shaved head and a grav- elly voice. also testified against the city. llrown said that he too had been a member of the Iliad: Gangster Disciples. that he had put tItaI life behind him. and that he is _'now studIing to become a minister and -. running a store that sells candy. potato '_chips.and chili. Brown testtlied that on the day I-ahey and 0' Brien were shot. he was in Mrs. Davis's house. watching TV with Lar- . ry Milan. II hen the police broke through the door. He said that he was taken Into cus- tod that oneo of IIis' Interrogators put fin- m-rs in hit ?an and applied pressure: that't?; terrogators put his finger in a bolt cutter and threatened to cut it oil. that theI hit him repeatedly: on the thighs with a paddle; lice station and was toldihe would be I Andrew Wilson's OPS case is a prime eitamplc. Investigations usually begin when a citizen files a complaint against a and that he was takento the roof of them- policeman. Wilson?s case..howcver. was opened nor bI citizen Wilson. but by order thrown oli if he didn't tell what he knew - of Police Superintendent Richard Brzee- about the shootings of FaheI and 0' Brien. I Ie didn't know anIthing. He said he was so frightened. however. that he would have done anything to appease the police. and so he gave his interrogators the name of a member of a rival gang. - Maureen MurphI. who' was defending the citI along with McCarthI. cross-exam- ined ROI Brown. She asked if Brown had nor pleaded guilty once to intimidating a witnessleave Chicago for two Iears because he had hit an El Rukn with a bat; if his friend Larry Milan had not been arrested for raping a l6- Iear-old girl the daI before he and BIown filed a com- plaint against the police {or being abused. She asked Brown if he? was willing to lie to get even with an menu. as he had appar- ently done. she said. when he gave the rival gang member? name to the police; her im- plication. of course. was that he would lie again. tlIistime to get even with the police. 0 it often seemed there were two cultures in con?ict' In the courtroom. One was black. poor. given to violence. and often In trouble with the law. The orher was white. respecta- ble. given to Iiolence. and' In charge of en- forcing the law The city's attorneIs wanted the' Iury to doubt the victims because they had criminal records or associations. Wil- son? attorneIs wanted the' Iury to conclude that in February I932. the police could and did run amok. Ideally. some impartial arbi- ter might have sorted out the claims before they were aircd' In federal court. In this city. however. the agency established to ?ll that role' Is the Police Department's Ollicc of zck. a fact that should have raised the case to a position of prominence. or- dered the head of CPS to open le after receiving a letter from Dr. John haua. med- ical director of the hospital Ihat serves the inmates of Cook County JaIl. Raba listed Wilson' iniuries. mentioned the allegation that Wilson had been shocked. and urged that Brreczek conduct a "thor01ltgh' Investi- gallonr? i The OPS investigation was ihandled by . l-Ieith Grilliths. a pale. blond- aired man with a plump face. a mustache. and a dc- meanor that might lead a stranger to think he was a librarian or an accountant. nor an investigator. 0n the witness stand Grif?ths explained that his supervisor had handed him the Wilson file on August 22. I983. a Iear and a half after ordered the CPS to investigate. Grif?ths testi?ed that at that point. the ?le contained a few letters and some transcripts of a hearing at which Andrew Wilson had told the story of his ar- rest and Interrogation. The ?le did nor con- tain the name of the person who had assem- bled the material. or even an'indication that someone from OPS had actually done any ihyestigating. Grif?ths testi?ed that his su- . pervisor' told him to ?write a summary. vi-hich according to OPS procedure meant. that heishould do no more investigating. that th should simply read the file's con- tents and come to a iudgment about the case. No one ever told Grif?ths to give the case high priority. and so it became a back- - _burner assignment. Grif?ths handed" In his three- page summary 706 days after receiv- iitg the ?le. and In all that time no one from Professional Standards. an oflice that does . the departmepgasked him a single question little to contradict the notion. voiced by "about It. On the basis of the: files contents. Mrs. Davis. that the police can do anIthi'ng they want. In I932 the reiected 96 per- cent of the complaints filed against police- -. Griffiths recommended a finding of "note. sustained ."and so, three Iears after Andrew Wilson iwas arrested, Burge and his col- VII "5 men. and there has been no substantial Im- 'leagucswerecleared. It 'Pohce provement since. One can conclude either that the maiority of citizensi'_ Tonly referred the mat_ter_ to QES. but also nurtures: ?ction 1 House ?Mr-owed from page 3? sent a copy of Dr. Raba?s letter to State's At- torney Richard Daley. Brzectek show that he had publicly stated that he would seru- pulously investigate every allegation of po- lice misconduct. but he was wary of icop- ardizing the then-pending murder case against Andrew Wilson and so was asking - for guidance as to how to proceed. When he took the witness stand in Judge Du??s courtroom, Brzeczek testified that Daley never replied to the letter. i asked Mayor Daley to comment on that charge a few weeks ago. Through his press secretary, he said that he had responded not by writing but by initiating an. effort to in- vestigate Wilson?s complaints through the state's attorney?s special prosecutions unit. That effort was thwarted, Daley said, when Wilson and his attorney, public defender Da?le Coventry,declincd to cooperate. When I checked that with Coventry, who now supervises multiple-defendant- homicide cases for the public defender?s of?ce, he told me that he would never have allowed the state?s attorney's of?ce to have access to his client. "The only thing i would expect from any investigation they did would be a total whitewash," Coventry said, ?and anything they learned would be used by the prosecution against my client. l. was on the Murder Task Force [in the public de- fender'a o?ieel for with about attorneys. and we shared experiences and ideas, and do not know anyone who worked on our side of the issue who didn't see things the same way. i was in court yes- terday with someonetwho was thumped by the c0ps.- it is iust standard operating proce- dure. As the defense attorneys frequently say?. the iudges pretend to believe the police, and they don?t, and the police get up there and tell their stories and nothing is ever done on these things." i a a in closing arguments, Wilson?s attorneys went back to their opening theme, remind~ ing the iury that the case was not about the murder of the two policemen, that it was not about whether Andrew Wilson was a nice man, rather it was about whether the prisoner had been tortured and deprived of his constitutional rights after his arrest. John Stainthorp pointed to some of the contradictions in the policemen's defense. Several cops had said the radiator in inter- view lluam 2 didn't work; Commander Mil- ton Deas, the man who was Burge's supervi- sor, had said that the radiator worked iust_ tine. had maintained that he had never even entered the interview room where Wilson detective Lad said in a deposition that Burge had. Jef- f.-cy Haas, summing up the case against the city, argued that the city had done nOthing to investigate the brutality allegations. He pointed out that when the black communi- ty began to protest the police excesses, Su- perintendent Brzeczek had called a meet- ing. net of the white cops who were respon(31:?Hit.? sigh-?in.3355 a '1 . .2. 1 i ?ll 1.it's-i755:1? sible for the excesses, but of the Police De- partment?s black commanders, who might have been able to cool tempe'rs in their community.? Flint Taylor argued that ?him because la policeman] thinks Andrew Wil- son deserves the electric chair doesn't mean [he] can start the process." He went on .to ask why someone like Patricia Crossen, the . 'white nurse who?d treated Wilson in the MereyrHospitahemcrgency room, would . come in to testify for a convicted cop killer if she wasn't telling the trurh, and why,;if Wilson was going to make up a story to get his confession thrown out, he would con- cocr something as bizarre as a shock box and alligator clips?why wouldn't he sim- ply say that he had been beaten up? . - Wilson's attorneys also raised a maior question about the scenario presented by the police. Burge and his colleagues main- tained that Wilson had given an oral state- ment of confession at 7:30 in the morning, shortly after his arrest; the implication was that from that point on there would have been no reason to torture him. But if Wilson did confess at 7:30 AM, why had the police waited ten and a half hours to obtain a writ- ten and signed statement? A written and signed statement is an invaluable weapon in the hands of a prosecutor. Yet even though- an assistant state'sjattomcy was present at Area 2 from 8:30 in the morning, no one' made any attempt to get Wilson?s written statement until 6:00 that night. Surely the police knew that each passing minute of- fered the possibility that Wilson might change his mind, or that a lawyer might ?it show up and advise hingto remain silent. Jim McCarthy, summing up for the cit" . argued that if the city? had a policy of abut ing people suspected ,of shooting polict men, then everyone would have abuse Andrew Wilson. ?i'et'tht': keeper of the loci tip hadn't; he ?rst refused to accept 0 until he had had medical treatme an then he placed the prisoner in a front cell he could be watched. if the city had such policy, McCarthy said; then Superintent ent Brzeczek would have done nothin Upon receiving Dr, Raba's letter. lnstea Brzeczek opened aniOl?S investigation an wrote to State's Attorney Daley alertin him to the allegations and asking for dire: tron. i Kunkle, closing i'or? the individual pe iicemen, said that the only thing he and th People's Law Of?ce agreed on was that Ar - drew Wilson was entitled to the protectio of the Constitution. With Wilson's guns 0 display, Kunkle went on to point out th: Andrew Wilson didn't start getting cor cerned" about constitutional rights tint February 14, 1982, when ?he did v? his .38 anymore to make him seen. big man," and after he had already deprive.- of?cers Fahcy and [O'Brien of the has. human right to life: Kunkie asked whet the black box was and why Wilson?s ?rst at torney hadn't asked the state's attorney for search warrant to go find it. He argued the Wilson's attorneys had the burden of prOv ing where Wilson?s iniurics had come fron and that they hadn't done it; that lit: "scratches" (tact burns) on Wilson's ches i . iti- could have come from diving across the car to sh oor O?Brien. Kunkle ridiculed Wilson? allegations of abuse, citing particularly the charge that one of the of?cers' tn the paddy wagon had pulled on Wilson?s penis; he asked the Jury to imagine the likelihood of a cop pulling on a prisoner?s penis in front of six or eight other cops. Kunkle argued that Wilson was quite capable of dreaming up a complicated story, that Wilson had had all night to put it together, and that it was con- sistent with his nature as a plorter?look at the way'he had approached Mrs. Downs disguised as a postman. Kunkle concluded that Wilson had a right to the prorection of the Constitution, but no right to be be- lievcd. After closing arguments were ?nished, Judge Duff instructed the Jury in the law. Duff had dismissed the charges against Dc- tective McKenna midway through the trial. He explained to the iury that the three re- maining policemen?Burge, Yucaitis, and 0? Hara--eaeh faced two counts. The ?rst .. count charged that they had abused Wilson, the second that they had engaged' tn a con- spiracy to do so. Each policeman, Du?' said would be guilty under the ?rst count if he participated' tn the physical abuse or if he was aware of it and did nor assist or prorect the plaintiff. 0' liara, for example, wouldbe guilty if the evidence showed that he under- stood that Wilson had been tortured and covered up the fact' tn his reports. On the second count, any two or all three police- men would be guilty if the iury decided there had been some common and unlawit?? it. ti l?t nm"?i v" duh??'52 Wt . lion-tr.IaEgg"ll: :?awn'lot. 3:5 3-15{tn .151(fit, :?Fgu 5 . -- ?st 35.41pm? ?Kl. '3 l? t-tisfplan to abuse Wilson. letter writer went on to accuse Mayor Byrne ,script: . And so the iury retired. Afterward. indi- vidual members said that they .were sur- prised to see that the people they had shared so much with for seven weeks could have such divergent opinions about the ease. Four times they sent a message to the iudge indicating that they were at an im- passe. Ultimately. after ten hours of debate. they voted to clear 0 Hara and Yucaitis on count one. On everything else, they re- mained deadlocked. .Assured that further debate would be useless, Judge Duff declared a mistrial on . the unresolved charges, which meant that .the whole proceeding would have to be done again. He thanked the' tury? members for their hard work and sent them home. - They left the federal building not know- ing how much they didn?t know about the case.T hey never learned, for example, that in the closing days of the trial, Wilson? law- yers had come into possession of evidence so compelling that Judge Du?' referred to it as"a hand grenade." i i Shortly after the start of the trial, the People's Law Of?ce had begun to receive anonymous letters from someone who seemed to have inside knowledge of Area 2. The first letter alleged that during the in- vestigation of the Fahey and O'Brien mur- ders, several men picked up by the police were beaten up in police headquarters at um and State, in the presence of an assis- tant state's attorney and two of the highest ranking policemen in the department.The ,wts i? 'l is 3.355;} I "if? i .t . not ., and State's Attorney Richard Daley of or- dering that ?numerous complaints filed against the police as a result of this crime nOt be investigated," and the source alleged that the order "was carried out by an OPS investigator . . . who ts close to Alderman [Ed] Burke.? '(Daley and Burke vehemently deny the charge. Byrne did not respond to a letter delivered to her home; the inves- tigator?not Keith Grilliths?no longer works for OPS and did not respond to three phone messages.) The second letter arrived in a Police Department enveloperlt said that detec- tives O?Hara and had had noth- ing to do with the incident and that Andrew Wilson was beaten after he confessed, not before. it was the third letter that produced'the hand grenade. "l advise yisu to immediately interview a Melvin Jones who is in the Cook County Jail on a murder charge. . . . When you speakwith him compare the dates from I982 and you will see why it is important." ,Wilson's attorneys found Jones, and he told them that he had been arrested on a murder charge on February 5, 1982, four_ days before Fahey and O?Brien were shOt and nine days before Andrew Wilson met Jon Burge. Jones said that in an attempt to get him to confess, Lieutenant Burgc shocked him with an electrical device on the foot, penis, and thigh. Jones said he had told the story seven years earlier at a hearing on a mOtion to suppress his confession, and Wilson's lawyers located a copy of the tran- a 1* Q: Have a seat, Mr; Jones. What if anything happened after he placed the electrical device on I, you,oronyourf00t? i A: When he put it on my foot,l . started hollering, i made? a state- i ment to him, "You ain? sUpposed i tobe domg this tome . . i Q: And what happened then? A: He told me that he ain?t got no proof, you know to this, and E. that's when he looked over to ., lanOther of?cer]. I Q. When he looked at [the oth- er of?cer], did he say anything to [him]? A. Yes, he He said, you see anything?" And [the Other of?cer] looked up at the ceiling and told him he didn't see nothing. . . . Then he said, "You see, it's Just me and you," you know. He says, "No court and no 1 state are going to take your word againstalieutenant?sword." Later in the transcript, Jones says that Burge asked him if he knew two men with the nicknames Satan and Cochise: A: i told him i have heard of tiltlem; [didn?t know them pcrson~ a y. Q: What ifanything did he say to you at that time?? A: He said, they both had the same treatment, you know. He i I wymed no page 23 .. I rt yum-l 28 RIAOER- Seam! . HOUSE: tootnuedfrom page 27 was telling me what kind of guys they was as far as supposed to be being. you know, kind of tough or something. you know. They crawl'ed all over the floor. Armed with the Jones revelations. Wil- son' lawyers came to court hoping to break the case. wide open. but knowing that they had a time problem. The tip from their anonymous source arrived about a week af- ter Wilson's attorneys had finished present- ing their evidence. so in order to get Jones?s allegations aired in court they would have to convince Judge Duli' to let them either? reopen their case or present the new evi- denccin the rebuttal portion of the trial. hurl conceded that the evidence was ?awesome." lle also felt. however. that it required substantial investigation and de- velopment. The trial was already running well over its allotted? time (it had been scheduled for three weeks and would run seven). and Dutl?. who prides himself on his case management and is recognized for it. blamed much ofthc delay on Wilson's attor- neys. Ultimately the iudge said no. they could not reopen their case. and so the Jury retired with no knowledge of Jones. Co- chisc.or Satan I report this as if It were simply a legal . 'Iv II at all ruling, made In a calm mome'nt after the' weighing of various legal arguments, and perhaps that is indeed how Judge Duff came to his decision. It Is dillicult to imag- ine. however. how the iudge could have di- . vorced himself from the emotional heat in the courtroom. 'l he relationship between the iudge and Wilson" law'yers had deteribi rated almost from the first day of the trial. That deterioration escalated when the iudge began to suspect that the People .aw Ollict was disobeying his orders n0t to, talk to the press about the case. a suspicion that arose after 'Irr'ntgo Lawyer published an article containing photographs of Wil- son I .Iiuries and a portion of Dr. Kirsch- deposition. .3) sheer coincidence, the article appeared In the same issue that car- ried the survey results rating Dull? as the Itorst iudge on the federal bench. From that point on. Dull seemed very? concerned with his press coverage. The concern became part of the court record in the trial's third week. when. with the iury out of the courtroom. Wilson's at- - torneys alleged that Dutl? had referred to their client as ?the scum ofthe earth.? The lawyers maint?ained that. in an olf-the-rec- ord conference. the iudge had said. "This is a case where it will be determined whether the constitution will protect the scum of the earth against governmental misconduct." The iudge was horri?ed and claimed that he had said ?each of you? feels that the Other .. is the scum of the earth. I?m going to let the iury?decidc.? I You all know that have very recently been al?its!" 1 I.??is; . Inna. 1.5.. i 5-.- #351,: If; I I "e l-i" Islcan tell you that tonight on the ten that they could n0t possibly get a fair trial o'clock neWsthere' will bea news piece "that from Judge Duff the second time around. lays the iudge called the plaintiff the scum The morion for recusal charged that Duff of the earth Dull said.? . . You're going had suggested that Wilson was under the to havca headline inthe paper today. may- in?uence of drugs when he broke down be not a front- -page headline. maybe n0t a while describing his experience at Area 2; banner headline. but _?you re going to have that the iudge had incorrectly assumed Wil- big news Stories that s'ay that Mr. Ha?as said son wasa gang member; that he had repeat-r that the iudge called the plaintiff the scum edly referred to Wilson, the plaintiff. as the of the earth. .. . Now you have done it. . . . defendant; and that he had called the pris- onerv"the scum of the earth." Wilson's at- torneys also argued that the iudge? rulings showed exrreme preiudice' In favor of Kun- kle's clients. The lawyers cited several ex- amples. among them an occasion when Taylor used a document that Runkle con- tended had been declared elf-limits by the iudge in an earlier ruling. The iudge agreed *with Kunkle. said that he had even issued a written ruling on the matter. and indicated that because of Taylor?s error he would en- tertain Kunkle?s morion for a mistrial. Later it became apparent that Duff had never ruled on the matter. in anorher' Instance. Duff found Taylor' In contempt for using a document that the iudge believed he had ruled off limits: it turned out that during pretrial negotiations. all parties in the case had agreed' In writing that the document was admissible. On April ll. after a rambling, emorional morning session that bore more resembl- ance to a family argument than to a legal proceeding. the iudge said that he was not in any way biased against Andrew Wilson and ruled that he Would not step down.T he charaCterizcd as dumber than a box of rocks- and preiudicial'and a lot thhings. . . . What you have' Iust done' Is attack the' Integrity of this trial and attack the integrity of this court in public. and it' very. very serious. lt' heartbreaking. as a matter of fact.? . . . i feel like i have been bludgeoned. . . . lt? ts disgraceful. an iniury from which I doubt this court will recover." The iudge demanded an apology and -llaas gave it; the iudge then chastised Haas for' Issuing his retraction after the media were gone for the dav . - ?l Dull?s nightmare?a ?scum of the earth? headline and story?never material- ized. but his irritation with Haas. Taylor. and Stainthorp surfaced daily. By the end of the trial on March 30, he had chastised them for shuf?ing their feet. for their facial expressions. for having their hands in their pockets. for leaning on the feetern. By April 12 he had held Taylor in contempt four times and Haas once. - It came as no surprise then when the People's Law Ollice filed a motion arguing --.-- bururn.- nun y. retrial was scheduled for mid-J une. i i i in preparing for the second trial, Wil- son's attorneys began to follow up their leads from Melvin Jones. They found Satan in Stateville. His real name is Anthony Holmes, and ironically his arrest is men- tioned in one of Burge' Police Department commendations, a, commendation that cites Burge for ?skillful questioning." Holmes told the People's Law Of?ce that had used the black box on him in Melvin Jones had been represented by an attorney named Cassandra Watson, and she in turn led Wilson's lawyers to a man named Michael Johnson, incarcerated at Menard. Johnson said that Burge had shocked him in the testicles, that he had filed an OPS complaint and that the FBI had investigated his charges, but that hath actionshad cometo naught. Those contacts led to Others. Wilson? at- torneys found a man named George Pow- ell, resident in Danville Penitentiary, who said that Burge had shocked him tn the chest and stomach with a cattle prod. Lawr- ence Porec, an inmate in Pontiac, told the. attorneys that Burge had shocked him in the arm, armpits, and testicles; on another? occasion years later, Poree said, Burgc be- gan anOther electroshock session with the words,?Funtime again? Other men told of brutal treatment, naming not Burge but'Other Area 2 police. men. Gregory Banks, convicred of murder and armed robbery, claimed that three de- 31:.5' are, 2.1" e: - 5. int: {2:13 l: 'ir? {?le I {33; :5 was": i, 3? Dr. Robert Kirsch net; deputy ch z'ef medical eacamz'ner of Cook Corinty, teaches 'othe'i' physicians how to diagnose and evaluate torture victim there ts a :very high degree of medtoal certamty to say that this man . . . has recezved eleetn'e shoc.? tectives from Area 2 had beaten himlwith a each of his feet to keep him from moving. "is drawing of the cattle prod' ts remarkably . flashlight, stuck a gun in his mouth, and, saying they had something special reserved for "niggers," put a plastic bag over-his head. (Last month, the Appellate Court ordered that Banks deserved a retrial, citing the inconsistent stories told by the of?cers about how Banks sustained his iniu- ties and the fact that the same of?cers had been accused of a similar modus operandi l3 months?earlierua fact that the Appel- late Court believed should have been al- lowed into evidence' In Banks's trial) Wil- son's attorneys also dug up some of the court ?le of a man named Darrell Cannon, who had been arrested live days after Banks by the same in an af?davit Cannon claimed that the policemen had addressed him as ?nigger" when they put a shotgun into his mouth; that they had pulled his pants down to his ankles and shocked his testicles with a cattle prod; and that they .d also put the cattle prod' in his mr uth. C. .znon drew pictures to illustrate . his story, and although they are crude. the detail' tn them' rs striking;' in one illustration, in which Cannon' is being shocked on the 5. - h. i In. g?riitals, he shows policemen standing on similar to Wilson' description of the second device that Burgc allegedlyused onhim. The graphic stories of Banks and Can- non, however, were of little use to Wilson' 3 attorneys. Given the limits of their lawsuit, they had to concentrate on the cases involv- ing Commander Burge. Those cases, which included the names of five other de- tectives at Area 2.eov'ered the years 1968 to I981: And Wilson? lawyers had two signi?cant legal obstacles to overcome before they could use even those cases. First, Wilson?s complaint alleged that Burge and his col- leagues had abused people suspected of shooting policemen, and that the city had a policy of allowing such abuse. All of the al- leged torture victims the lawyers had locat- ed had been charged with felonies, but only one, a man named Willie Porch, had been arrested in connection with the shooting of a cop. So Wilson's lawyers moved to amend their complaint. however. ruled against them. He believed that if he allowed faCt informed the US. attorney - the allegations, saying that if they tilt not ?not ?t"?iih2?17}: ?4 ?K?vgi. 31$" 1: :02; .wlit?U/ .- urir'l?ffillethalfJanuary 26.1990 2? the new evidence to be heard the proceed- ing would become a series of . within a trial and that the whole proge: tould well take a. year. "in my ?opimon," ?Judge Dull said, "the allegations that have been made about Commander Burge are extremely se- irious. If true. they might very well require an investigation on the part of the U. S. at- torney and/or the Dull said that true, a federal investigation was warranted, and if they were false, then federal authori- "ties should investigate whether Wilson's lawyers or those they had spoken to had en~ gaged in a conspiracy ?to suborn perjury and/or interfere with the process of this court.? . Wilson's attorneys did not give up hope however, because they thought they might I .be able to work Melvin Jones' into their case 'evcn though he had nor been arrested for the murder of a policeman. The Federal ll l- .5 Rules of Evidence usually forbid the Use of :prior crimes or actions to character of the accused, the reasoning is that a man on trial for banlt robbery should nor be con- cause he has been convicted of some err in the past. However, the rules allow sue evidence to be introduced if it tends to lprove {acts at issue tn the case, including ?I?motive, Opportunity, intent, preparation, ?plan knowledgemridentity.? This was the second obstacle that Wil- g'fsons lawyers tried to surmount: they i. ii a on page )0 'victed of the robbery at hand simply -l -. - 9.. r-u?Wrr -- 1h eta-amatentt?z 3? theft, periury. manslaughter. and. black- mail. On March l3. 1987. he was arrested in suburban Harvey and charged with pos- session with intent to deliver cocaine. He eventually ended up in Cook County Jail on the same tier as Andrew Wilson. who was then awaiting the retrial of his murder case. Coleman. who is white. claimed that a few days after he met Wilson. the black eon- vict made two amazing admissionss' he said that he had indeed killed the two police of?cers (a particularly stupid admission giv- en that he was maintaining his innocence in his impending retrial), and he said that he had burned himself on the radiator in the interview room in order to make it ap- pear as though his confession had been coerced. (Coleman offered no explanation for the pattern of scabs on Wilson's ears and nose.) Coleman was an unbelievable witness to those who knew his record.The iury. how- ever. did net know most of it. as in most cir- cumstances legal precedent precludes the mention of conviCtions over ten years old. ln order to,convey to the iury that Coleman was alwayf willing to make up a story. the l?cople?s Law Oflicc paid for iournalist Gre- gory Miskiw to be flown in from England. Miskiw was prepared to tell the iury this tale: In 1986. he was working in London as a reporter for the Daily Mirror when he re- eeived a call t'rom Coleman. who was then living in Washington. DC, under the name Clarkson. Coleman told Miskiw that he could prove that Lord Litch?eld. a cous- in of Queen Elizabeth. had been arrested self . i? In the closing days of the ma! Wzlson lawyers began 51mg? l' . 9' i left-iit?no?ti; - an?" .r a i .s 5th191%.. I I ?rh' an.? ?t 1 423-.- .- .. hill," l? o, In I f, reki- allreceiving anonymous'letters from someone who? seemed have inside. knowledge of A rea 2. The letters led to eezdence thatj'udge Du?'characterz'zed as a ?hand grenade??but he refused to let the jury hear it. . for possession of cocaine on a visit to Wash- ington the previous October. Miskiw flew to Washington and waited for Coleman to connect him with the police of?cer who would provide the documentation. The po- liceman never materialized. in the mean- time. Coleman offered information about the sex life of British tennis star Kevin Cur- ran. Miskiw investigated William Coleman instead and ultimately filed a story under the headline "Amazing Royal Smear of Bil- ly Liar." Wilson?s attorneys were gambling. how-? ever. when they imported Miskiw. Kunkle and James McCarthy. the city?s lawyer.? seemed gleeful at the prospeCt of question- ing a reporter who worked for a tabloid that regularly carried photos of bare-breasted .. women on page three (the copy that was passed around the defense table had the front-page headline OVER DOLLY SLUR ROCKS BUSTY QUEEN OF COUN- TRY Judge Duff excused the iury. heard Miskiw's story. and allowed Kunkle some erosnexamination. Kunkle asked it' Miskiw had any personal knowl- s. with i (h I l! i" it edg?lbf Lord Litehlield or his habits; Mis- kiw said no. Kunkle asked if Miskiw had any personal knowledge about the sex life of Kevin Curran; Miskiw said no. it became apparent that although ?Billy Liar? story was probably truthful. its con- tents were what courts'eall hearsay. not evi- dence. Miskiw left the city the following day. never having faced the Jury. in the meantime. the trial?s bitter atmo- sphere continued. Wilson's attorneys helped organize an antieBurge demonstra- tion outside the Federal Building. risking a mistrial in so doing. Judge Dull cited them for contempt at least four.times, and they began telling the iudge that he was running "an Alice in Wonderland proceeding." In a sidebar on July 28. corporation counsel McCarthy suggested that he and Taylor should settle their differences with their fists. Taylor called Judge Duff a liar. Duff held Taylor in contempt and said it would cost him $500. The following day. Taylor said. "l've had enough of this horseshit." Duff ?ned him anorher $500. (in the end, although Du?' had held Wilson's attorneys in contempt at least eight times in the two milesuit $531th nerd-lit. 3 it". ?it-"wig". .t?t?f I any 25: ?ll-31,43. . asst-.1: a ?a Java. trigls. he delivered only thr'c'e es. - . The second trial came to an end-aftzr' eight weeks. To everyone?s surprise. the iury of six suburbanites debated for three days. When they ultimately emerged. they had a strange verdict. in deciding whether the city had had a policy of abusing people sus- pected of shooting policemen. the iury had been directed to answer three questions; for Wilson to win a iudgment against the city, the three questions had to be answered af- firmatively. (1) Were Andrew Wilson's con- stitutional rights violated on 2/14/82? The iury said yes. (2) Do you ?nd that in l982 the city had a de facto policy, practice, or custom whereby the police were allowed to? - abuse those suspected of killing policemen? Again, the iury said yes. (3) Do you ?nd that Wilson was subiected to excessive force due to this policy? The iury said no. i The iury went on to cleai Burge and his comrades of all charges. a On its face. the verdict makes no sense. The Jurors seem to be saying that? Wilson?s rights Were violated. but nor by these police- men. that the city did indeed have a policy of abusing people suspected of shooting po- licemen. but that Wilson escaped that poli- cy.alt?hough he was abused. l. i i called iury? foreman Al'aniGall for an explanation. in a tape-recorded interview the 28-year-old printer said that the Jury had been deadlocked, ?almost hung." but that the outcome was pretty?mt?tch what he wanteda He said that he belieVed the wit- umpage td?eu-a-naa?att?238 i . ll I ?5 )1 .n-?faati. m? ?ll-en] JO Section 1 House from page as claimed that the Jones material did exactly what the rules of evidence require?dem? onstrated that Burge?s intent was to obtain confessions by torture; that his motive was to punish suspects; that his plan was to tor- turc people until they confessed; that he was prepared or equipped to torture people and that he knew how to do it; that he had the opportunity to do it: and that the simi- larities between the Jones and Wilson claims were so pronounced that they amounted to a trademark. a signature, an identification of the perpetrator. On May l9, four weeks before the start of the second trial Judge Duff. ruled that the Jones evidence was not admissible. liis ruling was made orally, not in writing, and from the transcript it is dif?cult to follow his reasoning: He states that the Jones evi- dence does not show intent, but he does not explain why. He states that the Jones evi- dence does not show morive, because Jones?s case had no connection to Wilson' s. He goes on to say that the evidence could not be used to prove identity because no one was contesting Burge?s identity, and he that the Jones testimony does not show that Burge had the opportunity to tor- ture Wilson, or that he was prepared or equipped to do so, because the device used against Jones was ?dissimilar aFff 3, 533?}: lig??f'; .1 ?Exhhi??y?i 3:41? {frag}.- f. - r' kit. 3.- 3? 3134Feugrit'?i' I a .?sn ig I I i I 4?.i?i?iv a 5.12 i} I 5: s, pat? afar.? Mr - . his-323arisivices used against Wilson.? (Jones had testi- fted that the wires on the device used against him were connettcd to a couple of obiects that resembled tweezers; Wilson had described them as alligator clips.) The iudge did rule that the Jones testimony was "possibly relevant? to the issue of punitive damages, and so he ordered that the issue of punitive damages would be separated from the trial. if the second iury came back with a verdict in Wilson?s favor, the iudge might then allow Jones to testify in order to help the iury decide what damages should be as- sessed against Burgc. i i i The second trial opened on June )9 with little fanfare. None of the courthouse re- porters stopped in to hear opening argu? ments. Over the course of the next seven weeks, many of the witnesses from the ?rst trial came back and told their stories a sec- ond time. Wilson's lawyers added a few new_ voices as policy witnesses against the city, among them the aforementioned Willie Porch, the only man uncovered during the interval between trials whose allegations of abuse involved an incident in which some-_ one had shot at a policeman. Porch, who was serving 30 years for armed robbery and' attempted murder, said that he?was hand- cuffed behind his back and that a Sergeant had stood on Porch? testicles, hit him on the head repeatedly with a gun, and tried to? hang him by his handcuffs to a hook on a closetdoor. (The rules of evidence concern- ing prior crimes prevented Porch from tell- he . itig the Sergeant was on Surge.) . Wilson?s lauryers had also wanted to have Donald White testify. White, or Koiak, had . been with the Wilson brothers on February 9, after the burglary and before the shoot- . ing of Fahey and O?Brien. Coincidentally, he had been picked up as a suspecr in the shoodng after eyewitness Tyrone Sims picked White?s photograph from a group of mug shun-saying he resembled the killer. White was arrested soon thereafter and was taken to police headquarters at and State. in a swornrdeposition taken after the second trial was under way, White said that he was interrogated by Area 2 detectives, that they put a plastic bag over his head, and that they beat him on the head and body with ?sts and books. Because he could nor see out of the bag, he could not tell who was . doing the beating, but he did identify Burge, O?Hara, and McKenna as being 1 among the o?iccrs who were in the room. 9 He also said that he could hear the screams I and cries for help of his brothers, who had been picked up with him. The state? 3 attorney?s of?ce had intended 'l to use White to testify against Andrew Wil- son in his ?rst criminal trial and they had i housed and fed him for a time as part of ,i their witness protection program. in argu- ments before' Judge Duff, Kunkle and the city's attorneys argued that White had not complained of being beaten to anyone in .J the state?s attorney's oflice, and he had nor i ?led an OPS complaint. Citing those fac'- gtors and the evidence rules concerning 1? (D i . in}' ?31 - alluvi- as 11-9?? ?Ii-htw .. . I?m, prior acts, Duff decided that White would not be allowed to take the stand. Wilson's lawyers were outraged. Given that White was being questioned about the very crime that- Andrew Wilson was later questioned and allegedly tortured for, classifying the detectives? treatment of White as a ?prior act" struck the attorneys as ludicrous. The most amazing aspect of the second trial, however, was not Judge Du fl?s rulings, but the detectives? revamped defense. They did without the services of Dr. Warpeha, the SSOOoanmour bum expert. This time the police maintained that Wilson: wounds were burns after all?and that Wilson had inflicted them himself. In the first trial, the police maintained that Wilson had been kept in interview Room 2, and several dctecrives had claimed that the radiator' tn that room didn? t worl<. in the second trial, it was suggested that Wilson was kept in interview Room I, where the radiator did work, and that Wil- son had burned himself on it. The man brought forward to support this contention was a British citizen, a iailhousc informant named William Coleman. 1 Coleman, bornin Liverpool tn 1948, has also been known as Mark Krammcr, Paul Roberts, Richard Hallaran, R.W. Steven- son, Doctor Roberts, Van der Vim, Peter Karl William, John Simmons, and William Clarkson. He has served time in prisons in England, lreland,- Germany, Holland. Monaco, Hong Kong, and the United States. 1He has been convicted of fraud, ff 'trfatt?ii'l ?z'gI-tmm a House nesses who testi?ed that the police had run amolt? in their search for the killers of l?ahey and Brien. and as a result he believed that there had been a policy of abuse. lie did not. however. believe that Wilsont was in- iured under that policy. His reasoning was a bit circuitous. lie said he thought that if the detecthes at Area 2 were able to abuse Wil- son at will knOwing that no one in the de- partment or the city would do anything about tt. they would have abused him In such a way as to not leave any marks.- Leav- mg marks he said. was the one wavthe pub- lie and the media could ?nd out that Wilson wasbeaten. leanything. i believe' it was an ernorion- al outburst by them." Gall said, ?and that was the reason why he suffered his tniuries. i d?ont think it necessarily had to be done under this policy." the foreman believed that Burge and his colleagues had tortured Wilson? ?I'm net saying that." Gall said. . . We believe that he did sustain these iniuries from the polite. some of_ the iniuries,but there wasn't enough evidence to show that he g0t all of the injuries from the police. As to whether or net he was actually? tortured. there is not enough evidence either. . . . it iust seemed to me they were iust really mad at this guy for shooting one of their buddies. and you know, a couple of these guy took the liberty of letting their emotional attitude toward this gut Silt)?. 'lhet were iust acting out rte: - . - .1. . "i?ti . . .. a 3,55.I'p ?hp?u?that ?illrut-I I: their anger toward this guy. That is some- thing that we agreed upon. . .s l3ut it is kind of hard to find someone responsible for something so serious without an actual? witness coming forward a neutral witness coming forward and saving I seen him do it.? . . . We did agree that he get those Iniu- ries from someone. but as far as being spe-. ci?c as to who actually did the damage. there iust wasn't enough evidence. . . . You know convicts, a lot of these guys are street- wise and they're pretty? good at bullshit-? ting.? i i A few weeks after the iury came back with its Verdict. Commander Burge con- sented to an interview in his of?ce at Area 3 headquarters. There is nothing remarkable about the room. which is decorated with pictures of police softball and bowling teams. sports trOphies, an autographed pic- ture of Police Superintendent Leroy Mar- tin, a photo of the Saint jude?s League pa? rade (the league helps the families of police officers killed in action). and two com- mendations. I could tell you that i found the man in the of?ce sinister, but the truth is that i find Ion Burge a likable man. He?s ?irreverent. he?s modest about his accom- plishments. and he tells a good story. He Was concerned that i would put words in his mouth and had asked anOther policeman to sit in on the interview as a witness, but as i was taping the interview and promised to send him a copv of the tape. he dismissed his rear .tited monitor and answered my cuestiom. liccaute Wilson?s attorneys are putting together an appeal. llurge?did not feel at lib- l' erty to speak about the ease in'any depth. ?The only statement I can make is that the iury? has spoken," he said. ?i testified at bOth . trials. 1 did nothing wrong.? . i asked if he could say anything about the?allegation that ht': has been abusing pris- oners. sometimes with electroshock. since 1968. ?All i can tell you are things i have heard. which" is that there are a great num- ber of misrepresentations; ?Burge said. He said that' In some of these cases, he'd been told, the alleged victims ?led no modem to suppress their confessions, though such m0tions are .expected from suspeets who are phvsieally abused. in other instances, Burge said the victims never made state- .. ments confessing involvement in the crimes for which they? were arrested. so again there were no motions to suppress and no charges of abuse recorded. ?Basical- ly. i would say that they [Wilson?s lawyers] have made gross misrepresentations or they believe what they are saying and the people they talked to lied to them." it seems unlikely at this point that we .1. will ever know if those accusations are lies, gross misrepresentations, or truth. The stat- .Ute of limitations for aggravated battery' rs ?three years. and that interval has now passed on all of the incidents uncovered thus far. it is possible that the 11.3. Court of Appeals will order a new trial in Wilson?s civil suit. and a diti'ercnt iudge might allow Wilson?s attorneys wider scope than Duff did. in that event there might be further tes- . timony and cross-examination on the charges. it would also be possible for the U5. attorneyfs of?ce to enter the arena, even_at this late date; if federal prosecutors i In q? 4? uta? - a faith (In a .3.- .. an. I believed Burge had indeed tortured sus- pects and. lied about it under oath. they could charge him with periury. However. Wilson? lawvers have spoken with the U. attorney?s ofiicc. and they have been led to believe that the government will not be purSuing any investigation. This case. despite its inherent drama and1 the clash of personalities' in the court- room, was no different than others an that much of the proceeding was tedious, and while i waited for the attorneys and the iudge to emerge from their innumerable sidebars my mind wandered. i often found myself speculating about the big question, the one that was never asked. Dr. the torture expert and deputy chief medical examiner. had said that Andrew Wilson's testimony was consistent with what is known about torture victims. No one asked him if the behavior of the police was consis- tent' with that of torturers or if the city itself resembled the sort of society where torture mighttake place. in his book TkeNazr' Doctors. Dr. Robert Jay Lifton points our that although we pre- fer to see torturers as palpably evil and men- tally deranged, in fact are un?t for the iob and torturers usually turn out to be' quite normal people. Mika Haritos-Fatodros studied l6 former mem- bers of Greeces Army Police Corps. the group that tortured Greek citizens for the iunt'a that ruled the country from 1967 to l974. and found no indication that any of the former torturers were sadists. no indica- tion even that they had been particularly aggressive as children. Torture. they said. hadliust been part of their iob, and they had a. . seen the people they were torturing as threats to Greelt civilization. Molly liar- rower. a University of lorida discovered that Rorschach specialists could not differentiate between the ink-blot test results ofa grOup of Nazi war criminals (in- cluding Adolf liichmann. Rudolf less. and llermann Gocring) and the results record- ed by a group of Americans. sonte well-ad- iusted. some severely disturbed; the experts iudgcd an equal number of both sets to be well-adjusted. The literature on torture indicates that those who 'do it often develop the attitude that the people being tortured are less than human. Sometimes the victims are given derogatory nicknames ?gooks"). sometimes they are called num- bers. ?l'orturers also tend to give nicknames to their procedures (in Zaire. a prisoner made to drink his own urine was said to be given 1: pair dejeuner?brealtfast; tn Brazil. there was the ?parrot' perch.? a device for hanging a prisoner upside down and beat- ing him or her; in Greece. beatings were known as "tea parties' in Uruguay. pro- longed submersion of a prisoner? head un- der water tlvas called (I Submarine. while tn Chile it was known as In bdm?rd?il?lc bath). Sexual abuse is nor uncommon (in North- ern Ireland. police pulled and squceved prisoners 'testt?elcstin lsrael. l?alcstiniande- tatnces have reported being beaten around the genitals;' tn Uganda. testicles have been crushed by" cattle-gelding tools). Once be- gun. torture seems to have a tendency to in- crease: it may start out as a method of ob- . .. . m-?f it {11:31, raining confessions or information, but ten it continues long after the prisoner ltas?: . told everything he or she knows. Torture becomes a method of controlling a com- munity by intimidation. so in the end. the purpose is served no matter who the victim is or whether he or she ts inno- cent or guilty. 33*! l?artieipantsin torture and those who are - aware of it tend net to obiecr as long as. someone else is in charge. obeyed." 3-. Adolf li iehtnann told an lsraeli interroga-igi; tor. ?Regardless ofwhat i was ordered to do. it" i would have obeyed." in the famous Stnn- - i ley Milgram experiments at Yale tn 196l.? ., normal American adults. told that they g. were participating its an experiment on the cll'eets of punishntent on learning. were perfeCtly willing to apply dangerously high .. 1 levels of electric shock to students who gOt-f' wrong answers. as long as someone in au- tltority was ultimately responsible. (in fact .3 the students were actors and no electrie{~1' shock was applied .) .. lttakes no genius to see coincidences be- r, s. tween these patterns and the Chicago caise. According to Wilson and Lawrence l?oree.i' littrge called the electrical interrOgation "fun time.? ?ln a deposition. liurge admitted that he was given to calling suspects? ?pieecs of human garbage.? Wilsonalleges that his penis was yanked. "llte anonymous letter writer rclaints that Wilson was net tortured to get a confession. that he had in fact ?al- 5' ready confessed. if one believes Wilson's de- - seription of the course of events. it follows that a fair number of policemen knew 362.lift5.3.43 . evil-Vin? 'isometh strange was going on in that closed room. both that day and on ethers; perhaps they do net come forward because. as in Milgram?s experiment. someone in charge sanctioned the operation. Why does the U5. attorney not investi- gate? Perhaps because no one believes it can happen ltere. it certainly seemed that the press did not believe it: Wilson's second trial last summer passed completely unnoticed but for the verdict. During the first trial. the courthouse" reporters were ?ling almost dai- ly. ncii on the Wilson case. but on the trial of sports.? agents Norby Oil/alters and Lloyd Bloom. a trial that featured a parade of ce- lebrities aiid a duel of famous lawyers but ?i no hard questions abouuthe city. its police force. or what we as citizens will tolerate or condone. .a Perhaps there is no federal investigation because deep down. most people feel that Andrew Wilson deserved it. But then what 'about Roy Brown. who said his ?nger was put in a bolt cutter? And what about Doris Miller. 45. a neighbor of the Wilsons?. a postal worker. a woman who had never been arrested before? Under oath she said she was handcuffed toa windowsill in an in- terview room. was denied access to a toilet for about 14 hours, and ultimately had to re- lieve herself in an ashtray. And what about some of the other men who passed through Area Zand were convicted of crimes on the basis of con fessions given after they alleged- ly? had their testicles stoqil upon. or bags put over their heads. or cattle prods taken to their genitals? Might they in fat be inno"titsin-1: I I 1 .. 5:41": .. qt ?1 II ?t??gg?i ?l1 3 Jef li?iiI?l' a: H i' A .1 I :13: . sameness? 3) gr cent? -- i Perhaps there" ts no investigation simply because. as other nations have found. tor- ture is an intimate allair. something that happens among a few adults behind a closed door. something that is hard to prove afterward because the accused?of ten dee- orated soldiers who have served their coun- tiy in a time of crisis?deny the allegations. and the vicrims are terrorists. alleged terror- ists. associates of terrorists. associates of as- sociatcs. subversivcs, dissidents. criminals rtOters,stone throwers,sympatht7ers,or rel attvesof the above. ?3 in the course of the two trials 1 met the father. brother. and wife of Of?cer Fahey? good. solid. unpretentiouslrish- Americans -and pondered their predicament: if Andrew Wilson, the killer of their son. brether. and husband, were to prevail in his suit and collect some of the SW million he was asking for. Of?cer Fahey's three chil- dren might be better ofl?. as they would cer- tainly prevail, in the wrongful death suit they've brought against Wilson and would colleCt whatever he had received in com- pensation. Yet' it was quite clear to me that father, brorher. and wife were nor in the Wilson camp. That set me to wondering what O?icer Fahey. with his policeman's. sixrh sense. would have thought of the cm dence.or of the allegations surrounding the old Area 2 headquarters at 91st and Cottage Grove. i couldn?t help but think that he mighthave cocked his finger. aimed itatthe door of the building, and said. ?This place is dirty1:9- ad the defend- re be affirmed 'hat the error ?sonable doubt (1967), 386 L2d 705). ,The lence was re- The prosecu- Clafs and mg the defend- in of the two I the informa- :n they sought ce's testimony of other per- ticated the de- mdant did not there was no himgtok the )th gaghristine? nplice?itnoas; mony was ?con- antral issue at was the gun- at the error in as substantive, :nce of the de- beyond a rea- ple v. Smith Zd 188; People lpp.3d 631resentenc: insuf?ciency. 76 Ill.2d 289, 1 12d 366. e, we need not naining conten- reasons stat- ctions are re- ith is vacated, for a new trial. PEOPLE v. WILSON m. 571 CiteaISOIGRJ-lldm (111. I981) 116 Mid 29 . 106111.le The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Andrew WILSON, Appellant. No. 58276. Supreme Court of Illinois. April 2, 1937. Defendant wassconvicted in the Circuit Court, 0001-: County, John J. Crowley, of murder and armed robbery, and he appeal- ed. IThe Supreme Court, Miller, J., held that: (1) state failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that injuries sustained by defendant wire not inflicted as a means of coercing his confession; (2) evidence of identifiestion witness: prehypnotic recollec- tion was admissible; and (3) presentation of complaint to judge by of?cer did not trig- ger defendant?s right to counsel at lineup. Reversed and remanded. 1. Criminal Law @5310) When it is evident that a defendant has been injured while in police custody, State must show, by clear and convincing evi- dence. that injuries were not inflicted as a means of producing his confession, and sucli'a showing requires more than mere denial that confession was coerced. U.S. GA. ConstArnend. 5. 2. CriminalLaw @5316) State failed to show by clear and con- vinciug evidence that injuries sustained by defendant while in police custody were not in?icted as a means of producing his con- fession. ConstAmend. 5. 3. Criminal Law 631169.12 The use of a defendant's coerced con- fession as substantive ev?ence of his guilt is never harmless error. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5. 4. Criminal Law 63562.1 Confrontation clause does not neces- sarily prohibit use of testimony based on a witness' prehypnotic recollection, even though witness? confidence in his memory has been bolstered to some degree by nosis. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 6. 5. Witnesses $9257.10 In ruling on admissibility of a witness' prehypnotic recall, subsequent to use of hypnosis as memory-enhancement aid, pro- ponent of testimony should establish na- ture and extent of recall, and the parties should be permitted to present expert testi- mony to explain to trier of fact potential effects of the hypnosis. 6. Witnesses (99257.10 Although identification witness? testi- mony as to his prehypnotic recollection was admissible, on retrial ordered on other grounds, State would be required to dem? onstrate that identi?cation of defendant by witness was anchored in wit- ness' prehypnotic recollection, and defend? ant would be permitted to present expert testimony on hypnosis to aid jurors in understanding potential effects of hypnosis on witness? testimony. 7. Criminal Law 636411.300) Police officer?s presentation of com- plaint to judge to obtain arrest warrant could not fairly be construed as beginning of adversary proceedings between State and defendant, and defendant was not enti- .tled to presence of counsel at lineup con- ducted subsequent to ex parte presentation to judge but prior to complaint being filed in court. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 6. 8. Criminal Law $3339.11?) Defense counsel was not entitled to make inquiry of identification witness at suppression hearing concerning photo- graphic displays viewed before witness made lineup identification of defendant, in the absence of any showing that lineup was conducted in suggestive manner. 9. Criminal Law filial court's findings that firearms found on defendant's premises were in ?plain View,? was not manifestly errone- ous, where court accepted officer?s testimcw ny that weapons were found after he .. climbed on something to look for defendant in possible hiding place above stairwell. hw g. . easement: I. 04, .. 'at . Hill-I ll 572 111. that revolvers were fully visible and that shotgun was partly enclosed in brown pa- per bag. U.S.C.A. ConstAmend. 4. 10. Criminal Law 6237102) 7 Evidence of outstanding warrant for defendant?s arrest was not admissible to establish motive for killing police officers in absence of any evidence that defendant knew that warrant existed or that officers were arresting defendant pursuant to war- rant. Neil F. Hartigan, Atty 3Gen., Chicago, for appellee; Richard M. Daley, State's Atty, County of Cook, Joan S. Cherry, Kevin Sweeney, Asst. State's Attys., Chica- go, of counsel. Barry Sullivan, Michael Palmer, Chicago, for appellant; Jenner qulock, Chicago, of counsel. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court: Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant, Andrew Wilson, was convicted on two counts each of murder and armed robbery. The same jury sentenced the defendant to death for the murder convictions, and the trial judge imposed concurrent 30?year prison terms for the defendant's armed-robbery, convic- tions, The death sentence was stayed pending direct appeal to this court. Const1970, art. VI, see. 87 Rules 603, 609(3). The defendant?s convictions stem from -an occurrence on February 9, 1982, in which two Chicago police officers were killed. At about two o'clock that after- noon, Officers William Fahey and Richard O?Brien stopped an automobile on a street in the city. In the course of a scuffle with the occupants of the car, the officers were shot and their service revolvers were tak- en. The defendant and his brother, Jackie Wilson, were indicted and triedjointly for those offenses. At trial the State intro- duced into eVidence inculpatory statements made by the defendant and his brother, and the State also presented eyewitness testi~ meny and circumstantial evidence linking 506 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER. 2d SRRIRS ant was taken by the police to Mercy _Hos- them to the crimes. The defendant and his brother were convicted of the murders and armed robberies, and the jury sentenced the defendant to death. The jury was un- able to agree to impose that penalty ?on the defendant?s brother, however, and he was instead sentenced to a term of natural imprisonment for his two murder convic- lions. I The defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress his confession as involuntary. The evi- dence presented at the hearing on the de- fendant?s suppression motion showed that he was arrested at 5:15 am. on February 14,1982. The defendant spent the day' in police custody; during the afternoon he was placed in a lineup, and beginning around 6 o?clock that evening he gave a statement, transcribed by a court reporter, in which he admitted shooting the two po- lice of?cers. Later that night the defend- pital, and witnesses there observed some 15 separate injuries on the defendant?s head, torso, and right leg. At the suppression hearing the State at- tempted to establish that the defendant could not have incurred his injuries, with one exception, until after he gave his con- fession. The State presented the testimony of a number of persons who had contact with the defendant on February .14 during the period from his arrest until the conclu- sion of his formal confession; the witness: es were police officers who took part in the defendant?s arrest and who interrogated him that day, as well as the assistant State's Attorney and the court reporter who were present when the defendant gave his formal confession. The State?s witness- es uniformly denied that the defendant was threatened or beaten, and they testified that the only injury they noticed on the defendant while he was in their custody was one to his right eye. Several of?cers explained that the defendant apparently suffered the injury at the time of his arrest, when he was thrown to the floor and handcuffed. After the defendant was .n ?rider ?i mt- m-uuvu - "retina ?In. 573? Cite as 5-06 51! (111. I987) lifted from the floor, the officers saw that he had received a cut above his right eye. The defendant was wearing only trousers at the time, and no other injuries were ?noticed on his face or chest, \The State also A presented photographic evidence regarding the defendant?s physical condition at two separate times during that day. First,?a? photograph was taken of the lineup in which the defendant appeared during the afternoon of February 14, and he was again photographed at 8:30 that evening, upon the completion of his c'onfessionhin both photographs the defendant ?5 fully clothed and is shown facing forward}. At the suppression hearing the State also presented evidence that the defendant made a confession upon his arrival at the police station. Officers Thomas McKenna and Patrick O?Hara testified 'that they spoke with th? defendant arouhd 7 o'clock on the morning of his arrest and that he waived the Miranda rights and then gave the officers, in oral form, substantially the same statement that he later made to the assistant State?s Attorney. The officers did not ask the defendant to sign a waiver of his constitutional rights, nor did they preserve their notes of the discussion. The assistant State?s Attorney, Lawrence Hy- man, arrived at the police station around 8:30 and McKenna and O?Hara told him what the defendant had said. A court reporter, Michael Hartnett, got there about two-hours ia?te'r. Hyman did not see the defendant until 1:30 however, and he did not interview him until that evening. Hyman explained that he?was busy ?talk- ing with the detectives and just ing everyone." The defendant testified that he was punched, kicked, smothered with a plastic bag, electrically shocked, and forced against a hot radiator throughout the day on February 14, until he gave his confes- sion. .This began when he arrived at the police station that morning. The defendant testified that when the officers later took him to see the assistant State's Attorney, Hyman, to make a statement, he mentioned the mistreatment, and Hyman told him to leave. Following that. the of?cers at- tempted to shock the defendant again. The officers then stretched him against a radiator, with his hands handcuffed to wall rings at opposite ends of the radiator. ,His face, chest, and legs were touching the radiator. vAccording to thedefendant, he incurred his injury not at the time of his arrest but rather later that day, when I he was 'kicked?by?an' EfficerT ?The?defend: ant testified that he made his confession because of the mistreatment he had suf- fered. Doris Miller, a friend of the defend- ant, was also being held at the police sta- tion that day, and she testified that she heard the defendant being physically and verbally abused and calling for help. The defendant's brother, Jackie Wilson, testi- fied similarly. Defense counsel also presented extensive medical testimony and photographic evi- dence corroborating the defendant's inju- ries. Patricia Reynolds, 3 registered nurse, testified that the defendant arrived at the Mercy Hospital emergency room around 10:15 or 10:30 pm. on February 14 in the company of two Chicago police offi- cers, Ferro and Mulvaney. According to Nurse Reynolds, Officer Fen-o said "that if this guy knew what was good for him he would refuse treatment." Reynolds then asked the defendant whether he wished to be treated, and he said that he did not. Later, however, while the officers were looking away, the defendant indicated that he did wish tobetreated, andhesigneda consent form at 10.50 pm. Following that, the defendant was given a tetanus shot and was prepared for examination; Nurse Reynolds testified that after the defendant was undressed she observed injuries on his chest and a burn on his right thigh. The defendant was examined at about 11:15 pm. by Dr. Geoffrey Kern. Dr. Kern testified that he made note of some 15 separate injuries that were apparent on the defendant's head, chest, and right leg. No cuts on the defendant?s forehead and one on the back of his head required stitches: the defendant's ?ght had been blackened, and there was bleeding on the surface of that eye. Dr. Korn also observed bruises on the defendant's chest 'and several linear abrasions or burns on .u ,y . on its ?v ??va 1 'Il" . Co i .?ia in .cz'a- It .- u-l- . 1-: the defendant?s chest, shoulder, and chin area. Finally, Dr. Kern saw on the defend- ant?s right thigh an abrasion from a sec- onddegree burn; it was six inches long and 1V: to 2 inches wide. Dr. Korn testified that as he prepared to 574 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, suture the defendant?s ,head. and rface . wounds, he saw that Officer Mulvaney had drawn his service revolver. Fearing that the defendant?s reaction to the shots of anesthesia might startle the officer, Dr. Korn asked that the weapon be holstered. Mulvaney refused to put the gun away, however, and the duster therefore left the room. Officer Ferro then went'in the ex- amining room and soon came out, explain- ing to the doctor that the defendant was now going to refuse treatment and would go to a differeiit hospital. Dr. Korn testi- fied that he attem ted to persuade the de- fendant to agree treatment but that the defendant would not change his mind. At 11:42 pm. the defendant signed an ?against medical advice? form indicating his?refusal of treatment, and Officers Fer- ro and Mulvaney then took the defendant away. - - At the suppression hearing?Dr. Korn was shown photographs taken of the defendant on February 16, two days after the emer- gency-room examination. The photographs showed a number of abrasions or burns on ?the defendant?s face, chest, and thigh, and 3; Dr. Kern testified that, apart from having aged a few days, the injuries depicted in, the photographs were essentially the same has what he ,had seen in his examination. Dr. John M. Raba, medical director of the facility that provides health services for the Cook County jail, also testified in the de- fendant?s behalf at the suppression hear- ing. Dr. Raba examined the defendant ear- ly in the evening on February ?15, after receiving from one of his staff physicians a report about the defendant and what was termed his ?unusua injuries. According to Dr. Raba, the defendant explained that he had been beaten, electrically shocked, and held against a radiator. Dr. Raba saw that the defendant had injuries to his right eye, bruises and lacerations on his fate- ?0 head, and blistering wounds on his face, chest, and right leg. - The trial judge denied the defendant?s motion to suppress his confession. The trial judge found that the defendant suf- fered a cut in the area of his right at the time of hisfarrest but that other facial injuries were shown not to have occurred until after 8:30 pm, when the confession photograph was taken. The trial judge believed that the injuries to those parts of the defendant's body not visible in the pho- tograph?bk shoulder, chest, and leg-? were minor or super?cial. In making that assessment, the trial judge apparently was relying on Dr. Kom?s statement, on cross- examination, that the defendant?s wounds could be termed superficial because they did not require major surgery. The trial judge concluded that the defendant's con- fession was voluntary. The State must establish, by a prepoii- deranoe of the evidence, the voluntary na- ture of a defendant?s confession. (Lego v. Twomey (1972), 404 489, 92 Caballero (1984), 102 23, 33, 79111. Dec. 625, 464 223; llLRev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, par. The evidence here shows clearly that when the defendant was arrested at 5:15 am. on February 14, he may have received a cut above his right but that he had no other injuries; it is equally clear that when the defendant was taken by police officers to Mercy Hospital .. ,sometime after 10 o?clock that night he had about .15 separate injuries on his head, chest; and leg. The inescapable conclusion is that the defendant suffered his injuries while in police custody that day, and indeed the State does not dispute that. Rather, the State believes that the evidence in this case shows that the defendant did not incur his injuries until after he gave his written confession, which was completed at 8:30 that evening. See People Alexander (1968), 96 113, 120, 238 168. in making this argument, the State points first to the photographs, which it says show only the injury that the defendant suffered at the time of his an 619, 626-27, so IxEd.2d 618, 627; People i3. rut?II - tnt-? . . ma. I .uu-H?uv . The suf- ye at Ea c531- mod ssion udge ts of rho- leg?? that 1- was rose tunds they trial idea-d ?ber, 1 this incur :itten 8:30 .E.2d State .lr' ?f'a - - lI . A. in, inithe afternoon of February 14, at the lineup, and the other photograph was taken at 8:30 that evening, following the defendant?s confession. .The State notes Dr. Korn?s testimony that he could not see in the post- e?m?h?m?w PEOPLE a - - 111,-575 .- - rest. 7 One of the photographs was taken' in at 8:30 that defendant was not out of the presence of police officers dur- ing that day. The inference that the State would have us draw is that the defendant must have suffered the great bulk of his injuries during that two-hour gap in its confession photograph certain facial inju. evidence. .. ries that were apparent later that night' in was observable on the defendant?s face when he arrived at Mercy Hospital. More- over, certain civilian witnesses, such as the defendant?s brother, were present at the lineup but did not say that they saw any injuries on the defendant at that time. This evidence accounts only for injuries to the defendant?s face, however. In the pho- tographs the defendant is fully dressed, and he is shown facing forward. We note too that the lineup photograph was taken at a distance, and that?the postconfession photograph is of poorer'quality. As additional support for its argument that all the injuries occurred after the de- fendant confessed, the State refers to an estimate given by Dr. Kern of the age of one of the defendant?s burns. Asked about leg, Dr. Kern gave the unresponsive an- swer that it was ?roughly speaking, fairly recent, within eight hours." The State believes that this shows that the de- fendant?s injuries were recent and contends that it is inconsistent with defense claims that abuse also occurred during the morn- ing owaebruary.14. But Dr. Korn's an- swer actually was consistent with the de- fendant's own testimony that he was forced against the radiator sometime in the afternoon on February 14. Moreover, the age of the burn is not inconsistent with defense testimony that other forms of abuse occurred in the morning. Finally, the State points to the testimony of the police officers. the assistant State?s Attorney, and the court reporter, who do- nied that the defendant was threatened or harmed. The State chose not to present the testimony of Officers Form and Mulva- ney, who took the defendantto Mercy Hos pital at 1,030 or the testimony of the This court has held that when it is? evident that a defendant has been injured while in police custody, the State must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the injuries were not inflicted as a means of producing the confession. (Peo- ple v. Davis (1966), 35 Ill.2d 202, 206, 220 222; People La From: (1954), 4 Iliad 261, 267, 122 583; People to. ,Thomlz'son (1948), 400 ill. 555, 561-62, 81 434). This requires more than the mere denial by the State?s witnesses that the confession was coerced. In People 0. La Franc (1954), 4 261-, 267, 122 583, the court explained: ?Where the only evidence of coercion is the defendant?s own testimony, and where this is contradicted by witnesses for the People, then ofcourse the and our recognition of the superior posi- tion of the trial court to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses before it? makes us reluctant to reverse its deter- mination. (Peeple v. Viti [1951], 408 Ill. 206 [96 541]; People v. Varela [1950], 405 Ill. 236 [90 631].) But where it is conceded, or clearly estab- lished, that the defendant received inju- ries while' in police custody, and the only issue is how and why they were inflicted, we have held that something more than a mere denial by the police of coercion is required. Under such circumstances the burden of establishing that the injuries were not administered in order to obtain the confession, an be met only by clear and convincing testimony as to the man- ner of their occurrence. See People v. Thomlz'son [1948], 400 ill. 555 [81 4341" Centrary to the State?s argument, Ole u-uvnuulp??u?ll' ii- i - ?reunite-Maw eweurn..Inna-v 1m, ?measured 4: ?a lama up - 1 In "madam. .. .. und- 5 anyone who had contact with the defendant we believe that La Franc is applicable after the confession photograph was taken here. The requirement of clear and con- m?n-u n??um .. "was, ~55 in.- - vincing evidence is as relevant in a case such as this, in which the question is when which the question is how or why the inju- ries occurred. Here it was "conceded, or ceived injuries while in police custody? 14.3. ?awesome La Front: (1954), 4 Ill.2d 251, 267, 122 583), and the only question NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES sion as substantive evidence of his guilt is never harmless error, and the cause must therefore be remanded for a new trial. Payne Arkansas (1958), 356 US. 560, 568, 73 344, 850, 2 LEd.2d 975, 931; clearly established, that the defendant re- see Rose Clark (1986); 478' 5?5 106 3101, 3105-06, 92 LEd.2d 460,470; - Chapman 1). California (19678?7 824, 828 n. 8, ?Mu 3? Hummus?. w. i for the purpose of our inquiry is when they 17 nndad 705, 710 n. s. were in?icted Accordingly, ?more than a . mere denial by the police of coercion [was] .. 1! sin: required" (4 261, 267, 122 . I 1: (. 533), and it was necessary for the State to We. shall also conSider several other I: show by clear and convincing evidence that questions that are hkely to We the i :43 .the injuries did not oocui? before the'de- course of the defendant?s retrial. _0ne of .334 i. fendant gave his confession. We do not the State? two eremmyassa at tea! was . . ,i believe that the burden was met here. Tyrone Sims}. who testified that _he had though the State presented evidence that observed the shooting from inside his 1 could account for when some of the defend. home. 0.3 February 10, 1932. Sims W38 ant?s facial injuries. med, the others taken to Dr. Bennett Braun to undergo slit-A ?4 am 4-. vv' I. was? I I I . . 1?s l'h' ?he (I I y? were not explained; 3nd with "respect to those injuries the State essentially relied on a mere denial 9f coercion. .3: The decisions relied on by the State - to support the trial court?s ruling'are not therewas? ?no medial corroboration that injuries had been'incurred (see In re lamb (1975), 61 ill.2d 383, 336 753; People v. John- son (1970), 44 111.2d 463, 343; People v. Tag/1010968), 40 i112d 569, 241 409: People Carter (1968), 39 ?1 . 31, 233 ll.E.2d 393; People v. Hall J, 308, 231 416: Peo- "pk: v. Strayhom (1965), 35 41, 219 517; People v. Golson (1965), 32 398, 207 68), or there was an --E .EL- 5 . adequate explanation for the injuries (see People v. Pittman (1973), 55 39, 302 7; People 17. Scott (1963), 29 Ill.2d 97, 193 814; People Wilson (1963), 29 82, 193 449). In contrast, the defendant?s injuries in this ease cannot be disputed, and only several ?facial injuries were explained by the State. Because the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the confession was not the product of coercion?the bur- den imposed by La Frana-n-the defend- ant's statement should have been sup pressed as having been involuntarily given. The use of a defendant?s coerced confes- hypnosis to assist him in recalling the li- cense plate number 'of the car that the police officers had stopped; under hypnosis Sims purported to recall an Illinois license plate number. Two days later, on Febru- -_ary,12, Sims identified from a photographic array two men?not the defendant and his brother?as the persons who had shot the officers; the next day Sims viewed a lineup containing those two persons and retracted his identification. One of these men impli- cated the Wilsons, however, and at a lineup on February 14 Sims also identi?ed the Wilsons as the persons who had shot the officers. The defendant ?led a pretrial motion to bar or limit the use of Sims? testimony, contending that the witness? recollection of the shooting and his identification of the defendant had be?en in'duwd or in?uenced by the session of hypnosis. The State con- tended that the only hypnotically induced recollection by Sims was the license plate number, which would not be used at trial. Defense counsel sought to present expert tost'nnony to the effect that suggestions and statements made by the hypnotist dur- ing the session could have affected Sims? identi?cation of the defendant and his rec- ollection of the shooting. The trial judge denied the request. After viewing the vid- eotape of the hypnosis session, the trial Hm: m-un' nit-4'- It hank?: . 4 guilt is use must our trial. US. 560, 975, 981; 2 hEd.2d la (1967), 828 n. 8, 159' t: tiger?- I r-al= other so in the . One of trial was he had nside his Sims, was - undergo ng the li- that the )3 license )tographic at and his 1 shot the :d a lineup retracted men impli at a lineup ttified the 1 shot the motion to testimony, >llection of ion of the in?uenced State con- ly induced :ense plate ed at trial. ent expert uggestions inotist dur- .cted Sims' .nd his rec- trial judge ng the vid- lr, the trial on Februx .0 M. d? {Mi'lf 4? h, I'vqru .iHit. .l . - ??n-Inc?s" .1. . v. I m, Try?fam PEOPLE v. WILSON . m. 577 Cite 1937} judge determined that the license plate number was the only hypnotically induced recollection and ruled that?Sims would be allowed to testify about anything that he remembered independently of the hypnosis. Defense counsel then requested a hearing .to determine Sims? prehypnotic recollection. The trial judge denied the request, finding that Sims? recollection of events occurring before the hypnosis session was adequately set forth in a police report prepared on February 16, six days after the hypnosis session, and the videotape of Dr. Braun? prehypnotic interview with the witness. Later, during trial, efense counsel at- tempted to introduce expert testimony that Sims? recollection of the shooting and his pretrial and trial identifications of the de- fendant were hypnotieally in?uenced. De- fense counsel also attempted to introduce expert evidence tolexplain to the jury the effect that hypnosis may lave had on Sims? testimony. The trial judge denied the re- quests, holding that Sims? testimony was untainted by the hypnosis. The court did allow defense counsel to question the hyp- notist, Dr. Braun, for the limited purpose of impeaching Sims' testimony with prior inconsistent statements. Although hypnosis is widely recognized as a form of therapy, its value as a memo- ry?enhancing aid for forensic purposes is disputed. The professional literature on. the subject, together with the offers of 1"pr submitted by the defendant' this case, show that hypnosis can influence a subject' subtle yet signi?cant ways. A person in a hypnotic state" 3 highly sugges- tible, and unintended cues from the hypno- tist or others may affect the subject?s re- call. Moreover, under hypnosis a person may confabulate and ?ll in gaps in his memory with guesses or uncertain percep- tions. Hypnosis may also cause the sub? Sect to cement an uncertain recollection, giving it the aura of unshakable certainty. Thus, hypnosis may provide a beneficial form of therapy and may even be useful as an investigatory aid, but it also can signifi- cantly reduce a subject's value as a trial witness. See Council on Scientific Affairs, Scienti?c Status of Refreshing Recollec? lion by the Use onypnosis, 253 J.A.M.A. 1918 (1985); Orne, The Use and Misuse of Hypnosis in Court, 27 lnt'l J. of Clinical Experimental Hypnosis 311 (1979). This court has not previously ruled on the admissibility of testimony (see People v. Cohoon (1984), 104 295, 299, 84 443, 472 403), though the appellate court has considered a number of these issues (see People v. Gib- son (1983), 117 Ill.App.3d 270, 72 111 Dec. 672, 452 N. E.2d 1368; People v. Smrelcar (1979), 68 379, 24 707, 385 N. E.2d 848). Some jurisdictions have held that hypnotically induced testimony is always admissible, and that the fact of hypnosis pertains to the wimess' credibility rather than to his competency. (See, 8.9., State 72. Brown (N.D.1983), 337 .138; Chapman v. State (Wyo.l982), 638 P.2d 1280.) Other courts, applying a rule of per se madmissibility, have held that hypnotiaally induced testimony must al- ways be excluded from evidence. (See, cg, Contreras v. State (Alaska 1986), 718 P.2d 129; State ea: rel. Collins v. Superior Court (1982), 132 Ariz. 180, 644 P.2d 1266; Rock v. State (1986), 288 Ark. 566, 708 78, cert. allowed (1986), U.S. 107 430, 93 LEd.2d 381: People 7. Shirley (1982), 31 Cal.3d 18, 723 P.2d 1354, 181 Cal.Rptr. 243: Commonwealth Enter (1983), 388 Mass. 519, 447 1190; People Gonzales (1982), 415 Mich. 615,329 N. W.2d 743 modi?ed (1933), 417 Mich 1129, 336 N. W.2d 751: Staten Mock (Minn. 1980), 292 764; Slots 17. Palmer (1981),: 210 Neb.'206, 313 .648; People Hughes (1983), 59 523, 466 255, 453 484; State v. Peoples (1984), 311 N.C. 515, 319 332d 177; Commonwealth v. Nazaro- vitch (1981), 496 Pa. 97, 436 A.2d 170.) Finally, a number of State and Federal courts have followed a middle course, al- lowing the introduction of hypnoticelly in- duced testimony if the proponent of the evidence is able to demonstrate that it was produced under conditions that would re- duce, if not eliminate, the prejudicial dan- gers of the hypnotic process. See, 6.9., v. General Motors Corp. (8th Cir. 1985), 771 F.2d 1112; United "an? teem-enselrelges *r was; in - 1 . Ira-D," yl - 3:1" or my? -., ?5 l'l' ?dg??stem u, - at?; a. .. TH?lg?i?; . . r. a .1 sir-33%? ll} . if?. frf} ?1,51. 1.1.5813! II a 573 11!. States v. Valdez (5th Cir.1984), 722 F.2d 1196;_Statc u. Iwakz'n' (1984), 106 Idaho 618, 682 P.2d 571; State v. Hurd (1981), 86 NJ. 525, 432 A.2d 86; State v. (1983), .110 Wis.2d 555, 386. We need not determine at this time whether hypnotically- induced testimony may ever be admitted into evidence, for that question is not before us. In this case the trial judge barred the State from intro ducing any hypno?callyinduwd testimony, and rather than ask for a less severe re- striction, the State insists that no part of Sims' trial testimony was induced by hyp- nosis. We must therefore deeidev?a related question-whether a previously hypnotized witness may testify regarding his prehyp- I . notic recollection. in many of . those jurisdic- tions in which hypnotiaally induced testimo- ny is either excluded from evidence or ad- mitted only on a mse-by-mse basis, courts that have considered the question generally have allowed a previously hypnotized wit~ ness to testify regarding his prehypnotic' recollection. 'l'his has been the result he number of States that bar the admission of hypnotimlly induced testimony. (See, eg., Contreras v. State (Alaska 1986), 718 P.2d .129; State at rel. Collins Superior Court (1982), 132 644 P.2d 1266 (supplemental opinion): Rock a. State (1986), 288 Ark. 566, 708 78, cert. 107 430, 93 381; Commonwealth ?Dr Kater (1983), 388 Mass. 519, 447 1190: State a Koehler (Minn1981), 312 108; State Patterson (1983), 213 Neb. 686, 331 500; State v. Peoples (1984), 311 N.C. 515, 319 177; Com- monwealth a Taylor (1982), 294 Pa.Super. 171, 439 805.) The same result has also been reached in jurisdictions that make case-by-easc determinations of we admissie bility of hypnotically induced testimony. See, cg, State v. Iwakiri (1934), 106 Idaho 618, 682 P.2d 571; State (1983), 110 Wis.2d 555, 329 386. The view has been criticized, however. in People v. Guerra (1984), 37 Cal.3d 385, 208 Cal.Rptr. 162, 690 P.2d 635, the Califor nia Supreme Court suggested tint testimo- ?506 some ens'rniuv REPORTER, 2d ny purportedly derived from a Witness? prehypnotic recollection?would suffer from the same defects as hypnotically induced testimony, which the court had previously held could not be admitted into evidence (People 9. Shirley (1982), 31 Cal 3d 18 641 P.2d 775,181 Cal.Rptr. 243). Because the question was not squarely presented, how- ever, Guerra did not decide whether testi- mony of that sort would ever be allowed. in State a. Brown (N.D.1983), 337 138, the North Dakota Supreme Court be- lieved that it would be inconsistent to allow testimony based on prehypnotic recollection while barring hypnotically induced testimo- by. The court adopted the rule that hyp- notically induced tost?unony is generally ad- missible, however, which made it unneces- sary to decide whether, as a separate mat- ter, testimony based on prehypnotic recol- lection may ever be introduced. One commentator has noted that ?the admission of even pre?hypnotic memories carries with it too many of the most serious evils of post-hypnotic recall." (1. Micken- berg, Mesmerz'zz'ng Justice: The Use of HypnoticalIy-Induced Testimony in Criminal Trials, 34 Syracuse LRev. 927, 971 (1983).) But a witness? memory re- garding his prehypnotic recollection would seem to escape the more significant prob- lems posed by hypnosis; because the tried- mony is based on information related by the witness before undergoing hypnosis, confabulation and suggestibility could not have had any effect. The main danger appears to lie in the bolstered confidence that hypnosis may impart even to testimo- ny based on prehypnotic recollection, and an argument may be made that the use of bolstered testimony against a defendant in a criminal proceeding would violate his right to confront the witnesses against him. A similar argument was rejected in Clay Vase (1st Cir.1985), 771 F.2d 1. .in Clay a Witness initially made a somewhat un- certain identification of the defendant from an array of photographs as one of three men whom the witness saw entering a taxi cab: the cab driver was murdered later that night. Following a session of hypno- sis, in which the witness was instructed to .?nmm?nvmme . not. .2 '5 .1"de mic-m.? . . .. sum aW-W-uw-t ?umamtw. twirl- 1" ?$930 9 PEOPLE v. WILSON - .- . one as 506m 57: 1937) review the events, the witness viewed the photographic array again, and on that occa- sion he positively identi?ed the defendant as one of the three men. He also repeated his identification of another man but was ""unable to identify the third. {The witness was hypnotized some time later, with sim- ?ilar results. At trial the 'witness identi?ed the defendant in court, and information concerning the photographic identifications, including the witness' increased confidence in making them, was also introduced. ln Clay the court rejected the defend- ant?s argument that the increased confi~ Thus, the confrontation clause does not necessarily prohibit the use of testimony based on a witness? prehypnotic recollection, even though the witness? confi~ dence in his memory has been bolstered to some degree by the hypnosis. A total bar on testimony derived from pnehypnotic rec? ollection would therefore exact an unneces- sary toll. criminal trial for rape or assault would present an odd spectacle if the victim was barred from saying any- thing, including the fact that the crime occurred, simply because he or she sub- mitted to hypnosis sometime prior to trial to aid the investigation or obtain needed dence produced by hypnotizing the witness ?medical treatment." (People Hughes worked a denial of the sixth amendment right of confrontation. The court ex- plained: ?That Dwyer?s his, the witness'] hyp- nosis might have increased his confi- dence in his identification *of Clay and made it more dif?cult for Clay?s counsel to question him effectively does not nec- essarily mean that the admission of Dwyer?s testimony violated Clay's sixth amendment right to confrontation. As construed by the Supreme Court, ?a . primary interest secured by [the clause] is the right of crossexamination.? The Court has also stated that the two pur- poses served by cross-examination are to 'allow the defendant to impeach a wit- ness's credihility and to expose a wit- neSS?S?QEses and possible; motives for - testifying. Fulfillment of these two pur- -_poses is so central to the meaning of the ,3 jconfrontation chuse.that the Ninth Cir- ,2 suit has held ,that ?once cross-examina- tion reveals suf?cient information to ap- praise the witness?s veracity, confronta- tion demands are satisf' (771 F.2d 4-) The court in Clay noted that the witness was cross-examined: that the jury was in- formed of the hypnosis, heard a tape re cording of each of the two sessions, and was presented with opposing expert testi- mony on the subject; that the witness had made a prehypnotic identification of the defendant; and that the jury was instruct- ed on the effects of hypnosis. - (1983), 59 523, 545, 466 255, 266, 453 484, 495.) We agree, that this approach strikes ?a more realistic balance? between the problems of hypnosis and the drastic effect of a total ban on testimony from previously hypnotized wit- nesses regarding matters touched on in the hypnotic session. (See Ruffra, Hypnoti- cally Induced Testimony: Should It Be Admitted? '19 Crithull. 293, 321 (1983).) The proponent of the testimony should establish the nature and extent of the witness? prehypnotic recall. The par- ties should also be permitted to present expert testimony to explain to the trier of fact the potential effects of hypnosis. This approach, which essentially corresponds to that adopted by a number of other States (see, State ea: rel. Collins Superior Court (1982), 132 Ariz. 180, 210, 644 P.2d '1266, 1296 (supplemental opinion); State v. Iwakiri (1984), 106 Idaho 618, 626?21, 682 P.2d 571, 579?80; Commonwealth Kate:- (1983), 388 Mass. 519. 525. 447 1190, 1197: State 12. (1983), 110 Wis.2d 555, 564, 329 386, 395), cf- fectively meets the problems associated with hypnosis and its potential influences on a witness? testimony regarding his preh- ypnotic recollection. In this case, then, the trial judge correctly ruled that Sims could testify to his prehypnotic recollection. The parties did not agree. however, on the extent of the witness? recollection. For example, in a police report prepared six days after the hypnosis, Sims is said to have given a preh~ . un.? . .- .1 -1 .. uni. manna?W . .n gun?"- main-Ur Drll" I'll - I-.. ?f?pw?fiffr 'iilzj' II I . 580 m. ypnotic description of the assailants; the report does not say what the description was, however. Sims did not view the de- fendant until after the hypnosis session, and therefore the State, unless it chooses to argue for the admission of hypnotically induced testimony, must demonstrate to the court that the post~hypnotic identifica- tion of the defendant was anchored in the witness? prehypnotic recollection. The de- fendant?s proffered expert testimony on the effects of hypnosis would assist the trial judge in making that determination. ?nally, the defendant shouldbe permitted to present at trial expert testimony on hyp- nosis, which would aid the jurors in under- standing the potential effects of hypnosis on Sims' testimony. ,5 I The defendant alsb argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress the identi?cation testimony of Tyrone Sims. An in-court identification made by Sinus of the defendant allegedly was based on an identification made at the lineup on February 14, 1981, and the de- fendant believes that he was entitled to the presence of counsel at the lineup. The defendant argues that the procedure used in obtaining the warrant for his arrest marked the beginning of adversary pro- ceedings and therefore triggered his right tomnsel at critical stages before trial. Sed?United States v. Wade (1967), 388 US. 218, 87 1926, 18 LEd.2d 1149. The right to counsel attaches with the initiation of adversary proceedings against a defendant, and that may occur by formal? charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, in- formation, or arraignment. (Brewer v. Williams (1977), 430 US. 387, 398, 97 1232, 1239, 51 LEd.2d 424, 436; Kirby 27. Illinois (1972), 406 US. 682, 689, 92 1877,1882, 32 weed 411. (plurality opinion).) It has not been held, however, that an arrest, by itself. triggers the right to counsel. (United States v. Gouveia (1984), 467 US. 180. 189-90, 104 2292, 2298-99. 81 LEd.2d 146, 155-56.) This court has not previously decided whether the ?ling of a complaint by a police officer to obtain an arrest warrant signals the 7 505 140m}; ?scammed SEKIES initiation of adversary proceedings. (See People v. Owens (1984), 102 1112:! 88, 79 663, 464 261; see generally Robinson, Defendant? Pro-indictment Sixth Amendment Rightto Counsel: Its Attachment and Waiver, 74 1113.3. 484 ?laws the police officer presented a complaint {warm-- rant to a judge on February 13, pursuant to statute. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.l983, ch. 38, par. The complaint was present- ed to the judge a: parte, it was done by a police officer rather than by an assistant State?s Attorney, and the complaint was not filed in court until after the defendant appeared in the lineup. We do not believe that the procedure followed here can fairly be construed as the beginning of adversary proceedings between the State and the de- fendant. See People v. Romnelli (1985), 132 124,130?31, 87 IllDec. 187. 476 People v. 303102110985), ~132 Ill.App.3d 52, 57?60, 87 nLDec. 162, 476 1154. -. . I 3,1. sweat-.13: [8i entree the hearing on the motion to suppress Sims? identification, the trial court erred in precluding the defense from making cer- tain inquiries Defense counsel sought to question Sims regarding photographic dis- plays that the witness viewed before mak- ing his lineup identification of the defend- ant and his brother on February 14. Sims had identified twoother persons from an earlier photographic-array, and counsel?s avowed aimawas tosinvestigate ways in which Sims had come to ?unidentify those other people"~and come to ?identify these." The trial judge required counsel to limit his questions to the February 14 lineup, in which the defendant appeared. We cannot say that the trial judge?s ruling was in error, for there was no showing that the February 14 lineup was conducted in a suggestive manner. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a sawed-off shotgun and the officers? service revolvers, which were seized at the beauty shop where the de- fendant lived and worked. The defendant . I meMwemw Fridays-ah? em magi-?witch?. .- nu - mu- .mwm?'r . ?rote->0 .w RUFFINER v. MATERIAL SERVICE CORP. 581 Cite as 58! (Ill. ?87) argues that in searching the premises the police could take only items that were in plain view, and he contends that the weap- ons were hidden, . The trial judge found that the police were lawfully ,onJhe premises and that . they discovered the weapons in plain view. The trial judge credited the testimony of Detective German, who said that he went to the shop to arrest the defendant on an unrelated arrest warrant. Detective Gor- man testified that he found the weapons after climbing on something to look for the defendant in a possible hiding place above; a stairwell. The detective testified that the revolvers were fully visible and that the shotgun was partly enclosed in a brown paper bag. In light of German?s testimo- ny, which the trial judge chose to accept, the court?s findings are not manifestly er- roneous. See People 1). Neal (1985), 109 216, 219, 93 mDec. 365, 486 898. [10] The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an outstanding warrant for his arrest at the time of the occurrence here. The State introduced the evidence to show that the defendant had a motive for killing the po- lice officers~wto avoid arrest. But the State did not produce any evidence that the defendant knew that the warrant existed, or even that the of?cers were arresting the defendant pursuant to the warrant. The existence of the arrest warrant does not by itself show that the defendant was trying to avoid apprehension. Unless the defend- ant knew about the warrant or knew that the of?cers were attempting to arrest him, the existence of the warrant does not es- tablish anything about the defendant?s state of mind. People v. Witherspoon (1963). 27 483,190 281, People v. Doody(193l), 343111. 194, 436, and People v. 024an (1928), 330 ill. 394, 161 N.E. 739, which the State cites, are distinguishable, for in each of those cases there was evidence that the defendant knew that he was wanted by the police. The defendant raises a number of other arguments against his convictions and his death sentence, but they are questions that are unlikely to recur on retrial or questions that need not be considered in this appeal. For the reasons stated, the defendant's convictions are reversed, his sentences are vacated, and the cause is remanded for a ?new trial. Reversed and remanded. SIMON, J., took no part in the censideration or decision of this case. J- 0 gm sum: 5mm 1 no um 53 196111.Dcc.78l . William c. RUFFINER, Appellee. v- MATERIAL SERVICE CORPORATION, Appellant. No. 627312. Supreme Court of Illinois. April 2, 1987. Seaman brought action against owner of towboat for injuries sustained when he fell from ladder. The Circuit Court, Cool: County, Warren D. Wolfson, 3., found in favor of seaman, and owner appealed. The Appellate Court, .134 747, 89 Ill. Dec. 414, 480 1157, affirmed. Own- er?s petition for leave to appeal was al~ lowed. The Supreme Court, Miller, 3., held that: admission of safety standards for fixed ladders promulgated by American National Standards Institute was errone- ous; (2) evidence that ladder was slippery was sufficient to state claim against oWner for unseaworthiness and for negligence un- der Jones Act; and (3) submission of three verdict forms was not error. Reversed and remanded. 1 Seamen @296) Jones Act provides cause of action for seamen who is injured as result of ship - .. m?nm-n-a?m . - . . lil??U'C?Ih 44 4 4; 01/28/91 1062 as 312 427 2589 ?we A CHICAGO 121 oz 3. 5 I II Allegations of Police Torture in ChIcago BACKGROUND 4 I AmneSty international has received allegations that police from the Area 2 police station in Chicago, systematically tortured or otherwise ill-treated suspected criminals? between 1972 and 1984. The allegations came to light as a result of a civil lawsuit' 3 brought by one of the alleged victims, Andrew Wilson, in 1989. He and most of the 45-3 alleged victims of ill- -treatment during this period were black. Andrew Wilson was detained at the Area 2 police station in February l982 on suspicion of murdering two Chicago police officers He alleged that during I Tag 4; . interrogatiOn. he was among other things, beaten and kicked had a plastic bag placed 3; If: over his head causing near suffocation threatened with mock execution by having a gun 7.333 m. - .plaeed' In his mouth and subjected to electric shock torture. The medical director dimmer-- . hospital serving Cool: County jail inmates urged a police investigation after witnessing Andrew Wilson' 5 injuries which included burns to his chest, thigh, face and chin. 4 However. a subsequent investigation by the Chicago Police Department' 5 Of?ce of Professional Standards (OPS). which is responsible for investigating complaints againsr the police. recommended that the complaint be dismissed as 'not sustained', despite the ?i extensive evidence of Andrew Wilson's injuries. . 133:5 in 1987. the Illinois Supreme Court overturned Andrew Wilson's.conviction of the fife murder of two police of?cers and Ordered a retrial on the ground that his confession made in police Cuswdy may have been obtained by coercion. Andrew Wilson's lawyers subsequently ?led a civil lawsuit against the City of Chicago alleging that he had been tortured in 1982 in June 1989 the iury heating the case concluded that Wilson 5 constitutional Iights had been violated' In February 1982 and that there had existed at that time a dcfacro policy within the City of Chicago and the Police Department to ill- -treat persons SUSpected of killing police of?cers. (The jury failed to find that Wilson himself had been subjected to excessive force. however, and cleared the three officers named in the suit of charges of tenure: an appeal against this decision is pending) During their investigations into the case Andrew Wilson' lawyers located more than 20 other persons who alleged that thev had been tortured by police of?cers in the 2 Area- 7 police station between 1972 and WM In addition to beatings and other forms of ill* treatment. eight people alleged that they had been subjected to electric shocks. and Amnesry International Deconoer 1.930 Index: 51/42/30 01/28/91 10.2 312 427 2539 4A CHICAGO 2 ILLINOIS. USA.- AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS others said that they had had plastic bags placed over their heads or had been threatened execution At least 12 had ?led OPS complaints which were dismissed as - not sustained?. although two were later awarded damages in civil actions. it appears thefmaanyhouther people may this period. According to press reports. more than 200 black residents of the South Chicago area (where the Area 2 police station is located) had made complaints to various bodies. including the OPS. about police brutality during police inveSligation of the killing of the two of?cers in February 1932. Although the Chicago city council has held hearings into more recent incidents of police brutality, there has been no inquiry into the allegations that the Chicago Police Department had a practice or policy of torturing or abusing suspects during the above- mentioned period despite the evidence and the' Jury ?s ?nding' tn the Wilson case. As far" as Amnesty international is aware, no police of?cers have been criminally prosecuted or disciplined as a result of these incidents. Amnesty internatiOnai has learned that the ott?teer in charge of the police unit alleged to have carried out them-treatment has been promoted. The OPS investigations into individual cases of alleged police brutality have also been widely criticized as inadequate. AmneSiY international concerns Amnesty international opposes the torture or other cruel. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of all prisoners without reservation. it calls on governments to implement the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Promotion of All Persons from Torture and other Cruel, Inhu man or Degradin Treatment or Punishment. This declaration stipulates that governments are responsible for investigating torture allegations. inStituting criminal proceedings in torture cases and compensating the Victims. In accordance with these objectives, Amnesty International wrote to the Attorney General of Illinois on 16 February i990 expressing concern about the above allegations and the apparent inadequacy ofthe mveStigations Amnesty International asked what measures were being taken to ensure that detainees in police ousrody are not subjected to torture or Other cruel. inhuman or degrading treatment and to know whether action was being taken against any police of?cers in the light of the reports. The First Assistant Attorney General replied in May i990. Stating that Illinois criminal law and the United States Constitution speci?cally prohibit the torture of persons in police cuswdy and that complaints to the OPS Were investigated by independent civilian personnel. He stated that the preper authority to address the complaints at this stage was the Cook County State' 5 Attorney or the United States Attorney for the Nerthern Dish-its of Illinois. (The US Attorney is responsible for intestigating alleged cnil rights tiolations by State of?cials under federal civil rights legislation Amnesty International Index.? AMR 5 7/42/90 AmneSty International December 7.9.90 .A ?an61/28/91 1.3 312 427 2589 .IUSA CHICAGO {23 04 ILLINOIS. USA: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS 3 had writtenrto the US Attot?ney lot the Northern-Diarict of in February enclosing a his of?ce would investigate the allegations. No reply was received. in December l990 Amnesty International wrote to both the Cook County States Attorney and to the new US Attorney recently appointed for the Northern District of Illinois. asking them to investigate the allegations. AmneSty international has also called upon the Chicago city authorities to instigate a full inquiry into the allegations. .A 7 fur-m? .5. aye?31.. 5.3- Amnesty International December 1990 my?; AMR 5 7/4 2/90 internatio?al 9 SECRETARIAT i Easton Street London 80J _United Kingdoin?r?uf?bf . TG AMA 51/96/02 The Hon Neil Hartigan A Attorney General, 'i 500 8 Second Street . - a . USA 7 16 February 1990 Dear Attorney General 1 am writing to inquire about reports Amnesty International has .receiVed concerning the alleged torture of suspects held in custody in Chicago's Area 2 police station at Street and Cottage Grove Avenue. The reports. if true, suggest that suspects in police custody may have been subjected to systematic torture and ill-treatment over a period of a dozen years up to 1984. One of the most serious - and well-documented - allegations of torture was made by Mr Andrew wilson who was arrested on 14 February 1982 and charged with the murders of two police officers. On arrival at the Area 2 station Andrew Wilson says he was beaten and kicked in the eye; a plastic bag was placed over his head preventing him from breathing until he bit a hole in it: he was handcuffed to a wall; alligator clips were attached to his ears. then nostrils and fingers. and he received electric shocks from a device resembling a small generator. During some of the electric shock torture he was handcuffed between two wall rings over a hot radiator, sustaining burns to his chest. thigh, face and chin. Another electrical device resembling a cattle prod was applied to his leg and groin. He was threatened with death. a gun was placed in his mouth and the trigger pulled. Wilson signed a confession after 13 hours in police custody. He claims to have been further abused while in transit to the lockup: his penis was grabbed and pulled. and he was hit over the head with a service revolver. The desk officer at the lockup refused to admit Wilson. apparently because of the severity of his injuries. He was taken to a hospital but says his police escort told him to refuse treatment. This he eventually did. On admission to the Cook County Jail the following day. Andrew Wilson's injuries were examined and extensively photoqraphed. According to reports, Dr John Reba. medical director of the-hospital serving the inmates of Cook County Jail, alerted Police Superintendent Richard Brzeczek to Wilson's injuries and the allegations that he had been given electric shocks and urged that a thorough investigation be undertaken. Superintendent Brzeczek personally ordered a Police Department's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) investigation into the matter. However. a delay of a year and a half apparently ensued before the case was assigned to an investigator and, according to reports. it was not given a high priority. Two years later the OPS recommended that the complaint be dismissed as "not sustained?. 3 01-833 1771 Telegrams: Amnesty London W01 Telex: ?8502 Fax: 01-956 li57 Iva-ti sets u:zaaesi 19'14 es 312 427 2539 AIUSA CHICAGO it 06 O. 2 >The failure to act on the evidence of Andrew wilson's torture is deeply disturbing and contrasts sharply with the ruling of the Supreme Court when it reviewed Andrew wilson's criminal conviction on appeal (he was convicted of the murder of the two police officers in August 1982 and sentenced to death). in 1987 the court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial in light of evidence that Andrew Hilson's injuries had been sustained while in police custody on the day of his arrest. with the consequent risk that his confession may have been obtained by coercion: ?The evidence here shows clearly that when the defendant was arrested at 5:15 am on thruary 14, he may have received a cut above his right but that he had no other injuries: it is equally clear that when the defendant was taken by police officers to Mercy Hospital sometime after 10 o'clock that night he had about 15 separate injuries on his head. chest and leg. The inescapable conclusion is that the def? . endant suffered his injuries while in police custody that day." Andrew wilson's medical file was also reviewed by Dr Robert deputy chief medical examiner of the Cook County Institute of Forensic Medicine. Dr has had considerable experience in identifying and treating victims of torture. in a deposition made after he had studied the reports Dr was of the opinion that Andrew wilson' description=' ,r was consistent with his having been tortured with electric shocks. Andrew wilson subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Chicago. the Pol.ice Department and three named Detectives. He alleged that the police had tortured him: that one officer had used:? electric shock torture on him while other officers had participated in the conspiracy- by failing to report the torture: and that it was a de facto opolicy of the city of Chicago and the Police Department to n?streat persons suspected of killing police officers. The suit came to trial in February 1989 but ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked on its verdict. Following a second trial in June 1989 the jury affirmed that Andrew wilson's constitutional rights had been violated on 14 February 1982. It affirmed that in 1982 the city had had a de facto policy, practice or custom whereby the police were allowed to abuse those suspected of killing policemen. However. it found that Wilson had not been subjected to excessive force due to this policy. The three police" officers were cleared of all charges. The case is currently pending appeal before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Andrew wilson's alleged torture appears not to have been an isolated case. Attorneys for Mr wilson have located more than 20 other persons who allege that they too were tortured by police officers from the Area 2 station between 1972 and 1984. Their accounts contain disturbing similarities to Andrew Wilson's description of his treatment. The persons concerned were either detained in custody at the Area 2 police station or driven to remote areas by Area 2 officers. Their allegations were that they had been beaten; some were hit over the head with guns and other hard implements; eight were subjected to electric shocks; some had plastic bags put over their heads. One says his finger was placed in a bolt-cutter and he was taken to the roof of the building with the threat that he would be thrown off it. A woman testified under oath that she was handcuffed to a windowsill in an interview room for nearly 24 hours without access to a lavatory. 1-e-ee-4oeegren-_2se .un- - .n-?uIl-vn- uni- .- 6 9 At least twelve of those alleging torture filed 0P5 complaints, but we understand these were dismissed as 'not sustained?. Two of those allegedly tortured later filed civil lawsuits against the city of Chicago and were awarded damages. Darryl Cannon claimed he was tortured on 2 November_l983~ by officers from the Area 2 station who drove him to a remote area and played 'Russian Roulette' by pointing a gun at his head and pulling the trigger. They also put the gun in his mouth. He received electric shocks to the testicles and mouth. Philip Adkins. arrested on 7 June 1984, was also allegedly taken to an isolated place by Area 2 detectives. He was hit in the stomach and testicles until he defecated and urinated involuntarily. He was awarded $25. 000 in settlement of his suit in May 1988. ?Another alleged"torture victim. Gregory Banks; had his conviction for? murder and armed robbery overturned by an Illinois appellate court in December 1989. A new trial was ordered on the grounds that his confession should have been suppressed as involuntarily given. Banks was arrested on 28 October 1983 and taken to the Area 2 station. He claimed.he was handcuffed. threatened with death and a gun was placed in his mouth. He was repeatedly kicked and beaten with a flashlight: a plastic bag was twice put over his head. The police later denied wrongdoing but a doctor who examined Banks' injuries testified that they were consistent with his account of what had been done to him. Remanding the case for retrial. the court noted: we no longer see cases involving the use of the rack and to obtain confessions, we are seeing cases. like the present case. involving punching. kicking and placing a plastic bag over a suspect's head to obtain trial Judges do not courageously and exercise their responsibility to 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 - including criminal suspects - by our constitution.? Amnesty International opposes the torture and other cruel. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of all prisoners without reservation. it calls on governments to implement the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and other Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This declaration stipulates that governments are responsible for investigating torture allegations. institutingicriminal proceedings in torture cases and compensating the victims. Amnesty international is concerned at the shortcomings of the OPS investigation carried out in Andrew Wilson' 5 case. In the light of the considerable evidence. both photographic and documentary. suggesting that he had been tortured, it is concerned at the very delay in initiating the investigation. and at the eventual dismissal of the complaint. while Amnesty international is not in a position to verify this or the other allegations of torture brought to its attention. it is concerned at the similarities in the treatment alleged. particularly the use of electrical devices to perform electric shock torture on suspects. if true. these reports suggest that over a period of years detainees in the custody of Chicago's Area 2 police officers were systematically tortured and ill-treated. but that the CPS investigative procedure failed either to identify those officers responsible. or to prevent abuse of prisoners from i ?independent body. . . ?use, ?attention to Article 5 of the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law officers in_ light of the above reports; also to know what measures are A?subjected to torture or othen.cruel inhuman or degrading treatment.= 01/28/91 .6 15? 312 427 2589 .IUSA CHICAGO 98 recurring. An important safeguard in protecting the rights of prisoners during interrogation and custody is the certainty that all complaints of torture will be impartially and effectively investigated. 1 should appreciate learning from you What fact-finding methods are used to investigate cases of alleged torture in police custody: whether the findings are made public. and whether the Police Department' 5 Office _of Professional Standards is an Amnesty international r?spectfully urges that the state authorities demonstrate their total opposition to torture by making clear to all law enforcement personnel that torture will not be tolerated under any circumstances. it should be made clear during the training of all officials involved in the custody. interrogation or treatment or prisoners that torture is a Criminal act. They should be instructed that they are obliged to disobey any order to torture. In this regard 1 would draw your Enforcement Officials. a copy of which I enclose for your information. I Finally, given that it is -the responsibility of governments to ensure that those responsibl for torture be brought to justice. I should be grateful to know whether further action is anticipated against any police being taken to ensure that-i detainees held in police custody are not- 34". i952," 4131;: 1 look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. i am sending a copy of this letter to lra Raphaelson, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. . YourS'sincerely vm lan Martin Secretary General 91/23/31 1.1 '3 312 42 7 2539 .034 CHICAGO 12: 09 ?amnesty .. International a I :7 INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT 1 ?aston Street London BDJ . ?we" TG AHR 51/90/02 . I b6 ?3 Acting United States Attorney for the b7c -3 Northern District of Illinois office of the US Attorney Chicago. IL 60604 USA 16 February 1990 Dear I enclose a copy of the Ietter Amnesty International has today sent to The Hon Neil Hartigan, Attorney General of Given the very serious nature of the reports Amnestysinternational has received I shouid be grateful for your comments on them. and to knog}.e I whether a fedora! investigation wit! be undertagen into this matterpe ea - {Jatw . ~+erm ww?e~ gg?g Yours sincerely . 1: ~.sl 55:: EJEIZe?h?tiz Ian Martin Secretary Genera! 1e-ee-4oeegeem-25 9% The following is a typed. version of the original letter below which produced a poor c0py. Mr lan Martin Seeretary General Amnesty International Easron Street London WCIX SDJ KINGDOM Dear Mr Martin; I thank you for sending our other: a copy of your February l6. l990 letter which was misdirected, and I thank- you for your concern and attention to this matter. In answer to your questions and concerns about the Office of Professional Standards, the Office of Professional Standards is an independent inveStigative Department of the Chicago Police Department which was created in 1974. The Oltice or Protessional Standards has a civilian director and all complaints are investigated by civilian personnel who have never been employed by the Chicago Police Department. During the course of their investigations. the OPS investigators conduct interviews and collect evidence into allegations of abuse and excessive {prod by sworn Chicago Police personnel. Findings of CPS inveStigations are made public and complaintants are infOrmed of the results of the investigation. As to your concerns shoot the torture of a person in custody. you should be advised that lilinois Criminal Law specifically prohibits it. Specifically. Illinois Revised Statutes Chapter 38. SeCtion 1032 prohibits the use of any unlawful means to obtain statements. admissions or confessions and it provides that all persons in Custody be treated humanely. Likewise. you should note that the fair treatment of accused persons is a fundamental precept 0i the United States Constitutiona. "The 8th Amendment of the United States Cons?tution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unUStral punishment and the lath Amendment makes this law applicable to each of the states. Furthermore. in the United States our conStitut'ron'allti laws provide for an adversarial system of iuStice for all persons with built in checks and balances. All persons accused of 3 Crime for which a sentence of imprisonment could be imposed are given comt appointed defense covacl at no c05t. The allegations which yet: have raised in your lettert could and should have been raised by a defense attorney in pre-trial metions before the judge. In fact. there is an additional multiilevel system of review concerning the type of pollen brutality you have alleged this City of Chicago has engaged in OPS IS only the lirSt of many levels that an accused can go to. From OPS or independent of CPS an individual can report police brutality to the Chicago Police Superintendent. ?the Police Superintendent can take administratite acnon and suspend officers or he can recommend longer suspension or termination and send the case the City Corporation Coonsel's Office The City Corporation Counsel?s Office. in such a case. acts as the prosecutor before the Chicago Police board. The Chicago Police Board is a nine member civilian tribunal which conducts hearings and decides if officers reterred to it by the Superintendent are to be tired. suspended or exonerated. Additionally. in cases of abuse and torture. the cases are brought to the Cook tee-cy-eoeerst)-asa nevi?I. . . in mm Ola-twat no it?) . .um~ .. . . .. Country State's Attorney "and/or the United States Attorney for the Northern District of lltinois for the prosecution of the olfendino officer. Lastly, 'any victims of Chicago Police abuse or torture can bring a federal Civil Rights action in the United State Disuict Court for the Northern District of against the Chicago Police Department and the offending . officers. b6 -6 - Alter having reviewed your letter and concerns. at this point in time. the grocer b7C -6 authority to address you complaints to would be Cook County State?s Attorney. theyniteo ?tates Attorney .for the Northern District of tilinois. Eastern Division. a- w? I hope my resoonse has been helpful to you and again i thanlt you tofyour concern and attention to this matter. It I can be of any further assistance to you please feel tree to contact me. Very truly yows. b6 -3 b7C -3 First Assisrant Attorney Generat Office of.the Attorney General I00 West Randolph Street Chicano. Illinois 6 601 .1 Hoe Men/iogandum . To From Subject: 'for the above cases for_12/21/90 in anticipatiOn of SAC, CHICAGO Duc?12/4/90 b6 -1 SA b7C -l CIVIL RIGHTS PROGRAM, CHICAGO DIVISION 0n 12/4/90, FBIHQ Ico?tacted the Writer of this membrandum to inquire into-the status of the InvestigatiOns listed below: 44A-77922 177A-77323 44A-77667 . 44A-78034 Analyst Iadvised?thet the'above cases have bs'? . . b7 ?1 come up for reVIew on the FBIHQ tIckler system. She further advised that she will set new ticklers at FBIHQ appropriate commUnications ?rom Chicago. II-Chicago 1 ach case listed above. a?l? NW lib/AL -- 7F2 .3 - SEARCHED uxc: . . manning.19-w-4aengsI 3 2:55- I *5 ?63 FD-36 (Rev. 8-29.85) FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype Ci Immediate Facsimile C3 Priority D3 AIRTEL 'Routine em UNCLAS Date 2/20/91 '1 TO DIRECTOR, FBI (ATTENTION: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, 2 CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT) 3 FROM SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) pa) (SQUAD 12) 4 SUBJECT COMMANDER JOHN SURGE, 5 CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 6 I I- VICTIM: b6 ?2 CIVIL b7": '2 7 00: CHICAGO 8 Reference Chicago FD-610-to the Bureau, dated 9 10/26/90. 10 Enolosed for the BUreau are two (2) copies of a Letterhead Memorandum (LHM) with an attached copy of 11 Springfield airtel and FD-302 reflecting.interview of the victim in captidned case. One (1) copy of the LEM was also 12 forwarded to the UNITED STATES OFFICE, Chicago, ~IllinoisBureau (Encls. 2) (w/Attachments) - Chicago 16 JLS:rcb 17 (3)1991 4 Approved:-_ Transmitted - Cimgh-?j (N umber) (Time) 9 US. Department of Justice I Federal ?Bureau of Investigation Ia Reply.PIeaseRefert? 219 South Dearborn ?kNm Chicago, Illinois 60604 February 20, 1991 COMMANDER JOHN BURGE: CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT: CHIC GO VICTIM: b7c '5 On February 20,1991, all available facts in captioned case were discussed with Assistant I ates Attorney (AUSA) At that time, AUSA advised that since the alleged of ense was committed outside the five (5) year Statute of Limitations, he would have to decline prosecution in this matter. In view of the above, no-further investigation is being conducted by the Chicago Office and this matter is considered closed. Avert ??50 - 1* - . Decca-2mm ?lms. 5 us. 2 - Bureau (ENCLS. 2) (w/Attachments) 1 - USA, Chicago (ATTN: AUSA b6 ?3 -1 - Chicago (44A-CG-78234) 3?70 ?3 JLS:rcb (4) This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. it is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 1g5m-4E34i uni-Inna} Lela-mm ?5 Alb?wk.? Ha Record Recpest fD?125 (Rev. 5-31-88) ?dz. I i i . . Date [3 Birth Credit [3 Criminal Death HIS Marriage!Ir {3 'Motor Vehicle Other [3 Driver's License I To Buded b6 ?1 . i Return to 3 13:7(3 ?1 File number Name arid aliases of at; or employee, and Spouse gs/j N9: 765 77/ i Addresses Residence f_ (?6qu Business 3 11M ?er Ali/(Int! 60/1150 ofa/ 84$ 043031?? 3'0 5-!va *Date and place 9! marriage .J (if applicabie) 4 I It 3 Race Sex Age Height' Height Hair Eyes {3 Haie female Birth date Arrest Nunber Fingerprint classification Criminal specialty Specific information desired Social Security Number Results of check [Alf zip/7 UJDC, owe-J LJLe/oc Defer/MAW" chm/r70 00(er 01L. MM Jaw Ge? ivomnc/oJ/Au?q? 66? 1 4466 . ?m m: 0/565 1ga-m-4aaiw?i-2m ex? JOHN (g4 49 W7nlo~f? 0110942. 52?98?370 vs C551 O?PChj?o. 3mm 5?40 009300 +7.31? $349 65116645 {Tarn/15:3. v.5. 303.4%? 61.90 16:1 1864:? <87 D) 02W W?sm v5 090150, an?a) 536. vs 36(46635 I F3205 (Rev. 9-2230) Memorandum To From: Subjed: chMe? Director; FBI gag/k (2 Date 1/7/ 'sac: 60 prob 4757,43 COMMANDER Jeff/J ?ll/{65, b6 ?2 b7C ?2 This case will be delinquent. 'Date of Bureau deadline: [17/17/9/ Reason for the delinquency: R?oLn?y I?f PPLK I?m/7 Date Cjairtel meme? Queue: 2/ 19/4 I ?o administrative action'necessary. $6465" LHM will reach the Bureau: 7f~2w3~3?L FEB 1 1391 FBI Memorandum i Subject a Date Notice of File Closing 22MAR 1991 CIVI RIGHTS MAME-3R A To From ?9 Director hn R. Dunne Federal Bureau of InVestigation ssistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Reference is made to year ?ield o?fice file captioned as on the attached closing form and numbered 0833(4 . This matter has been closed as of the date on the attached form. . ?fe-CG 9 rd; .u ?gem 19;? b7C ?1 ngredz 1.1 i "1 S?m-w .2 '2 MAR 1991 35m Barge 1 14443-2321 MW 15: "1991 . . Victim b6 ?2 b7C -2 Statute of limitations mined. b6 -3 \g?v Civil Rights we -3 a i f? shim I M, k, I. ?5 is ,1 agtazmavf?z-ESSI . I TRANSMIT VIA: AIRTEL CLASSIFICATION: DATE: 4/29/91 FROM: Director,F8i To: Chicago JOHN BURGE, 7 CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT: . b6_2 VICTIM 2: Cvau RIGHTS - oo: Reference D03 closing memorandum dated 3/22/91. Enclosed are two cooie?s of a Department of Justice letter dated 4/-19/ 9 1 requesting investigation in captioned case. This request has been reviewed by the Civil Rights Unit, BlHQ,land unless reasons exist to the contrary. you are to comptete the requested investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 . Manual of investigative Operations and Guidelines, and submit results within the receipt of this communication. workdays ot b6 -1 b'7C -1 a .. KEOPWW 19?w?4-oaat?atggz7a l; a DJ 144e23-2321 John Burge, Chicago Police Department, b6 _2 APR 19 199? - Victim 1?75 ?2 Director John R. Dunne Federal Bureau of Investigation Assistant Attorney General Attn: CRU, Rm. 18948, TL254 Civil Rights Division Reference is made to your field office file number CG 44A- 78234 and your memorandum of 2/28/91 enclosing a letterhead ?memorandum dated 2/20/91. Please conduct the_following additional investigation: 1. Determine the dates of all proceedings, including any hearings, trials and direct or collateral appeals, in which the victim?s allegedly coerced confession Was used to obtain or support a conviction, and report regarding those proceedings. 2. Interviewl I 11:: 22:55 I lregarding his knowledge of allegations that subject Burge and other members of the Chicago Police Department have conspired to coerce confessions and/or to use coerced confessions against suspects. Investigate al_l incidents which occurred after January 1,1986,an_ any incidents in which court proceedings, including direct Or col lateral appeals or actiOns by a victim alleging deprivatiOn of civil rights in which a police officer provided written testimony (such as the Wilson case referred to by were pending on or after January 1, 1986, to de er a pattern of such conduct exists. A copy of letter to the Attorney General with attachments is attached hereto for Your reference. i 31-2745 17- . . o?g3%7dn: ?g COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER s; FLOOR- CHICAGO. {1.60606 umw'122- March 15, 1991 .32: 1; Mr. Richard Thornburgh Attorney General ~Department of Justice 1 Constitution Avenue and 10th Street N. W. 7~Washington, D. C. -20530- Re: Civil Rights Violations Involving Criminal Suspects Dear sirs: k? . I am*writing in response to an article that appeared 1n 1 In that "5 Nit} the March _13, 1991 New York Times, Chica editio . article, a copy of which is enclosed, a spokesperson in your office, requested 1nformat1on about incidents of police brutality occurring anywhere in this country. Enclosed you will find documentation regarding numerous instances of police brutality from the Chicago area. I am an attorney_in the Cook County Public Defenders office who has been active in community groups dealing with the issue of police brutality. My employment as a public defender has brought me into direct contact with persons who alleged that they were victims of police misconduct a while they were in police custody. The 490 attorneys in my office represent over 230,000 criminal suspects each year. Of them, fully eighty percent are African-American males. While handling an appeal for one of my clients, I discovered that some officers in the Chicago Police Department were involved in the systematic torture of black male suspects in order to coerce them to make confessions. ?11.111.111.111 b6 -6 This client's name was] during a suppression hearing that he was a He testified Jon Burge during his interrogation. b7C -6 b6 -2 used by Specifically, asserted that Officer Burge placed a loaded gun to is ead b7C -2 and played Russian roulette. When this failed to elicit a r?Y-?w sion, Officer Burge resorted to the use of :11 t' iter cover. He placed the cover on I ecame unconscious due to oxygen deprivation. gl/fgfigh continued to resist, Officer Burce repeated ess two more times. Finall relented. 0mm Ia 133m?? y. erviewed in prison by an FBI agent by b6 MAR fame tD (Effingham, Illinois office). This we 4,2 conferencefiarrange at my request and in my presence, took on ber 29, 1990. I heard nothing further from owing;this interview. On October 31, 19901'5 o1 II ?bl Mr. Richard Thornburgh March 15, i99i_ gage} 1, a, telephoned in the Civil Rights Division_af_the] Justice Depar men . advised me that sinc .interview with Officer Burge was conducted on October 30, 1985, the five year statute of limitations had run and there done.~ He suggested that thersa limitations period could be extended if I could show that there was a Burge's conduct. The enclosed documentation indicates the existence of such an understanding. While investigatingl Icase, I discovered b5.4 .information that lead me to conclude that Officer Burge's b7c.q misconduct was not isolated. Indeed, I learned that compared to other suspects "interviewed" by Burge, my client got off relatively easy. has another suspect interrogated by Burge. He must have been pretty stubborn because during the course of his interrogation Officer Burge had to re one very unseemly contrivances in der to gain I cooperation. Specifically, lwas hoo up to a b7c'4 small electrical enerating ev1ce, 10h, when cranked, shocked land sent pain cours'na throuah his bodv. There were ographs of scab marks on where the allegatorfclins were attached. LIn~additionl -e+erses+ee I Burn scars were detected in photographs. In spite of these ph to and the testimony of physicians who the trial court chose to believe the testimon2_of_the]police officers when they maintained that confession was voluntarily given. was convicted and sentenced to death. His be'i conviction and deazh sentence were overturned when the ?Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the confession should not have come into evidence. copy of that an article from the Reader newspaper describing th case, is enclosed. Attorneys who represented Iin a subsequent federal civil rights suit he f1 iscovered additional examples of black male suspects who alleged that they were tortured while in police custody. Interestingly, these attorneys only discovered these other cases when they were contacted by an anonymous person who wrote on police department stationary. After contacting these people, many of whom were incarcerated in Illinois prisons, these :9 - civil?rights suit: (which-is now pending on appea because -1 1 I Mr. Richard Thornburgh March 15, 1991 Page _3 attorneys compiled a list of over 25 cases involving defendants who claimed to have been abused by Officer Burge and some of his subordinates. A copy of nd brief description of these cases is enclosed. lost his b6 -2 . the court refused to allow this and other damaging ev1dence b7c to beiheard.by the jury. eFor example, theucourtrrefused permit a Cook C<untv medical examiner and expert on torture to testify that was indeed tortured by Officer Burge. Efforts to have Officer Burge disciplined have been completely ignored. Despite numerous complaints, the police department has repeatedly refused to punish Officer Burge. Amazingly, Burge has actually been promoted to Commander. He is now one of the most senior members of the Chicago police :force. The message this sends to Burge's subordinates is clear. ?It is permissible to abuse criminal suspects, just "don't get caught." And it seems that the only evidence that motivates local governmental and law enforcement agencies to take action against the errant behavior of some of their officers is a videotape catching the offender in the act. If this was the same standard applied to all criminal cases, our would be empty. In Chicago, neither the former State's Attorney (and now Mayor), Richard M. Daley, nor the city counsel has chosen to discipline Officer Burge or to authorize an investigation into these allegations. This is 'remarkable in light of the Supreme Court decision in Wilson, evidence presented at city council hearings and in court, and an Amnesty International report (copy enclosed) requesting that such an investigation be undertaken. I hope that the information I have provided you will assist your inquiry. I am prepared to provide you with additional information and testimony of witnesses should you request them. It would truly be a tragedy if the integrity of the law enforcement profession could continue to be sullied by the outrageous conduct of a few officers who are able to escape punishment. The Los Angeles Police Department appears ready to act. Hopefully your investigation will encourage other departments to do likewise. I ?nor-431 ?1 b6-5 b7C -5 lam-memen-z? March l?i ??Pa?e24 II . . . 3 I Mr. Richard Thornburgh Enclosures cc: Mr. William 8. Sessions, Director Federal Bureau of Investigations 1 ~7 9th Street and Avenue, N.W. - 22 ?Asses The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 2426 Rayburn House Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Donald Edwards 2307 Rayburn House Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable John Lewis 501 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Paul Simon 462 Dirksen Building Washington, D.C. 20510 b6 -6 Public Defender of Cook Cbunty? bW3?6??* 200 W. Adams, Fourth Floor Chicago, IL 60606 .I outpace-lea estudaywitltWilhamS gossions. center. Director. Purl [heelrou?l?be rm Times nous meeting "brutality. With Mr. Sessions were. from left. Repre- sentatives Solomon P. Ortiz. John Conyers Jr.. _n aroma donned {Special- =ra'gedovo'rjth?e? . . . break. imammday so 4.11118!? thectty. T: s? 3 uof investigating that 'b'ureau's airy-imp policebrutality in Jr. of . ?o?seidOr memberoithecau- cits. said after attracting with William Sessions. Dir'edor of the Federal Bu- about widen! the into the incident. but l' thc?Fedct?al?Bureau of Investigation. about police ?Edolphus Towns and Melvyn M. Dymally. codify; Soughtin Polic? Beating reau is seeking to learn whether the Los Angeles police of?cers involved in 'rlwagifl?GTON: .??tgn Out- the beating on March 3 violated the ?3-2e?ailnaofa suspect?s civil rights. thus warranting Federal charges, - . - Mr. Oonyers. a Democrat. said he was ?abso utely horri?ed" by the epi- sode. which he said di?ered from other incidents of police miscondu?ct in Los Angeles and elsewhere ml in that it happened to be videotaped an ama- teur photographer who lived nearby. The donational television over the Cable News Net- work and other networks The lawmaker said Mr. Sessions told the group that the was investi- gating the beating as an isolated inci- ?f?ag'reed to re ay the request to Attorney if'General Dick Thomburgtt i 'fl ney General would meet with caucus information about other incidents of police brutality anywhere in the coun- ipolioe brutality issues Representative 'on Civil Rights. said today that he i Dan Eramlan. a esman for Mr. {rhomburgh said that the Attor- members to discuss the case. but had not decided when the meeting would take place. He added that anyone with try shalld tell the bureau. The heating has ignited interest in Don Edwards. a California Democrat who heads the Judiciary Subcommittee would hold hearings next week on the dent. But. Mr. Conyers said. ?We want a systematic investigation of the his- Is there a history of violence among the Los Angeles police? subject. calling it "an epidemic." ?Absolutely Horti?cd' Representative John Lewis. a Demo-' tory of violence by the Los Angeles Po- lice Department." The videotape shows more than a crat at Georgia. said the behavior oil dozen unilormed dimers Crowding the police in Los Angeles was "syrn-l over a prone mart. later identified as bolic of what is happening around the: Rodney Glen Kins. ?unemployed con- country Neither Mr. Lewis nor Mr.? struction worker. the police said i Edwards provided details of Specifici had led them on a car chase; The tape incidents. ,showed some officers repeatedly hit- ting him with their and .Mr. Sessions declined to be inter- kicking him in the head while others Viewed aboutthe?meeting with the cau- stood by. Mr. King suffered a broken rue r: an investigation. The bun lee and facial iniuris. NY. 7. Hat?ck Cake),- -Daryl F. Gates. the Los Angeles Chef of Police. has said that he will seek felony charges against 3 ol the of?cers involved and that all 15 officers who took part will lace departmental disciplinary charges. ?lhe beating has brought calls for Chic! Gates's resignation. Today. in a . full-page advertisement in The Los An- geles Times. the American Civil Liber- ties Union?urged the chief to resign. The ad included a-photograph of an of?cer wielding a with the headline. {?Whodo call when the gang wears blue u'ni orms?" The chief has said he will not resign, and he can only be removed from office for cause by a five-member commis- sion that appointed him. A grand jury in Los Angeles held a second day oi closed hearings today to determine whether any criminal charges should be filed against the of?- cers involved. "Not an Aberration? After the incident. Chiel Gates called it an ?aberration" in an otherwise well- disciplined department. But today sev- eral members of Congress from the Los Angeles area disputed that. "it certainly is not an aberration." said Representative Maxine Waters. a Democrat. "This is the order of the day in Los Angeles." Mr. King is black. hat Chief Gates has insisted that race was not a factor in the beating. Mr. King's lawyers have said they do not intend to make race an issue But several lawmakers said today that the incident had the perception that the Police Department . of 8.300 officers olten uses excessive force againSt blacks. ?lhey said a broad Federal invesrigation was necessary because the local authorities had been unable to halt what they to as a "pattern of abuse" by the pollce. 53.11; gft3/mg factshet. tor l,,e ?q FACT SHEET: EVIDENCE OF POLICE TORTURE BY COMMANDER JON BURGB AND HIS MEN This fact sheet is based on information gathered by the attorneys for, in the Federal civil:rights case of Wilson 3; City focusesbpn?the use og electroshock and other forms of torture by Commander Jon Burge and others under his command which haye been documented by court testimony: by interviews with the victims, by court decisions. and/or by jury verdict., Much of this information has also been confirmed by a police source: who .1-1 ?u and who communicated anonymously because of fear of police by letter with retaliation. have also documented several I additional_?ases and_tortureh?unrelated to Burge and his associates; and former OJLS.'Director Pogel has wig: admitted, under oath; thatihe kept.a file of electroshock and torture cases-which were reported to the Office of Professional Standards. For purposes of this fact sheet, we will use the definition of torture which was accepted to by former polipe ?Superintendent in ?ilson - a definition which includes electroshock. the use of plastic bags and typewriter covers to simulate suffocation [dry submarino]: simulating Russian Roulette and sticking guns in the victim's mouth: beating on the bottoms of feet and testicles: and hanging someone from a hook by handcuffs which are attached to the victim's wrists. . b6?2 1* b7C ?2 b6 b7C Although the trial judge did not permit the all white jury,? in the second Wilson civil rights tr1a1 to hear the vast majority of the torture evidence against Burge and his men. it nonetheless found that the police department had a policy and ?restart-?2' also been informed of a thorough, independent investigation: unfortunately there has been none forthcoming. In all of the forty cases documented here, neither the 0.P.S. nor the police department has ever disciplined or even reprimanded Burge or any other detective or officer for? these acts of torture. In fact, Burge has been repeatedly promoted and is now the Commander of Area 111 Detective Division. ,r I. ACTS OF EAUECTROSHOCK AND TORTURE BY BURGE AND HIS MEN ?1 1111?, 19734197411311- b6 ?2 b7C -2 1. nicknamed was taken to Area II headquarters on at approximately 4 a.m. Jon Burge presided over his interrogation. during which: in an effort to obtain a confession, plastic bags were put over head, causing him to pass out three separate time?s. Burge also applied the end of an electroshock device. housed in a black box, to handcuffs. giving an intense shock, and .The shock was extremely painful and caused testified to much of this during a subsequent Motion to Suppress. He was vL ei . 3?2 39:: I n: :a7:_1 held. interrogated and tortured for approximately six was not permitted to testify at the Wilson civil rights trials. b6 b7C 2. was arrested by Burge and then Detective, now commander, They drove him around in their police vehicle. pointed their guns at him, and then pulled the triggers, but the chambers were empty. he was taken to Area II where he was interrogated and beaten by Burge and for.one and one?half hours: during which time they When then a police board member. came to Area II to inquire about he was released. 2UIOPS complaint was subsequently filed. was not permitted to testify at the Wilson civil rights tria1s. - - - 3. was interrogated on two occasions in 1973 by Burge and The first time they showed him a b6-2r4 b7C Later in 1973 Burge and put while ,handcuffed: on a table, and hit him. b6 b7C was struck and beaten by Burge and after being arrested and was refused access to an attorney. 8e mentioned and were not permitted to testify at the Wilson civil rights 1 :trials. B. 1978-1980 4. and brought to Area II where he was interrogated by Burge. black box was on the table and Burge came in the interrogation room when pistol. Apparently referring to was handcuffed and said was arrested again on was handcuffed to the wall, and hit in the head with a "fun time again? . said "you can ask your little fat friend about the box." The b6 :2 b7C -2 $595 71"? . Burge Burge shocked was not permitted to testify at the Wilson civil rights trials. ?9 on cuffed to a ring on the wall. do to what he had done to was arrested at his Burge brought out ,also put a bag over in it to breathe. b6 b7C and taken to Area II where he was hand- and said he was going to Burge shocked almost passed out. head and Burge was slapping and questioning him while doing this. was not permitted to testify at the Wilson civil rights trials. 6. and interrogated about filed an had to bite a hole Burge complaint. was arrested and taken to Area II on Burge hit him on the head with a long was handcuffed and hung by his handcuffed b? wrists from a hook on the door with his feet off the ground. During the interrogation Burge was accompanied by Det. who Burge introduced as a Burge said ?he and he wishes he could kill you." Co-arrestees were also interrogated and beaten by Burge at the same time,.and Burge obtained a confession from one of them. filed an 0.P.S. complaint through his and testified about abuse,at his criminal trial and at the civil rights trial. however, was not permitted to name Burge as his attacker in his testimony at the second Wilson civil . rights trial./ Burge denied the heating under oath at the criminal trial. b6 7. were arrested 1n bW3_2,_4 by Burge and Area II Detective Burge said ?wait untilwe get you back to the horror chamber.? We know how to squeeze a man's nuts} When they returned to Chicago, Burge gasked if the man on duty was the one who killed Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. Burge said "when we get through with you you?ll be glad to tell us what we want." At Area II Burge presided over the interrogation of in separate rooms. Burge laughed when each asked for an attorney saying "you know better than that'. was hit 1aw-agesiFaiy-zsa {1.54?am?Q"When? 7153533} 11'9 agitating): in- the b7C -2 was told that he being hit by Burge at his trial and Burge testified about was "gonna talk before l2:00'. testified about this brutality at their ?ction to Suppress on March 6: 1980: testified about They interrogating at the same trial. were not permitted to testify at the ?ilson civil rights trials. C. 1982?1984 b6 -2 b7C -2 8. 0n was taken to ?an Area II interrogation room, handcuffed. and questioned by Area 11 detectives concerning his knowledge and participation in a When he failed to give information, Burge entered the murder. told room. he was going to talk. and asked if had When heard of him. said no, Burge said before he left the station he would "wish he had never set eyes on him." After this threat. he left. b6 -2 b7C -2 Burge re-entered the interrogation room after per? isisted in refusing to talk to the interrogating detectives. Be then had that and again asked if he was going to talk. When again refused, Burge pulled dow? 'Ig-W-?il?l-BfiF?ij-?-B 5? While shocking Burge re- against the word of a Lieutenant. peatedly demanded that he talk. told him he had also done this to and had forced them to crawl all over the floor, and told that nobody would believe word detective, Detective if he had seen who was present, anything, and the detective looked at the ceiling and said no. Burge asked another Area II Jig-=1: Burge also tied a b6 and later, after continued to deny knowing anything, he. re?entered the interrogation room?, pointed a gun at head: cooked it and told he was going to "blow his black head off.? Detective was also involved in testified to these events at a 1982 this interrogation. motion to suppress hearing at which Burge also testified. and b7C later at a deposition in the ?ilson civil rights case. was not allowed to testify before the jury at the Wilson civil rights trialswere arrested and taken to Area I, pursuant to a canvas initiated by'Area II detectives under the command of Lt. Burge. They were all beaten: had plastic bags and typewriter covers placed over their heads and were otherwise tortured while at Area I. elm?3;;i 3. 1f}: :dikrf?" 3.5 r- - ?For idetectives threatened to- After beingeenewwe=e tortured at Area'I, was further brutalized at Area II. and heard several other arrestees being__ Similarly treated None of these indiViduals were charged with any -7 "r -i crimes. All four<of these individuals filed OPS complaints: but no action was taken. testified at the Wilson civil rights trials. b6 10? On b7C were tentatively identified by an eyewitness as the persons who They were taken to the Detective Division at Police headquarters at 11th and State. was repeatedly beatenr?abused; "bagged? and nearly'suf- f, focated by Bur?e and Area II detectives - 3 who also placed a gun in his mouth and repeatedly threatened him with it. also overheard other 'suspects:'including being treated hia similar way I when they determined that the identification was erroneous. his torture. Later he was threatened by in order to keep him quiet. He finally came forward in July of 1989 deposition. However, he was not permitted to testify before the jury at the second Wilson trial. 11. On was arrested for 4" 5 .5414 . I . {44 "gig; f: I I 9:5"i :9 3'14Area 11 and Area I by Burge, I and several other Area II detectives. They placed a bag placed over his head and nearly suffocated him, which plugged into the wall. Burge prefaced the torture by- saying "fun time". At Area I Burge and later said that they were going to 1! I Photographs, medical evidence and testimony from the head of Cermack Hospital and the Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, b6 ?mfb7C -2,-67 I I I I I corroborate the nature of injuries, including serious burns and electroshock to the ears. An internationally recog? well as the photographic and medical evidence, and all the nized expert on torture, relevant testimony, and concluded that was a classic victhn of torture. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed on the basis of this torture evidence [see 506 Zd 571 (1987)], and an all white jury in the second ?ilson civil rights trial, despite not being permitted to hear about opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, or the other cases of torture by Burge and his men, nonetheless found that constitutional rights had been violated and ?that the policeJaepartmen?tTh/a?} and torturing persons suspected of injuring or killing police officers. b6 V__b7c 12. On was also arrested for He was physically abused while being interrogated by Area II detectives, including De? fendantsl in another Area '11 interrogation room, had a cocked gun placed in his mouth: and was shown the black box and threatened with ?120 volts.? He testified to this at his motion to suppress. but this testimony was barred admission at. the Wilson civil rights trials. 13. friends of the were also abused at ~Area on by Burge and other Detectives. was verbally abused by ?i Egrge, and held for nearly MW while was beaten and had a bag placed over his head while interrogated at Area Neither nor were permitted to testify 2 at the Wilson civil rights trials. 14. was picked up on the street by Detectives and taken to in a small room at Area ?11 on Burge beat and took out a box which contained an electrical device. Burge shocked the device. :ame to the station and Burge re? leased threatening to blow his head off if he told 10 Liza 3:395: t} gnarl: vat.fl 35": ?all about the torture.: Eb?13?795t401031? -6933 the FJLI., and several pictures were taken which documented his physical injuries. testified at deposition in the Wilson civil rights trials but was not permitted to testify before the jury. 15. On was arrested by four .-. . . =5??b6 -2 -2 13639417 b7C Area 2 detectives, including Sgt. and Detective .e Sim taken to Area 2; beaten with a flashlight, and had a plastic bag placed over his head. He received injuries to his arm and leg. He filed an OJRS. complaint concerning this brutality. [See 549 N.E. 26 766, 771 (1989)] 16. On were arrested at two locations by numerous Area 2 detectives: b6 b7C -2 including and was taken to Area 2: placed in an interview room. threatened. kicked: and beaten. and bagged by detectives including in orderuto obtain a statement from him. was 17?13%; threatenedh beaten. bagged: and kicked at the scene of the arrest by Area 2 detectives, including and ,then threatened with death in an Area 2 interview room in orEEr to obtain a statement. These victims, and the Area 2 detectives, including testified about this at a motion to suppress. 17. 0n was arrested for murder and taken to Area 2 by Lt. Burge. He was handcuffed to the wall, and early the next morning, he was interviewed by 11 1 Sgt. obtain a statement. and Detectives 1? and_ Sgt. _in an_ attempt to ii put a] b6 mouth and told him he would he would blow his head beat him with a flashlight and then said ''we have something for niggers: and put a plastic bag over his head: bag wa minutes later. crime: kicked him again. The removed: the detectives left the room and returned ten When continued to deny involvement in the again put a bag over his head: and when he re- two minutes later: kicked him. moved it: of Detective testimony was taken at'a motion to suppress. Illinois Appellate Court reversed his conviction: 0 of these torture A tactics: confessed: in the presence He later filed an OPS complaint: and and Subsequently: the on the basis has been released from prison. See Leogle 549 N. E. 26 766 (l989) 18. was arrested on by b7c Sgt. and Detectives all ?3 from Area 2. they put a gun in his mouth and said he was going to tell them what they wanted. The Detectives then said?they had a scienti- to talk. fic way to get testified to this at his criminal trial: made a statement to OJLS., drew detailed diagrams, and informed 12 i} . H??i?f?g?a?lynum??a,? gigm {be i I 4 5-35:41- A mes I c?1xii?:i?fn acne "751,850 in cage. 1am; ;c ?'23 nd. "size: 9.: tr settled with him. Burge approved some of the reports in the case. He was not permitted to testify at the ?ilggn civil rights trials. 9. l? 136 1 and were taken to Area 117 inl Iwhere they were interrogated and tortured by Burge. Burge pulled out a black box and applied electroshock to reported their torture to their attor- ney; who reported it to the media: they also made OJAS. complaints and testified to the torture in their criminal case. They were not allowed to testify at the Wilson civil rights trials. ?11 b6 _b7C 20. was arrested in the by several Area II detectives, including Defendant and charged with He.was handcuffed and taken to an isolated area near the hones where Area 11 detectives called him a Jsmart ass nigger? and repeatedly struck him in his These detectives subse- quently took to another location where they met again with other arresting detectives: including and then took to Area II, all the while talking about the police officer who had been 13 5 and?in Adkins Eggfo: 86 3039. He was not permitted to testify at the ?ilsgg civil rights trials. "21? Gas ai?ge??a?ah by" and an as of yet unidenti- fied Sergeant or Lieutenant punched and kicked him: and at various times placed both a typewriter bag and plastic bag over head. This incident was reported to the O.PJL: to the FBI andutestimony was given both at a motion to suppress and at the September and October 1989 City Council Hearings on Police Brutality. did not testify at the ?ilson civil b6 b7C 'b6 b7C rights trials,53cause his identity was not known to D. 1985-Present 22. On was arrested for man- slaughter and taken to Area II where Surge and Detertives questioned him. Burge slapped tightened his handcuffs. hit him with a tele? phone book and kicked him. testified to this at a motion to suppress. did not testify at the Wilson civil b6 b7C rights trials because his identity was not known to lawyers at the time. 23. On was arrested and brought to Area 11 where in: was questioned by Burge and 14 ?3 . - - 13:2,; 0:asReid-:1. x; .r e-~Detective On three occasions? Burge placed.ai an a typewriter cover over head, and held it tight at the . b6 bottom until he passed out. He also played ?Russian Roulette" with threatened to kill him: Hand made repeated haulai Ei?rs; including saying that-he was i; and calling him a As he did in burge also declared that it was ?fun time? before he tortured testified to this at a motion to sup- press, while Burge?claimed. at the same hearing, as he did in Wilson. that?he~only ?listened by the door? and did not parti- cipate in the questioning or torture. did not testify at the Wilson civil rights trials because his identity was not I known to lawyers at the time. r?the" b7C was arrested on and taken to Area II where Area II detectives, including and threatened him: strucked him. kicked him and twice I "bagged? him with a plastic typewriter cover, which cut off his breathing, all in an attempt to obtain a confession. testified to this at a motion to suppress. did not testify at the Wilson civil rights trials because his identity . was not known to lawyers at the time. i 25. was arrested on and taken to where Burge had been transferred as the Commander. He was taken to a wire enclosed "cage' where he was 15 struck-with a telephone book. a blackjack. and a phone ?136;:53 Stu-{lieutenant receiver, by Detectives whom he later identified as Burge. He testified to this at a motion to suppress, but did not testify at the ?ilson civil rights trials because his identity was not known to II. OTHER KNOWN INCIDENTS OF TORTURE NOT CONNECTED TO BURGE 1. was arrested on by 14th District officers who repeatedly tortured him by electroshock. using a small black box with a protruding metal rod. They shocked him on the and.in a district interview room, and they ?l a. had medical and photo? grap?'f??i?vi?g?ge ?GE?i?i? 6561:2623 ?Eh?wha?tife?of his injuries, andl Nonetheless: the 0.PJL entered a finding of "not sustained? in his case. 2. On was arrested for murderu and taken to Area IV detective headquarters at I There he was tortured for several days by Detectives He was beaten with a long flashlight, and slapped with boxing gloves. A plastic bag was placed over his head and closed at the bottom. While he was unable to breathe. Detective I I The next day he was repeatedly shocked on the back of the neck with a device b7C b7c housed in a black box. suppress. I b. He testified to-this at . b6 3. On was arrested and to the] Lockup where Officers and aha sha?ked if? himi?leavi?g burn own federal civil rights trial. 4. was arrested in 1987 and taken to Area bs'ir'4 ?b7c .111 where Detectives tortured him by placing a plastic bag over his head. 5. was arrested on for District officers He now has a federal civil_rights?suit pending against these officers. "11f. TORTURE W: '1 As of the start of the first Wilson civil rights trial in February of 1989; lawyers were unaware of any other . I acts of torture. In fact, Burge had; under oath: denied any knowledge of any other allegations of torture against him: despite the fact: as it was later learned; he had be?n repeatedly so accused. In early February the lawyers received an anonymous letter from a police source in which s/he asserted: 1. Several police defendants had ?previously been accused of using torture xmachine (in) complaints given to O.P.S. and in motions filed in criminal trials.? b6-5 b7c ?5 17 1 6 I I I 'Several witnesses, including theJ - 3.. A. I236 :7:5 b7C -5 4. ?Mayor Byrne and State's Attorney Daley ordered 7 7that the numerous complaints7?i1ed7 against the po_1ice_ _7 "7__7777__7 as a result of [the investigation of] this crime not 7 ,be ,7 A The letter further demanded secrecy and said ?if you want more information, place an ad in the Southtown Economist! 1n placed an ad in the 2;;a2 Economist for the week of February 5, 1989, but received no response until March 7 or 8, 1989, when they received a second anonymous letter, appearing to be typed on the same typewriter by the same source, and enclosed in an official police?department envelope postmarked March 6, 1989. 7The source a7sserted in this letter that, 77 _7 I believe that I have learned something that will blow the lid off this case. You should check for other cases [in] which Lt. Burge was accused (sic) of using this devices. (sic) I believe that he started . right after becoming a detective many years ago. I will not give any specifics until I am assured that these letters are not going to be used ever."You must remember that they all know as did the State's Attorneys and many judges and attorneys in private practice.?I [Anonymous Letter of March 6, 1989] The letter went on to name Area 11 associates of Burge b6 desired more specific information. 18 b7c whom the source termed as The source also instructed lawyers to place another ad in the Economist, addressed to and promising secrecy, if counsel . Counsel- placedf an ad 1n_the_Economist~which ran- .during the ?shawl; week of March 13: 1989. On March_16, 1989, the very day that defendant Burge finished his testimony at the first ?ilson civil lawyers received _a :gc 22?55 message from which said Contemporaneously, counsel received another anonymous letter, also in an official police department.envelope. postmarked March 15,1989, from in which the source stated that and advised the lawyers b6?5 b7C ?5 3 [Letter of March 15, 1989] On the basis of this information, tracked down and his_lawyer, and learned that had testified at a 1982 Motion to Suppress that he was electroshocked by Surge at Area only nine days before the plaintiff. The judge in Wilson would not allow this startling new which he termed a into information, ?live hand grenade,? evidence, and the trial ended with a hung jury as to Burge and 19 the City: 3 liability. -The- judge ?set-a retrial for June. l989 and lawyers; using leads found in 19827 . iizfz testimony, began to uncover more of the victims listed in this fact sheet. 7on767?77?17o7?f?73?77n7e 7719.7 193975555 5377 the re mamas 757557c7>u7?77777777 7 7 771:0 13679175: received a7 fourth letter from "ESQ?gig: vase: enclosed hia police department envelope postmarked June 16: 1989: in which this source discussed additional Area II per- sonnel who were involved in torture with Burge. naming - one of Burge's to brag about everyone he beat,? The source further claimed that Burge ?used and that: The common cord is Burge. He was always present. the machines and the plastic bags were his and he is the person who/encouraged their use. You will find that the people with_ him were either weak and ea_sil_y 1.9.6-1mwin, f_ 3?or sadists. He probably did this because it was H7 7 easier than spending the time and the effort talking people into confessing. [Letter of 6/16/89] Almost a_ll7these facts as to who the victims were. and who participated with Burge in his torture and brutality have been subsequently verified in the court records of the victimsr cases, and by depositions of the victims and of Burge. Furthermore, several former police officers,<LJhS. investi- gators, defense lawyers and assistant states attorneys have verified that Burge has bragged about his exploits to them: and/or that his reputation for torture was widely known within law enforcement circles. Nonetheless, because the Wilson judge 20 t? l? QIK {Ii} ?did not permit Burge' 3 other acts of torture to be admitted evidence; the all white jury at the second trial exonerated Burge: while also finding that rights were violated :isz and that the police department had a policy and practice of tortore and brutalityiQ?W-emegFalg-am 1i} .. .1. .. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (REV. 3-10?32) Date oi transcription 6/10/91 I b3?l b6 b7C Itelephone numberl was contacted at I c. and advised of 'de tit of ecial Agent (SA) Who then served ith a subpoena, dated irec ing th I b3 -1 subpoena was requesting and tha b6 ?h-S b7C the UNITED STATES OFFICE, Northern District of Itlinois. to th attention of Assistant United States Attorney A copy of the return of service subpoena has been placed in a l-A evidence envelope for the file. 3 ohkInvestigation on 6/7/91 at Chicago, Illinois File 44A-CG-78234 -- I, 52: JLS'rcb - 5/7/91 b5 '1 by?; - Date dtetated b7C _1 This document oontain's neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: i it and its contents are not to be distiibuted outside your agency. 9 Wk Ce, 739-57.. JUH 1 1 1391 FBI .-- cmcmo Que;? 1-79-36 (Rev. 3-2945) (JUN 0090? ?r ?0 FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CI Teletype Immediate Facsimile Priority a] AIRTEL I3 Routine mm UNCLAS BF 0 C3 UNCLAS Dam 6/17/91 TO DIRECTOR FBI (ATTN: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT) 2 FROM SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) be) SUBJECT COMMANDER BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE b6?2 b7C ?2 00: CHICAGO Re Bureau airtel to Chicago dated 4/29/91. Enclosed for the Bureau are three (3) copies of a letterhead memorandum (LEM) regarding captioned investigation. One (1) copy was furniShed to the United States Attorney? 5 Office, Chicago, Illinois. 411/4 ,06. ?24933 SEARCHED meme smuuzao 2- Bureau (Enc. 3) Q-Chicagoal. JUN 2 7 1991 315/ a CHICAGO (4) 1* Approved; Transmitted Per (Number) (Time) i; p? U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply. Please Refer to Chicago, Illinois June 17, 1991 COMMANDER JOHN BURGE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT GO If LINOIS - VICTIM b6 '2 CIVIL RIGHTS 3973 ?2 On May 21, 1991 the requested additional investigation aregarding captioned ca d'scussed with Assistant United states Attorney (AUSA) It was agreed that any -9?and all records of complaints filed against with the @?fice of Professional andard should be reviewer} alarm vii-tn +h aliegations set forth by 0d Ia United States District Court, b3-? Northern District of Illinois grand jury subpoena was served on b6 -5 On June 17, 1991 an attempt to interviewl 'was b7 5 negative and that he will not return to the Chicago Division until July 1, 1991. Investigation continuing at Chicago. 2-Bureau 2~Chipago 3LS/ar (4) i This document contains neither recmmendatiom nor conclusions of the $81. It is the property of the and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not- to be distributed outside your agency. me Search 8le . 7-21.33) Date TO: OFFICE senvrc?s MANAGER Subject chlal $90th Aecodnt Jay /5 UK 6 A AWL (4,734. 60 Penn: paw? Address Birth Date Race gem? Female 0 ExactSpelling a Main CrhinelCaseF?esO?y Restrict Locamy ot KM References 0 Cr?minal References omy (3 MainSectxityCaeeFtlesOmy ?3 0 Security References Only 0 Main Ora-tine! (If no Main. list all Criminal References) File&SerlalNunber Hermite 7 FiteaSerlamunbet, Remarks Requested 7 7 Squad Extension ?le No. 6 _1 /7d 745 4/74 (6 bk: ?1 0 General dlces: C3 ISIS: 03:5 ge/tace?/ 78237 Searched by 7 i 98;: swam by Date 0 Conlldontlal {3 OCIS: Seamed by 7 cate Searched by cete a ELSUR Indlcee: E3 :13: Searched by We Seam by Date Consolidates: by fig-C6:- 7&3?1? h? Date m. WADE Reylewed by Emmii? Faenevtewsmots NOV 30 1991 t- Identical 7 - Not momma - Not ldentlcal - Unava?able reference mph; H, ammo PRINTING . A SENSITIEE BURGE, JON NO: 001 DDN: REC-NO: 001 TRUE: F0: CG CASE No: CG-OO79486 CLASS: 044A NAME TIPE: MAIN REF: EVENT DATE: INDEXED: 021491 MODIFIED: VIOLATION: CR SPECIAL: SERIALS: RACE: SEX: ID-NO: DOB: POE: STREET NO: NAME: CITY: ST: COUNTRY: ZIP: LOC: MISCELLANEOUS: UNSUBS: COMMANDER JON BURGE- CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT TORTURE OF UNNAMED VICTIMS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL: SN CLASSIFIED BY: DECLASSIFY ON: 1 F7 - ADD ALIAS NEXT INDEX . F8 DELETE: F10 9 INDEX F1 REQUERY F3 - SUMMARY F6 - ADD INDEX F9 - MODIFY SHIFT-F10 - FOIMS BURGE, JON NO: 001 DDN: REC-N0: oo1 TRUE: 7 F0: CG 7CASE N0: 044-20000001 NAME TYPE: REF: 3 EVENT DATE: INDEXED: 031191 00: 00 CASE NO: MODIFIED: VIOLATION: CR SPECIAL: SERIALS: 951 RACE: SEX: DOB: POB: STREET NO: NAME: 7 CITY: ST: COUNTRY: ZIP: LOC: MISCELLANEOUS: COMMANDER CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT CLASSIFICATION LEVEL: SN CLASSIFIED BY: DECLASSIFY ON: 7 F7 - ADD ALIAS - NEXT INDEX 7 7 F8 - DELETE 7 F10 - INDEX F1 - REQUERY F3 - SUMMARY F6 - ADD INDEX - MODIFY SHIFT-F10 - FOIMS BURGE, JON 7/74 4 I 3 n. I 4.131..? mm? 7? "If? v! Jafri??x?eny I an?, 253:? 4: 3; i f? i 1.13:? ?he; g? . =WuwWA) .?hw i?w?m" -.. s~ . 11?. . a: A. m. ?z agiie? Area 2, Robbery i Cg. 9.1). Star #1u3?2 L, ?c . mace; JON 5/7u 1 Area 2, Robbery Chicago Police Department Star 811:322 mu ?dun?. 92 -350-Sub1li-861 096 a? 7/73?Ii-p, w: 4.. 3? 11.41.] of 92-350-Sub1h-87E w?y riff. - V: ?m-w?ixz 2?51? do 21': US. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply. Please Refer to 44A-cc-78234 LC?i?f'Aaminisirator Office of Professidnal Standards Chicago Police Department 1024 South Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60605 Dear 219 South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 27, 1991 The purpose of this letter is to formally advise you that the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is conducting a Civil Rights investigation concerning Commander Jon Burge of the Chicago Police Department. Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. 6/27/9/ 1. Fear cm 70 CPD-0P5 Addressee PH ll Lieutenant Chicago Office of Legal Affairs Chicago Police Department 1024 South Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60605 Chicago (44A-CG-78234) JLS:rcb (3) b6?4 b7C ?4 RE: Commander Jon Burge Sincerely yours, Delbert N. Dilbeck Special Agent in Charge A BY: . . b6 Superv1sory Special Agent b7C-dq-4 (7,714., SEARCHELEZ, INDEXED saavquEo ILED JUN 2 8 1% chAGo b6 _1 5A \3 b7C -1 473? .. ch' 79/2/376" ff - .DEXED imngu? JUL 2 5 1391 :m CHICAGO b6 -1 5n. -1 I Fla-3'02 (REV. 3-10?82) .- 1 BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 7/16/91 Date of transcription I I b6 itelephOne numberl advised that the atto ne 5 I i He adv1sed that?mxdway through the trial in early February_1989, they started to receive anonymous letters on CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD) statiOnery advising them that a pattern of coerced confessions throngh torture by the CPD does exist. The letters went on to explain that a mere recent example nf? fhiq firms: of fortify-o 001118 119 Ina-tenor} Frd?m an 5w of advised that during the they tirfs compiled a fact sheet of oVer 40 cases 0L alleged coerced cenfessions thrOugh torture by the CPD. He stated that 30 of these cases can be connected directly to commander 30F Who at the time was a Lieutenant at CPD Area II. inally, advised that he and fellow attorney, WiLl nee - ays in order to organize all of the requesced enrormation regarding locatidns of the alleged victims. bees b7C ?5 1 Ian: i I I Investigation on at Chicaqol Ihlinois 7 File 44A-CG-78234 - b6?1 by SA JLS/blt Due dictated 7/15/91 1370 ?1 This document contains neither recommendations no: conclusions or the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is it and its contents are not to be distributedHoutsidepyour agency. r? Mar Record ?equest I FD-IZS (Rev. 5-31-88) 3" . Date 7/2; Birth 0 Credit [3 Criminal Death ms [3 Marriage* Motor Vehicle Other [3 Driver's License lo Buded Return to File number 7? <4 7522/ Name and aliases of sumect, appl cent. or employee, and Spouse p??a??cg 76g, 77/ Addr'esrses Residence 560/6) 1? fag/CZ I [1 Business 5' 13h} som@? 40/ Ma! ?o?fo of 8 0/43 037 WOIQGLE Wm 644w 54%? ?b6 ?1 *Date and place of marriage .f (if applicable) Race Sex Age Height Weight Hair Eyes Male female Birth date Arrest Number Fingerprint classification Criminal specialty Specific information desired Social Security Number Results of check 4,17 I) ?rm (inc/?7a {76/46 pt/Mq?mewf" . Jm /3 UK 6 44m- Jed/xv ?ared?E 4414? (6-733;, -, 4x! 33.53% awn . .. NOV 5 1991 1-4? vi b6 -1 b7C -1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET 1417740-0 Total Deleted Page(s) 2 77 Page 5 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 6 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 7 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 8 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 9 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 10 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 11 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 12 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 13 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 14 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 15 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 16 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 17 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 18 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 19 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 20 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 21 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 22 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 23 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 24 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 25 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 26 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 27 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 28 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 29 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 30 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 31 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 32 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 33 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 34 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 35 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 36 b6 b7C Page Page Page 39 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 40 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 41 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 42 b6 b7C Page Page 44 b6 6; b7C 6; Page Page 46 b6 6; b7C 6; Page 51 Duplicate; Page 52 Duplicate; Page 53 Duplicate; Page 57 Duplicate; Page 58 Duplicate; Page 60 Duplicate; Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page 100 104 106 108 115 116 117 118 119 125 127 Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Duplicate; Deleted Page(s) No Duplication Fee For this Page '6 File - Serial Charge Out (Rev. 1mm) Date File 91/14" Cg" 732321 mass Office of Origin Case No. Last Serb! Pending ?21 Closed Serial No. Description of Serial Gigi-ted 7 ?941/23;: RECHARGE Date ?To From initials of Clerk ?z 5 India: Search sup {0160 (Rev. 7-2 1-83) Q: ?q 9RINHNG ornrocnee'r- 131-l8h605? g? . f? Date fro: OFFICE sem?nces MANAGER 7 2 6L9 1 0% Subject Social Security Account b6 _2 (1982) CIVIL RIGHTS b7c _2 Aliases ?Addrese Birth Date Bimplaoe Race gex Maie 0 Fannie ExactSpelling CI MainCr?'nindCaseFIIGsOrdy Resumtoca?tyof All References 0 canine: References Only (3 MainSectxitycasanesomy t3 0 security References Orn?y 0 Main Criminal (I: no Main. ?st an Criminal References) FileaxSeriaiNumba Remarks File&$erielNurm5er Remarks 0177 KJ Iv . Requested by "r Sand Extension File No. 106 -1 SA 12 21? 44A 78234 MC -1 Genoa! Indie?: ?3 ISIS: 111Searched by Date Seardwd by Date 0 Con?dential Indie?: {3 OCIS: Seam by Date Seamed by Date 0 ELSUR Indlcos: (3 HS: Seamed Date Searched . - by li?IA?CE-V?zq?mmz Consolidated by if?biXE Date manage?E5159 . Reviewed by Date NOV 3 1391 His Review Symbols . . l-Iden?cei ?2-Notlden?fiebte ?3 - Not iden?cel - Unavailable reference 71/41 (snazzy, SEARCHED ex AUG 0 7 1991 CHICAGO . 19-w?4M3?Falj-412 -1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FD-302 (Rev. 3-1042) Date of transcription 7/ 2 9/ 9 1 b6?5 b7C -5 Itelephone This _intervieW was conducted in regards to the alleged Civil Rights Violations of several of their clients by CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD), Detectives under the direction of Commander JON SURGE. Specifically, any incidents of coerced confessions in which convictions were obtained against suspects that may have occurred before January 1,1986, in which the suspects appealed the conviction and the appeal process has brought the case Within the fiVe year Statue of LimitatiOns requirement. b7C I Iadvised thatl He advised that and ICook Conntv Public net I However I Civil Rights trials stemmed from alleged violatidns of C1V1 Rights When he was arrested and tortured in order to obtain a confession to these shootings. that in thebs -5 has discussed some of the Appeal cases he has bwz'5 represented, Where his clients were ?allegedly tortured to obtain -their confessions. They have give a "Fact sheet" containing over 40 cases of individuals who were arrested and allegedly tortured by CPD Detectives under the direction and participation of Commander BURGE. 'FrOm the listed individuals on the above "Fact sheet" the following informatidn was provided: Iarrestedl Iis currently b5'2 incarcerated at LIllinois. b7C'4 I arrested on two occasions inI Iand again onI I is currently incarcerated at I I Illinois. 1 m1. . I 1 ?91: GI arrested in is currently intarcerated ?W?tuwmm_ 7/18/91 Chicago, Illinois b6?1 bY_ (01m D?tedlctatC? 7425/91 137?: _1 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the PBX. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 31413 (Rev. 1145.83) 44A-CG-78234 . b6?5 Continuation of On 7/18/9 1 . Page b7C -IllinOis. Iarrestedl is currently incarcerated at Illinois. I arrestedl i??currently incarcera a I linois. arrested ?location unknown. I Iadvised that the A torney who represented in the b6?2 I IandI as i b7C -2 Wefe 5533611 to re thev When it was discovered that was with the a oeuple of ?Poiice Headquarters atEii:h:and State wh "ngs was placed in regarding the torture. St. Louis, Illinois area. Is AttOrney's Office to keep quiet last known location was near the East I arrestedI b6 '2"5"6 is currertlv ircarcerated at I Illinois. advised that 'hp Affornev who I arrested incarcerated atl I?s currently I linois. advised that] IAttorney was arrestedl Lieutenant JON BURGE, at Area 2 Police Station. and confessed to the charge. The Illinoi' Anne his conviction because of the torture and murder by was torturedMC '2 ?6 late Court reVersed Was released. I I arrestedl won a law suit against the Citv of Chicago. He I?iled and is currently incarcerated at Illinois. I Iarrested inI was I His Attorrey telephdne number i (Rev. 11-15?83) b6-5 Continuation of of . On 7/13/91 . Page hr?: 5 I I arrestedI I filed a complaint andl IadVised that most of the above mentioned arrestees filed complaints with the CPD Office of Professional Standard (OPS). However, when the LAW FIRM subpoenaed OPS for all records of complaints filed against arresting CPD Detectives in regards to the PARRY, shootings, they only received the cover pages with just the names of the complainants. that by CPD union agreement all complaint filed with OPS are destroyed after five years. HAAS added that the CHICAGO DEFENDER NEWSPAPER carried articles and listed the names of individuals who were arrested during the FAHEY, investigation. advised that from sources at OPS they have learns that OPS Invesr' a report regarding UON BURGE to Superintendent Iin January, 1991. He added that only ,reports Where ainant charges are sustained are sent to Superintenden? I The report was sent back to the investigators for cl?ari,?ica?E. correctionswrii, 1991 meeting with Superintenden he adviqu fhai- he baa nai- ?pan. the corrected report.? Howeve advised that sue had ent the report to him. In late March Superintendent ain advised hat he had sent the report bac. to OPS and was waitr?g?TETETE?EB?EE'returned. that other sources at OPS had informed him that Superintendent had received the final and corrected report and that they?feel 's sitting on the report, awaiting further instructions Mayor DALEY. 61:6 77b3y~/? 50 SERWIZEDMKE AUG 1 5 1391 FBI CHICAGO ?Jva- . 4 FD-302 (REV. 3?10-32FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of tra'n?scription 8/5/91 b6 -5 I I IandI I b7C -5 I Itelephonel 7 I Were intervieWed at the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), Chicago Office, in regards tc equest that the Department of Justice inVestigate inciden 0 police brutality by CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD) detectiVes at the Area 2 police station. advised that While handling an appeal for one of his clients, he discovered that some detectives of the CPD Area 2b7c'21?5 station were involved in the systematic tOrture of suspects in order to coerce them into making confessidns. .Particularly in cases where police shootings are involved. 'He advised that his client, testified during a suppression hearing that he Was abused by O?ficer JON BURGE during his interrogation. asserted that O?ficer SURGE placed a loaded gun to his head and played Russian Roulette. plastic typewriter cover was placed over his head:fnfii]he became unconscious. These acts were repeat . finally signed a confession Istated tha Was interVieWed atl Illinois, by FBI Agents on October 29, 1990. He stated that of the Civil Rights Division advised that interrogation by O?ficer SURGE took place on Octo er 30, 1'85. which is beYond the five vear Statute of Limitations. fUrther advised that suggested the limitations period could be extended ii there was a conspiracy to cover up Of?icer conduct. I Iadvised that attornevsl I :g-Q?-ss andl tel?phdnel -.- He dvised that I was arrested onl and charged with the murders Mas allegedly tortured and his confessiOn helped to convict him of these charges.. In 1987, the court Overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial in light of the evidence had been sustained While in police ans 0 on day of his arrest. nnumubnmn 7/2/91 Chicago, Illinois b6a -l by SA ?adw Datedietated 7/ 3/ 91 we -1 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agencydistributed outside your agency. a r33; 91.? I arson 1' 44A-CG-7 823 4 Continuation or 913-362 of 7/ 2/91 . Page filed a Civil Law suit against the City of icago and his case is currently pending appeal before the 7th Circuit Conrt. stated that during the hearings, a was compiled by the above attorneys of over thirty cases involving defendants who claimed to have been abused by Officer BURGE or some of his subordinates. Locatidns of these defendants, many of whom are still incarcerated, may be obtained from the above mentidned attorneys if. z? Memorandum To SAC, CHICAGO Date 7/15/91 From SA (44A-CG-78234) jopj (SQ. 12) Subject: b6 comma JON BURGE, 1m "1"2 CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, VICTIM, . CIVIL OO: CHICAGO Title marked to reflect correct spelling of subject's name from JOHN to JON. 0n b6 Itelephone lwere the attornevsl Iin During the second hearing of this case, a fact sheet Was compiled of victims that Were allegedly tortured by Commander JON BURGE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD) or others under his command. advised that the above attorneys could provide the current locations of these alleged victims for interviews. On advised of the forty plus cases in which victims alleged that their confessions were coerced through torture by the CPD. Thirty of them can be connected directly to Commander SURGE. b6 -5 b7C -5 Pending investigation in this case will include full interviews of all alleged victims and a follow-up of all logical leads with regards to criminal prosecution. %/?iicag? 44A 70341- 1 7 (2) J5 macaw mom semmoZLEuso 1* JUL 1 8 139! cm ICAGO M, 477? 113% 31 . . . - DHTE TIME 13?is511:1 "WEE?wan.? 5 I (CHI--V LIV, . i Lu" I I-II 84 . 1; I ..lI .: EIEL [211,IdMODE :manor: Milli-IE? xx 1r -- 5 - TELEPHONE MEL RECEIVED in?: TEEREE-EILLJTICIH . .bifiFVLh M. I- i'wi 3: l. +1171?cv-dmariFaly-?rz? i: 2 v: ?$131443 (Rev. 5-23-90) . FBI FACSIMILE COVERSHEE CLASSIFICATION PRECEDENCE Jep-Seeret Time Immediate 595791 . Sender's Initials: [3 Priority' 0 - - --Number Routine SenSitive EL Unclassi?ed .- .0 .- log/64w To EB lg?wom) a Facsimile numberf Attn: uvm rwum Telephone NO.) From: 347% (If/(4 60 b6 (Nemeleilics) b7c Subiect: COMAAMDEK Jon} CHICAGO Police (LIA IL (nu-1r Vl(fl?f?j @L/o 619m 4_ (6487.34 Special Handling instructions: Originator?s Name: Originators Facsimile Number 3 30? 1?f Approved: 136 -1 MC -1 ?mama?? [wall?l3 333L370 .: 5.33:: OCT 1 5 1991 F1: 1- 31-42? ro-aso (Rev. s?s-st} . . (misste- page. name of . newsoepcr, and $15.33 Page 1 Chicago De enaer . in, (Mott? tCi'pptt 53639 lgl?gi1?jug 3: .3 9" V0 It ,Nnrxi?ner -1 1:2. 1* :11- 7:5me 222% ewe-unr- .. Edition? BX*Pri$oner Sues Pol res ace For $10 Mil Chara-etch? or Chest'cation: Of?ce: . 1n Chicago indexing: dx'?prisener sites police for mil tthullman detective unit alleging Brighton Park detective unit, and by Scott Burnham police coerced a confession from four other detectives torturedl a A South Side man released from him 10 years ago. murder suspect Gregory Banks for prison filed a main-million dollar? The $10 million suit states Jon more than 30 hours by suffocatingt suit Thursday against members of Burge, now commander of the and beating him as well asi a An alleged unwritten ?code of ?One detective placed a barrel; EX priSOI?lai"? same? repc?edjy has gamed Of a .45 automaticguninhismouth: secs 0} evidence allegedly linking the of- and threatened to blew his head 13 19% ficers to the tactics until an (continued on page 14) unidentified member of the detec- (com'nued page 1) tivc unit submitted ?a letter to the off, said Banks? attorney, John1 Stainthorp, during a press con- ference Thursday. When he'ryras struck several times in the chest and stomach with a flashlight Then he was kicked several titties in the thigh, stomach and ankle? even after he denied involvement in the slaying. According to Stainthorp, the at- fiictions stem from a ?dc tacto policy? Barge enacted along with other detectives during a 13-year period from lemmas. . Despite at least two other lawsuits against the officials, Stainthorp claims three successive police superintendents including current chief LeRoy Martin, have ignoredthe alleged attrocities ?it; People?s Law Office disclosing the brutal methods and naming the participants, the suit charges. The Illinois Appelate court reportedly ruled recently Burge and his men in?icted unlawful and brutal actions against Banks and released him after he served seven years of his sentence, Stainthorp alleges. Last winter, Amnesty Interna tional called for an independent investigation into the allegations. 5151/00.; 28 Ev: .. ?fr 51533.5 0 (94:11.5 s?sn (Momt?t?pplug in {1mm Below) {hdicate page. name of rowspaeer. city and stats.) Page Chicago Sunwwimes Chicago, Illinois 923:.? ,ectwb :11 1991 ?5ve Star Sports: .1 a: amass or Classi?ca?on: . .1 2 Final 'ma$16 Million Suit alleges Torture By City Cops indexing: s16 alieges by city cops 1 By Rosahnd Fade}? Bonding Reporter A Chicago man filed a $16 mil- lion lawsuit Thursday charging that a plastic bag was placed over his head at Area 2 police head- quarters in 1983 and he was tor-= tured into falsely oonfessin? to a murder. r" ,7 The suit. ?led on behalf of Gregory Banks. also alleged that 11 other suspects were tortured. with plasti? bags at Area 2 be tween 1982 and 1937, and others have been subjected to electro-_ shock or suspended by their hand: cuffs. Court threw out the .'conviction 1n ;,1939 saying his confession was involuntary. 'The murder charge ?vias dismissed for lack of evidence in 1990, and Banks was freed after spending_ seven years in prison. His attorney, 'John Stainthpi?p, Ersaid Banks originally told police he killed Leon Barkan in self- defense. but 5Ar?ea?.2.?.detectives ?tortured? him until he lied that the fatal shooting occured during a robbery attempt. 1 Detectives allegedly put a gun in his mouth. struck him in the chest with a flashlight and sat on Banks was convicted of murder I - in1983. but the Illinois Appellate top of him, the lawsuit said. Accused of the. brutality were Lt. Jon Burge, then commander of the Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit and now commander of Area 3, and Detectives Robert Dwy e1;- -Pe- ter Dignan and Charles Grunhard. The city also was named as a defendant for allowing a ?policy and praCtice of [police] brutality and torture Thursday? suit was filed by' the same three attorneys who repre-1- sented convicted murderer -An- drew Wilson in a brutality suit against Burge After two 1939 als, two separate juries requed to award Wilson any damages. 9 (Ha-v. 5-3-81) (Micate page. new: of mwspapen city and 533194351518 3 Section 2 MP- - . .. A Chicago "Tribune 03:3: Chicago 1?11 ?110.11; edi?km: October 1] 19 SJ 1 Chicagoland nm:_Lawsuit Charges Police Brutality Character: Of Submitting Of?ce: Chicago hdexing: iLEW?uithg% :pOIiCe brutality ?l MA men whose murder conviction -wa? overturned because Chleagd i?phee beat a 'Qonfession ?frpm gm 21983 {?ed sun: Ihum?xm feder- igal cou'rt? chargmg the cxty.wzth? gpgotnotmg .of; Jpoheebrutahty and torture. . *3 .6 my Banks, who was :mpns- ;oned ogmoxe?than?se'v'eniyegrs be- j: a} hxghereourt revezsed con-r .chtton, charged that 2 :qetectivqs thee put ?a plasttc hag ever heed to oehtm into 329er ?confesszn?; . y; The suit . ed gt. John Bym?eas ,and WPlg?an??obw ?ert? Dwyerg?nd Cna?es Gmnhardi. with to?un?g Banks a_nd :?a?owwd Cmdr. Jon Betge, thertm charge pf the Area 2- wolent of ?encouraging and ?supervisng "this, ?vioienoei?? ?s .. . i. A Spokesman?fer'the 0:1ng nice Department {ted ,no mmept ?on the lawsuit, whey seeks ?oninq?ar?rgga. The ?suit hsted 23 other ?zheged .111: 'cidents in which ?uspedts, {mom}:i dbtaeks agd .b?eateni byZArea 2 tietectxves fut. sit"; Limp-iv 3 1 21-17?88) FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype Immediate Facsimile U. Priority AIRTEL Routine UNCLAS 0 UNCLAS Date 11/13/91 To DIRECTOR, FBI (44A-cs-78234) (ATTN: CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT) FROM :2 SAC, CHICAGO Mi) (SQ 12) SUBJECT COMMANDER JON BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICE g, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTM bs'Q CIVIL RIGHTS 1?70 ?2 00: CHICAGO Enclosed for the Bureau are-the original and two copies of a letterhead memorandum (LEM) with three attached copies of local newspaper articles dated NoVember 8, 1991, regard_ing captioned investigation. One copy of the LHM with attachments was furnished to the United_ States Attorney? 5 Office, Chicago, Illinois. ?5 - Bureau (Encl. 3 with attachments) Chicago Jan-s t/r/neamaau/?IEX/ (5) SSARCHED INEDDEX swamp NGV 1 3 1991 b6?1 59*. b7C -1 Approved: TranSmitted Per (Number) (Time) '1 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply. Please Refer to 219 South Dearborn ?kNm Chicago, Illinois 60604 November 13, 1991 COMMANDER JON BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CAGO 1? CIVIL RIGHTS OO: CHICAGO b6 -2 b7C -2 . Reference is made to the'gttached copies of articles from the CHICAGO TRIBUNE and the CHICAGO SUN TIMES newspapers dated November 8, 1991 and November 9, 1991. Specifically, the November 8, 1991 articles indicate that the CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Office of Professional Standards (OPS) has requested that action be taken against captioned subjects who are accused of using excessive force On suspects in?their custody. The November 9, 1991 artic1e states that captioned subjects were suspended without pay_for 30 days. -3 - Bureau b6 _3 1 - USA, Chicag b7C -3 (Attn: AUS 2 - Chicago (5) . - 0 i "i 34v; FD-350 (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount Clipping 31 Space Below) Probcrs seek actlon? agamst cop I By Les Hausner Staff Writer he Police Department's Office of Profes- sional Standards has requested that action be taken against a command- er accused, along with some of his detectives. of using excessive force on. suspects in custody. The OPS report on Cmdr. Jon Barge, a deuce ,m 9.3. a an, is being reviewed by city attorneys, said Andrea Swearingen, a spokeswom- an for the city corporation counsel?s office. . She said that the reportwa ?request for acrion?-?-was received by her department Oct. 25 and that a review by city lawyers could take ?30 days?w'hich she saidds standard procedure. the _Coali_tion to End Police were named in a $16 million lawsuit ?led on behalf of Gregory Banks, who said he was tortured into falsely confessing to a murder. Banks was convicted in ?1983. but theillinois Appellate Court overturned the conviction, saying the ccnfession was not voluntary. A convicted killer, Andrew Wilson, also filed a brutality suit against Burge and two other detectives. Wilson?and his brother, Jackie Wil- son, were tried and convicted twiCe for the 1932 murders of?Chicago police Officers Wil? liam Fahey and Richard O?Brien. In~ 1989, two separate federal juries refused to award Andrew Wilswr any damages. The allegations centered on Area 2 headquarters. 727 E. ?Illth St., where Barge, who now commands Area 3 headquarters. prexiously had been based. ?lnndombased Amnesty International called last December for an im?estigation into allegas ticns that ?Chicago police systematically used excessive force on suspects between 1972 and :c uni I warn-awn;- inn? in rated Vietnam War veter-' Character:- Of CMTna?on: (Meats cage. none of 5 Chrcago Sun?Times Chicago, Illinois 8,1991 smmgave Star Sports Final ??ierobers Seek Action Against Cop Summing Of?ce: Chicago hdexinge Commander accused . of excessive force Brutality held a press conference Thursday at 180 N. La Salle, where the corporation mun. sel?s offices are, to demand that Barge be immediately suspended. The uest for action ?should be suf?cient to suspen Burge," said MaryPowers of Glen. coe, coordinator of Citizens Alert. one of the Coalition's 35 organizations. ?We urge the counsel to act expediently on this case. regardless of the potitical fallout." she said. Her organization has been seeking Burge's firing since 1989. Swearingen said a request for action ?does! not automatically mean termination.? he Acounsel also could reject the OPS ?ndings. Last month, Barge and two other police of?cers. Peter ?33 FSIIDKO, (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount Clipping i1 Space Below) (Monte page. name of 7 Chicago Tribune By Dairid'Jackson Police _Supt. LeRoyl Martin has asked my attorneys to revrew 'charges said that this type of ?request for action? is "typically made when the superintendent is to dis- an of?cer, a] .Dineen said had not seen the rn ques- tion- 1 aggro reguest. from ?4me oarne an investigation pohoe o?ioe of pmfegr?gnal standards, It}; department?s 'phnary' arm. results ?of that investigation have not been released. ";On Oct. 25,'Martin nested that crty attorneys review charges who our- keswoman for- the =oity non counsel?s?ovg?uole. dr =Swearingen not dethilsorsayiftherequest orac- She said that'the request for notion Brighton Park'?'o tr g'ParkArea, - my ton . pohoc to Andrea Swearingen, a' ogfpora: eany tionpertama edtoanyothero?icers. DWIChJ'st'ago Illinois Edggovember 8,1991 North Sports Final Be'Reviewed Character: Of Ciassi?cation: Section 2 mm Brutality Charges To IndexingHu*l I. I wrist? 93" 2! a 'tg? 1 1rsuspects, would be acted oxi' within 30*days dome that some of Wilson?s injuries from the day it was renewed, and were armed by two ?wagon crew?. said .it ?fdoes not necessarily mean termnatron.? om not under Burge?s command, while other moms were Burgesaidhewasunawareofthe '?icted. status of any corn hints ?led against him. He dedin ther. Burge has been the target ofa Iong-runmng, complex fedora! brutal- ity surt ?led by pohce murderer Andrew Wilson, who Attorneys for Barge presented evi- reoommendationto . of?cer, Dineen Oneofthosetwoomoersdiedin to comment ?rr- 3:983, while the other retired and moved to Florida. None or Burge?s of?cers were found liable. Wilson?s appeal of the verdict is {Ending rt Attorn Jeffrey _Haas, who repre? sented iison, sard a?idavrts from eight other prisoners who said they were tortured while in oust . at Area Two were kept from thejury, but havesinoebwqmadeapart of the standards of?ce rnvesggatrons. According to Dineen,? when the police standards against an 1 son a Martin. Mr, IfMartin is to the 'th ?has torneys to prepare, es ore olioe Board ?Weheardthartheyhadhxadethe recommendation, and it?s been lay- h1g0naded?Dineensard ten-E 4 .y Fo-aso (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount C?poim; in Space Below) (hencate page. name of newspaper. cry and state.) Page 5 Chacago sun-Times Chicago Illinois ?25Firing is urged, if brutality charges are! upheld By Scott Fornek Staff Writer One of the city?s top police com- manders was suspended Fiiday with a recommendation he be fired if charges he used excessive force against suspects in his custo-l dy are upheld. The Police Department made - the recommendation to the Police Board about Jon G. Burge, com- mander of the Southwest Side?s Area 3 detective division, and two 01' his detectives. . A group seeking Burge's' firing 310091989 held a press conference outside the Law Department's of- fices_Thursday to demand the sus- pensron. Members of the Coalition to End Bolice Brutality urged the corporation counsel to act swiftly and ignore possible political fall- out. i Burge also has been named, in two civil suits accusing him of brutality. Last month, he and twopolice Burge and the two detectives, elice Office of Professional Stam? ?who were not identified, were sus- pended without pay for 30?days by 1?on Supt. LeRoy Martin. The three of?cers are accused ofiusin?g excessive force in a 1982 investiga- tion of the murder of two Chicago police of?cers. . Barge was the commanding offi~ cc: of South Side Area 2?s violent crimes unit at the time. After an investigation, the po- officers. Peter Dignan and Charles Grunhard. were named in a $16 million lawsuit filed on .behalf of Gregory Banks. Banks said he was tortured into falsely confessing to a murder. His 1983 conviction lat- er was overturned on appeal. 7 A brutality case also was ?led against Burge and two other de- tectives by Andrew Wilson, who with his. brother. Jackie. was con- vrcted twice for'the 1982 murders of police officers William Fahey and Richard O?Brien. Two federal Jurl?s refused to award WilsOn any damages in 1989. .Ofi'ice of Professional Standards? We: NOvember 9.1991 Edition: mm Cicy Cop Commander Suspended Character: Of Classi?cation: Suhm?tting Of?ce: Ch icago hcexing: dards recommended the three of- ficers be terminated if the Police Board sustains the accusations. About 10 days after receiving the of?cial charges- prepared by the city Law? Department. the' board will hold an initial hearing. ,Law Department of?cials said Thursday that their review of the report could take another two weeks. . . is-ee-eseegrsn-es 5 . .4 u- i . FD-36 (Rev. 11-17-38) .F ,3 FBI TRANSMIT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype immediate Facsimile [3 Priority [3 SECRET Routine comm UNCLAS 0 AIRTEL E3 UNCLAS Dam 10/99/91 T0 DIRECTOR, FBI (44A-CC-78234) (Attn: Civil Rights Unit) FROM sAc, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) (so 12) SUBJECT COMMANDER JON SURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, oo: Enclosed for the Bureau are the original and two (2) copies of a letterhead memorandum (LHM) with three (3) attached copies of local newspaper articles dated 10/12/91, regarding captioned investigation. attachments was furnished to the United States Attorney?s Of?ice, Chicago, Illinois. One copy With attachments) Mam OCT 2 9 1991 an.-ammco f? Approved: TranSmiued Per (Number) (Time In Per 17, Please Refer to File (LS. Department of Justice Federa! Bureau of Investigation 219 South Dearboxn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 October 29, 1991 COMMANDER JON BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, - VICTIM, CIVIL RIGHTS the individuals listed on a "fact sheet" containing over 40 cases of individuals who were arrested and allegedly tortured by CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD) detectives under the direction and participation of Commander Gathered bv Bureau 1 - USA Chicag (Attn: ASA 2 Chicago- 3L8:ig-w-4U48-(F313-437 i .. 3C . N50 (Rev, 5-8-81) . (Meade page. neme of Page ,1 new . ly and tate. Shacggo Be?Ender Chicago, lilinois 12,1991 112 (Mount C?ppinig in Space Below) Bx4Rrisoner Sues Police met-?01: $10 Min Character: or Classi?cation: Submitting Office: lndexhig: Chicago Ex-prisOner sues ?police for $10 mil . by Scott Bumham the Pullman detective unit alleging Brighton Park detective unit, and threateninghim at gunpoint. . police coerced a confession from four other detectives tortured ?One detective placed 3 barrel i A South Side man released from him 10 years ago. murder 5115;)th Gregory Banks for of a .55 automatic gun in his mouth pnson filed a multimillion dollar The $10 million suit states Jon ?in'ore than 30 hours by sulfoeating and threatened to blow his head (continued on page 14) 1E zit-prisoner . sues pollc?e t(continued from page 1) ioff," said Banks? attorney, .?qohn mesgwm :ference Thursday. ?Then he?was ?struck several times in the chest Fand stomach with a ?ashlight. Then he was kicked several times in the thigh, stomach and ankle?" ieven after he denied involvement lintheslaying. According to Stainthorp, the at- iElictions stem from a ?de facto :policy" Burge enacted along .with iother detectives during a 13-year period from 1972 to 1985. Despite at least two other [lawsuits against the officials, :Stainthorp claims three successive lp?olice superintendents, including current chief LeRoy Martin, have ignoredthealleged attrocities. 1 'An alleged unwritten ?code of silence? reportedly has supressed evidence allegedly linking the of- Eficers to the tactics until an Eunidentified member of the detec- ative unit submitted a letter to the ?Pwple?s Law Of?ce disclosing the brutal metliotb and naming the participants, thesuit charges. The Illinois Appelate court reportedly ruled recently Burge and his men inflicted unlawful and brutal actions against Banks and released him after he served seven years of his sentence, Stainthorp alleges. Last winter, Amnesty interna- tional called {or an independent gayestigation into! the allegations1 suit Thursday against members of 'Burge, now'hommander of the and beating him as; well as? er messes-(Elite: 3.8 I i 1? ma FD-350 (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount C?poing 'n Space?ebw) I EELawsuit charges {police brutality: f?iAman whose "murder con?ction was overturned {because Chicago apolice beat a?confecsion from him 311: 1983 ?led suxt Thursday in feder- al court charging the citiwith, ipromotmg ?a longstanding pokcyof {police brutality and torture. . my Banks, who was impris~ foned or more than seven?years be- pfqre a higher court msedhis com i?v1ction, charged that Area 2 idetectivcs twice put a plastic bag? irer his head to coerce him into aigely conf John Byme- The suit charged and Detegtxyes eter Dlgnan, Rob- ext Dwyer _an?d Charies Grunhard. with torturing Banks a_nd accused Cmdr. Jon Barge, then in charge of meAreagvxolentmmegymL9f ?encouraging and supervising this violence.? . A spokesman for the Chicago Po? lice Department had no comment on the lawsuit, which seeks $16 mll~ lion in damages. The suit listed 23 other alleged m~ cidents in which $189665, mostly blacks and Hispanics, were beaten by Area 2 detectives between 1972 and 1985. 2 (Indicate page. name of newspaom. city and statepage 3 Section 2 Chicago Tribune mm: Chicago, Illinois swer0ctober 11,1991 Chicagoland ?mm: LaWsuit Charg?s Police Brutality Character: Of Ciassi?oation: 3mm Of?ce; Chicago hdexh'g: ig-m-4U48-(F313-43i 3 r?auoo: Ha . Fro-352) (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount Clipping in Space Below) (Indicate page, name of newspaper, city and state.) Page 1 2 . Chicago'Sun?Times _Chicago, Illinois DateOctober 11, 1991 Editiogii . 1ve Star Sports Final me$l6 Million Suit Alleges Torture By City Cops Character: or Classification: Submitting oniceChicago In dexing: $i6 million suit alleges torture by city cops - By Rosalind Reesi Federal Building Reporter A Chicago man ?led a $16 mil-i lion lawsuit Thursday charging that a plastic bag was placed over his head at Area 2 police head- quarters in 1983 and he was tor- tured into falsely confessing to a murder. rl?he suit, filed on behalf of Gregory Banks, also alleged that 11 other suspects were tortured with plastic bags at Area 2 be- tween 1982 and 1987, and others have been subjected to electro- shock or suspended by their hand- cuffs. Banks .Was convicted of murder in 1983; but the Illinois Appellate Court threw out the conviction in 1989, saying his confession was involuntary. _The murder charge wasdismissed for lack of evidence in 1990, and Banks was freed after spending seven years in prison. His attorney, John Stainthorp, said Banks originally told police he killed Leon Barkan in self- defense, but Area 2 detectives ?tortured" him until he lied that the fatal shooting occured during a robbery attempt. Detectives allegedly put a gun in his mouth, struck him in the chest with a flashlight and sat on top of him, the laivsuit said. Accused of the brutality were Lt. Jon Burge, then commander of the Area 2 Violent Crimes Unit and now commander of Area 3, and Detectives Robert Dwyer,-Pe- ter Dignan and Charles Grunhard. The city also was named as a defendant for allowing a ?policy; and practice of [police] brutality and torture." Thursday?s suit was filed by the same three attorneys who repre-- sented convicted murderer An- drew Wilson in a brutality suit against Burge. After two 1989 tri- als, two separate juries refused to award \Vilson any damages. inn/9, b6-5 69?792 ?475: 5 .53 scam: Sty; 0% 219 - CH emc- 1 Pi . 1.. . FD-302 (REV. 3-10?82) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date 01 transcription 1'1/19/93- I 6761-23136 - advised that one ofl and Who were under Commander JON G. sunervision. [alleges that during the torture, was convicted 1n 1983 ut the Illinois Appellate Court threw out the conviction in 1989 in a lwhich_charges_t - 1983. lwas tort?red by Detectived I saying that the confession was not voluntary. subsequently, the charges Were dismissed fer lack of evidence in 1990. advised that his office Was able to file this ciVil suit lbehal beca se the five year statute 'Ons did not start until Was :freed after spending in priSOn. provided a c6py of a tWo page letter dated b6-4.-5 October -7, 1991, that Was written to Superintenden b7c'4r'5 CHICA- DEPARTMENT (CPD). The letter informed Superinzenden that a reliable source had received information tha ommander BURGE recently made a public threat to ?blow THE LAW OFFICE away with a shotgun" if anything happens to him as a result of the Office of Professional Standards investigations into allegations that he tortured suspects in his custody. The alleged threat was reported to someone in a command position within the CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT. I Iadvised that their source is in a noqirion stated that according to their source, BURGE, made the about October 5 - 10, 1991, While drinking at one of his favorite South Western Avenue. The comments were seriously. added tha worked with BURGE at Detective reported back who is su posedly taking the threat very Area II during the time the aileged tortures took place. investigationon 11(12/91 at Chicago. Illinois FiIe#_ by SA 55 Due?aud 11/19/91 b6 -1 b7C -l This document contains neither recommendations no: conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and' IS 10inei@_ W- it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. (Rev. 11-15-83) 44A-CG-78234 f?f b6?5 ContinuationoIFD-3920f_ 0.. 11/12/91 2 WC -5 : advisea thatl Imay b6 -5 be able to provide information of 'most .recent acts of police 2:70 -5 torture by detectives under supervision. 19?w-434agmm453; ?fm4 NOV 2 0 1991 F81 CHECAGO FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (REV. 3-19-82) 11/15/91 Date of transcription b6 b7C Office of ent, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, telephOne advised that on November 12, 1991 formal charges were filed with the CHICAGO POLICE BOARD by the Office of Profession 1 Standard: DS) Command 1: JON G. and Detective nd seeking their dism'ssa . that the Chicago Felice Board hearing b6-4,-5 has all earmarks of a Bench trial With the Hearing Officer b7c'4r'5 nresid'ng as a Judge, and the Board Members serving as the jury. explained that the Board must held an initial hearing w1th1n 30 days after receiving the official charges. b6 advised that he expects the status cal_l b7c_4 _5 (discovery phase) of this hearing will be very short, since most of the evidence has already been presented in earlier co?rt proceedings. And since on November 8, 1991 BURGE and the officers were suspended for 30 days without pay. b6 stated that since formal charges were f?iled by OPS the official menitoring of the::faf::f:w:?l be ddne by them. b7c'4r?5 He therefore offered to contact Director of OPS for noni or her cooperation in assigning a 1 oug which that information may be disemminated. ,Vi ?71,7" 902.; b6 ,w?J b7C File humuuhnm 11/13/91 a Chicago, Illinois I by SA lb-S Date dictated 1:1/14/91 This document contain": neither recommendations :10: conclusions 01 the FBI. It is the property 01 the FBI and is loaned 1. our Jami; I . it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. 3% EV ?83:3? 4&3 Wig-(Lia NOV 18 1991 . FBI CWCAGO A FIB-302 (REV. 3-10-82) -;lu Dam: of transcription 1'1 1 8 9 1 bs-d I -1, ?2 1 b7C telephone was contacted at location and advised of identitv of Sne ial Agent (SA) who then served with a Federal grand jury su poena, dated I The subpoena directedl to the Special October, 1991 grand juryl Istated that he understood what the subpoena was requesting and thatl the United States Attorney? 5 Office, Northern District of b3_? ?Illinois to the attention of Assistant united States Attorney b6_3,_5 b7C A copy of the Return of Service subpoena has been placed in a.1-A evidence envelope (FD-340) for this file. bs-d b6?1 b7C -1 Chicagol Illinois Fmi by SA ar Dazediemed 11/15/91 111:: document contains acidic: rccomenda?oas not conclusions of the FBI. n' as the property of {he FBI and? :s loaned to your agmy;1gj-W 434aiF3I) it and' us cements are not to be distributed m3? your agency. -5 -5 6 Memorandum To SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) Due 11/18/91 me SA (SQSub)? UNSUBS b7C ?i ?2 COMMANDER JON G. BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, - CIvii RIGHTS 00: CHICAGO Title marked to add UNSUBS, denoting unidentified Chicago Police Officers as co-Subjects; also, to add as middle initial to Commander BURGE. In anticipation of the voluminous amounts of information that will be generated during the courSe of this investigation, and in order to aid rapid retrieval of that information, it is therefore requested that the following list of sub files be used in connection with captioned case: Sub file A - court records/civil suits Sub file - news media articles Sub file arrest reports Sub file - all l-A exhibits Sub file - Sub file - Sub file - OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS report Sub?file - Chicago Police Board reports Sub file I - Sub file . Sub file - '1 - each sub file JLS/cjy (13) 44mm 79234-29 i?i?ii?ffi NOV 1 8 1991 FBI b6 _1 <57} k25 b7c X799 Waxy SEARCHED seamuig;me@ 29 1991 Fat .- cmcmo A, 2:21.. :2 3:37: A an?: 9 . ig-w-4a48szaI'3-45: 1:13.302 (REV. 3-1042) - :1 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ?if? Date of "inscription 'telephone number I advised that on November 12, 1? e_Law *eceived a letter response superintendent I CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD), in regards to information that was brought to his attention Concerning an alleged threat to THE LAW OFFICE by Commander, JON G. BURGE. advised that that the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) has opened a case to investigate this matter. Mao/er ?3 0 b6?5 - b7C ?5 223% - .1, a Investigation on at Chicago, SA idw by Illinois Date dictated 11/22/91 File 44A-CG-78234 b6 -1 b7C -1 This document contains neither recommendations no: conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside?your agency. FD-350 (Rev. 5-8-81) . 2? ?22 (Mount Cupping in Space Below) (Monte page. name 01 newspaper. city and suite.) CASE: At. tomeys for Police Cmdr.? Jon urge asked?lhat a ?forensic pa- yhologist b_e baxred from testify- mg about whether. a suspect?had been tprtured' by police. Lawyers {91' Burge and two of his detec- tives said ?the brutality case against their clients should be . dxsmissed beCause charges are 10 . . gearsoold and had not been sus- tamed an earher mqulry. Hearings on the Charges ?are scheduled to begin Jan. 21. 44/ 137? l? 70/7 Dag: 1/7/92 mm CHICAGO SUNCTAIMES CHICAGO, ILLINOIS- PAGE 4_ ?58* BRUTALITY CASE Clwactef: Classi?catm? Submitthg Of?c?: hdexing: 49m SEARCHED DEXEO sea-mm MD: 0 7 19 F3: M?'x ?~33 J. FD-350 5-8-81) 8 (Mount Cupping'h 8pm Below) '6 (hdicate page. none of newspmer. city and 51310.) Z) Nicodemus Staff Writer the Police Board to fire Cmdt'. Jon 'Burge for brutality because city attorneys denied during two 1989 lawsuits that any Such brutality occurred. Burge?s lawyers contend in a federal court memo. The city's about-face is illegal and ?smacks of gamesmanship." said attorneys William Kunkle Jr. 'and Joseph Roddy. The memo was submitted Mon- Comt suit filed by Burge and two of his detectives. John Yucaitis and l?atricl: OTHaral The suit ?seeks to head of! the Police Board hearing of charges that the three officers tortured or condoned bru? tality against convicted cop killer Andrew Wilson. - The ?city is barred from asking day in stipport of a US. District Brutality case ?called illegal Meanwhile. the 'Police Board hearing was postponed fer at least "a week, until Jan. 28. Heating examiner Michael Belland .set back ?the session because of five new motions filed by Kunkle-and Roddy seeking to toss out the brutality charges ,or severely limit testimony during the proceeding. in the memo; ?Kunkle and Roddy pointed out that in 1989 Wilson had twice sued Burge. the two detectives and the city in federal court. Wil- $0n sought damages for alleged brutality during his Fehll, I982. arrest and questioning in the more der of two police officers. Burge's attorneys said (that dur: ing the two civil trials, city attor? neys repeatedly denied the off?:- ?cer??bmtalized Wilson, and even said?his injuries apparently were: inflicted by two other of?cers. . 4 44605747 ll/{Vk? Date: 1 8/92 Edith?: ICAGO CHICAGO, PAGE -11 BRUTALITY CASE CALLED ILLEGAL Chwaoter: or Classifmtion? Sutx'nittino Of?ce: Title: hdexing: qu C6 - 7813?v/l?3/ some met some (Rev. 11?17?88) 0 FBI TRANSINHT VIA: PRECEDENCE: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype Immediate Facsimile C3 Priority SECRET AIRTEL Routine SW UNCLAS 0 UNCLAS Date 1/23/92 TO DIRECTOR, FBI (44A-CC-78234) (ATTN: CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT) FROM SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) EXQ (SQ.12) SUBJECT COMMANDER JON G. BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, b6_2 CHICAGO PQEICE DEPARTMENT, b7c_4 mm 00: CHI CAGO Title marked to add unsubs, denoting unidenti?ied Chicago Police O?ficers_as co-subjects, and to add as middle initial to Commander SURGE. 'Enclosed for the Bureau are the original and two Copies of'a Letterhead memorandum (LHM) with attached copies of CHICAGO SUN-TIMES newspaper articles dated December 27, 1991 and January 17,?1992, concerning captioned investigation. One cepy Cf with attachments was:furnished to the United States Attorney?s Office, Chicago, Illinois. 3?Bureau (Encl . '3 with attachments) H4 151i "?22 Q-Chicago sum-ass . ULS/bas 1* JA 2 3 1992 war-- Approved:~_ Transmitted Per (Number) (Time) Ag; U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply. Please Refe: to Chicago, Illinois 60604 January 23 1992 COMMANDER JON CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, bs-e INC 3- b7c ?2 1 oo: CHICAGO On January 22, I992 Investigatorl I Office of (OPS), CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD), telephone advised that she is the regular assigned OPS Investigator to mon_rto; the Chicago Police Boardlx5-4p6 ver, Investigator telephone bW3-4,-5 active investigator in captioned case. Investigator] advised that since all motions have been heard in this case, he formal Chicago Police Board hearingS?are scheduled to begin on January 28, 1992. 3?Bureau C?icaqo b6 _3 (ATTN: ?370 ?3 2-Chicago JSL/bas . (5) It is the property 53f the PB: and is tome-d z?o swan-eye This document contains r?either recame?ndations nor cmtisiore of the your agency; i: and "its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. i iqw FED-350 5-8-81) (Mount Clipping in Space Bebw) 111w .. rdh? .51-. an?? ?w ;:49 an. if?? I Remts?challenge by By Harla? Draeger . I ?43 ts: :ov ?1 :35" 1.15! Chicago police Cmdr. ?Jon Burg e- and two of his detectives failed Thursday t6 'get back ori the city payroll while :charg?s?i? are pending against them.? 4.1. gem?? TU. S. District_C01i1ft Judge? Mi!- ton I. aShadui' :ruled that "their susp?xisions withdut pay did not violate the men?s rights or suite .{Burg? ?and Defectives f?Patrick O?Ha'r?a' aiid John Yucaitis were: suspexi'd?d Nov. 12 by Police Swat: LeRoy ?lytgautinz ?who ?led chaige's v-n ?ya-"5 ?fth1:11;; 1 - ssh??4gw - 2 A 5 Lin. ewes?1,3215??- i 1 45? 1* ?4:55:51:? rein-J gv?mm v?zrt. 3 abcused 111 1- (hdicate page. name of new .cky and szace.) Page 5 1cago Sun-Times Chicago, Illinois Degecember?271'1991 Edam: ?mw?udge Upholds Cops' Suspension Chaac?er: or Warm: . Sh?n?t?ng Office: . Ch1cago lndexhg: BOB brutahty case - I 1 . I seeking their d15m1ssal tended beyond 30 Idays grant a temporary three w?r'e? accused of _tor- "'Burge, recently ?_chief of Area' 3 711531" or' prehmmary m3unct1on 3:1 .turmg fa1hng jg. rgtect p611}; detectwes on the Southwest Srdefw. .pglice' board will hold i'h' TvictedI reWJston _'and '.It_l_I1Ie' other f?say' ?ull,-cont1nuous hearing, .I-L?onIly .froi11' phys1cal abuse nearly 310- I-they?I depletmg meager Isavings= about two months after .?charges iyeii??go 4% hearmg is sEhedtile'd' :12) pa}; rqutme T'bills?- 251,4. ?22: 9" "we're: filed {he noted bngE theI o'lice board on Jan. 21., :Shadur demedjhe -'1no_t10n_ to I _Iligwyers for? chal, 9n 1nfe11m order restonng thein' to, I leng'I?I'dI the in 11 feggrg?duty w'i_tIh and benefits?"a?nd bene?ts does 119']: me- 2111 lawsuit filed last week. The gait "until the pohce -bgard_ I'acIIts,_ in? parable harm because they can contends :thatL the thiee'I wei-EI de- :ShaIIduIr said there" is hot engug :4 reasonable _hkehhood? the; .offi-' =Tare elear'ed. . . "cers' can prove their and Yuca1t1s pnved 'ofI then: 'du'e bees because the suspensrons 111111th hearmg date were 1mproperly "rights were demed for_ cleared by Juries inI thoI1989: -civil _rights lawsuits _brought by Wilson, their alleged victim. William -.KI1'1'nkle Jr, one .?of the gf?cers?. -lawyers, __said he .w111 amend their complamt Manda?" to assert that jederal,-. .?couxts are bound to "protect? .sueh ,verdiIctsIg ?Thomas Plein?I'sI, 'also r?preI-j sentingI the a 1975 federal _eo'urt dee1sron?heldjhat an of?cer _'cann'gt Ibe suspended more hearing: But. Shadui' said that _'the' law ha's' Isinc'?I 'dev?loiiadI m, another direc'- .tion,. 911d ethat e_he; 21101101- I-?Ithgu' htful?. 'LlIllinois Appellate gCourt'gdec131ons-5Q3 {$33.93 3 T. Ju?! (Rev. 58-81) . (Mount Clipping in Space Below) (Meats pace. none 0! ?Page 5 . newspaper. city and state.) 7 Chicago sunnTimes Chrcago, "Illinois _3fcops ?ru??st . facethearing an ehargcs (if torture Lila - g?y Charles Nicodemus A federal judge Thursday dis; missed suspended police Cmdr. Jon Burge?s suit to block a, Police Board hearing on charges that he and two of his detectit'res tortured convicted c'op killer Jackie Wilson to.force his confession. 0.8.133?? Judge or re' 'a request urge and Detectives John Yucaitis and Patrick O'Hara to bar the Jan. 23 hearing. . 'Shadur said: ?It would be a serious distortion" of the legal process to forbid a Police Board hearing on the controversial case because of any of the legal techni- calities raised by the officers' law- yer. William Kunlde Jr. Kunkle had contended that Wilson?s two unsuccessful federal civil damage suits against the three policemen already had dem- onstrated there was no proof they had any connection with the injur- ies' Wilson suffered after his arrest in February, 1982. in the murder of two gang crimes unit of?cers. .,_But Shadur said there was ?highly material evidence? that had been excluded from?the earli- er 03363- f?The public?is entitled to a determination of whether, on the basis of all ~the evidence. these men are entitled to "remain in a position of trust." he said. . The Police Department?s Office of Professional Standards has rec- ommended that the officers, who . were suspended without pay in November. be ?red. . Ii?; I DatetJanuary 17,1992 Edm?nve Star Sports Final Caps Must Face Hearing On Charges 0f Torture Character: . or Classification: Subrm?rting Of?ce: Ch icago Indexing: raw-soang-en-alra I 0 UHTE 1995 TIME 1E1$..THH71 yiu:44_ . HD. . 29 - ?55 ?f ii?' IREff?EEsz?i?s If?f70~?15 'l - 7 1? 2317' I . -J53#lmd?i? HDDE I 5 EMT - 'g_f"x F?}3?f3 ETETIDH HRHE CIUIL EIEHTE 7 23. TELEPHONE ND. 3?324?3155 ti?is i . ETEHDEED u- - Tf?it5f5t . 'Iv worm (Rev. $23.90) . I FBI COVERSHEET CLASSIFICATION PHECEDENCE Top Secret Time Transmitted: Immediate Secret Sender?s Initials: Ci Priority Con?dential Number of Pages: [j Routine Sensitive Unclassi?ed To: FBIHQ A i 7 A Date: 1/30/92 (Namedomoe) Facsimilenumber: . 8/324'3155- 4. b6 -6 Ann. b7C -6 . (Name Room Telephone me: DIVISION (Namedomce) Subject: COWIANDER JON 0. BURGE Special Handling InstructionsOriginator?s Name: SA FIB 380-2500 I . Origmator?s Facsimile Number-W- Approved: ?e at . m; 5} vonQSm-I?v Le a walgzw?-ai (Mount Q?pping in Smoe Below) 6 (nwnenmemmed Page 7 Section 1 Daily Herald :Smunenng p011 WW- -.1 m? hid-V?- torture case nears -ai?f 'gu?e, Associated Press - A police torture complaint that has? fostered for 10 years in Chicago is nearing a showdown amid charges of. betrayal cover-hp and racial divi- sion within the police force Amnesty International and dozens' of local civil-rights groups contend the alleged torture of convicted cop-' killer Andrew. Wilson only hints at' the atrocities black suspects have suffered at the hands of white Chica- go police officers for years. "It?s very important that the po~ lice board ultimately know the full parameters of what went on here,? said Flint Taylor, one of Wilson?s lawyers. He charged that the mayor and police superintendent were trying to ?cut their losses? with the Wilson case while trying to suppress evidence of systematic torture. But the officers union says the dis- missal hearing beginning Feb 10 for Cmdr. Jon Burge and him detectives is an attempt by a politically ambi~ tious departmental enforcer to nail the men on phony charges that went unprovem through a previous inter-. t5investigation and two civil law- smWilliam Nolan, local and national treasurer for the Fraternal Order of Police, which' rs paying for the susJ pended officers' defense, and other white officers denied any racial divi-1 siveness on the force. ?l?hcy see the dismissal hearing as a bid by Gayle Shines, the head of the Office of Professional Standards, to grease her political career path. 1 Burge? backers fear the fix' is ini DateLisle, Illinois Essen?anuary 27,1992 Naperville/Lisle Edition Simmering Felice Tortdre Case Nears Hearing CMmda: Cheerioation: Chicago indexing: - 1xaae1a-1a; e-m 1'1 lcpanm 9" don Burge Having lost the mayor?s and police ..chief?s support. they are convinced the Chicago Police Board hearing is a sham. ?This is the most clear?cut case of a kangaroo court," Nolan said. ?In two federal cases, the city of Chicago defended these officers in court, saying they were not brutal,? he said. ow the city is saying they were brutal. It defies any sense'of logic at all.? But some black officers have bro~ ken the department?s unwritten code of silence to speak out against Barge. ?Burge has a reputation among older African-American officers of being a torturer," said officer Jerry Crawley, a 24-year department vet- eran who heads thehBlaclr Officers United for Justice and Equality. Mayor Richard Daley has-tie Andrew Wilson? . fended both his administration?s de- cision last fall to seek the officers? dismissal and his own refusal to in vestigate Wilson?s brutality com- plaint 10 years ago when Daley was the Cool: County state?s attorney. The mayor?s office referred ques- tions about the case to the city?s le- gal department. ?The city does not tolerate any kind of brutality and we are pursu- ing with a strong case and a legal casde,? spokeswoman Andrea Brands sax . The case centers on Wilson?s alle? gation that Burge and detective John Yucaitis tortured?hirn?to extract a confession that Wilson and his brother Jackie gunned down two of- ficers during a routine traffic stop Febi 14? 1932? . Wilsmi contends Burge and 'Yu- caitis beat, kicked and smoked him,? suffocated him With a garbage bag "and handcuffed him to a Scalding ra- ?diator'?while' detective Patrick O?Hara stood by. - The confession was used to convict the Wilson brothers, who are serving! life sentence; without parole for the murders. Andrew?s conviction was overturned in 1987 by the Illinois Sue preme Court. which'found his c?on? fession resulted from coercion. He was convicted at a second trial in 1989: i . The police department?s Office of Professional Standards concluded in 1935 that there was not enough eve, dence to sustain Wilson's brutality complaint. Wilson filed a civil lawsuit against the three officers in' US. District Court in 1938 alleging brutality. The trial ended in a hung jury. The Sury at a second civil trial in 1989 found that the city and police department condoned the mistreat- 'ment of sus in police killings, ble. Local civil-rights groups pressed harder for ,Burge's dismissal. Shines, appointed by Daley in May l9_90 to head the Office of Profession- al Standards, oversaw a second in vestigation and recommended last fall that the officers be fired. Police Superintendent Leroy Martin and the city?s legal department agreed. _In December 1990. the human- rights _watchdog group Amnesty In- ternational released a report alleg~ . mg systematic torture of suspects in Burge's predominantly black South Side district from 1972 to 198.4. but did not find the three officers liar; :8 a" Memorandum To SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) Date 1/30/92 From SA (SQUAD 12) 1 Subject: :SC?Ei?gz COMMANDER JON G. SURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFRICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL 00: CHICAGO b6 On 1/27/92, Investigator, OFFICE OF b7? "4"5 .PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (OPS), telephone number advised that the formal CITY OF CHICAGO Police Board hearings has ?been rescheduled to begin . advised that she confers almost daily with Ci hired Special Prosecutor for t] re she can also be contacted at telephone number i On l/28/92J ISpecial Prosecutor for the City of Chicago in the Police Board hearings against JON G. BURGE, teleohonicaily contacted the writer and advised that he 15? an Attorney l ep one numbed Iadvised that since the FEDERAL BUREAU (FBI) has some interest in the BURGE hearings, he mentioned the possibility of FBI assisting in the presecution. va that assistance is kept within the limitations and purview of FBI jurisdiction. Assistance such as housing witnesses at the FEDERAL CORRECTION CENTER (Metropolitan Correctional CenterSEARCHE I am smuuz A 1-Chicago ?rs/baa 3 0 4 1992 cameo 3 I i Memorandum 7? SAC, CHICAGO (44A-CG-78234) L?i D?e .1/31/92 From SA (so.v12) Subject: 136' COMMANDER JON G. SURGE, ?11'2 CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ivxc'rm; OO: CHICAGO b6 -1 -5 b7C -1 On 1/31/92, ISupervisdry foecial_Aaent_1 (SSA), Civil Rights nit, FTS, telephone number was contacted in regards to Special Prosecutod ?mentioning of possible FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) assistance in the City Police Board hearings against Commander JON G. BURGE and other CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (CPD) officers. b6 that since Police Board bW3-1,-5 hearings are administrative in nature. is not acting as a State Attorney with the authority to ind1ct captioned subjects On criminal Charges. In this instant the Chicago Police Superintendent has moved to dismiss captioned subjects and the is in the appeals process to stay that dismissal. SSA advised that the only time the FBI should suspend its 1nvestigation is when state or.local authorities indict the subjects. In al_l other situations FBI investigations must remain separate and independent of any state or local investigations regarding the same incident. SSA A .rm the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE attorne comment and bring her up to date regarding captioned investigation. b7C 2 - Chicago (44A-CG-78234) JLS/smc 0? 7&34?3? 2 SEARCHED mot: . FEB 01: 1992 F81 - CHICAGO 1* FIB-350 5-8-81) 1? (Mount Clipping Space Below) (Meats page. name of newW. city state.) Page 12 Chicago Sun-Times Chicago, Illinois DamFebruary 6,1992 Moved For Security Character: 3 Class reason: omCh ic ago Ecm?ive Star Sports Final mm Police Brutality Hearing hdexin'gz- By Charles Nicodemus 5 Sta" Writer 5 The hearing on police brutality icharges against former Area 2 medr. Jon Burge and two of his gdetectives is being transferred to ithe .Dirlrsen ,Federal Building for )Vednesday. Hearing officer Michael Berland Esaid the proceedings. which will {open at ?9 am. Monday. will be eld in the US. District Court?s th floor ceremonial courtroom, Yby agreement with attorneys for {Burge and the city; The Police Board hearing. which is expected to run until mid-MarchJ had been slated for 'ty reasons, it was annourmd - Headquarters, '1121 S. State. But because the 10-year-old case is so controversial and drew a record audience of 55 people to its ?rst relirninary session Nov/25, Ber- fand said, ?We have been com cerne?d about security." All people going to upper ?oors of the Dirksen building, .219 .S. .D?earborn, must pass through met- al detectors. The annOUncement same at a preliminary session to review'the credentials of one ?of the prosecu- tion's key witnesses, Dr. Robert a forensic pathologist at Cook County Hospital. Burge and Detective ?John Yu? caitisghave been charged by the olice?epmtality gearing movedffor security - the main auditorium in :Police - Witnessing the torture and faili Police Department's Office of Pro fossional Standards with torturi convicted cop killer Andrew son in February. 1932. to obtai his confession in' the slaying two Chicago police officers. Detec tive Patrick O?Hara is am. to report it.?All three have bee suspended without pay. . an expert on torture is expected to. testify that ed 1106 shoWed Wilson was tertured in police custody.?William Kunkle Burge's attorney,=sought to Wednesday that had no ?rsthand knowledge of Wilson's injuries and that torture evidence noted by could? have had other causes. mtg?~79 nonfat; ?3350 RED i . FSI ?lm/1.30 nose .. FBI VIA: CLASSIFICATION: Teletype Immediate El Tee-88mm Facsimile Priprity 7 a] Routine [3 com [3 UNCLAS EFT 0 . UNCLAS Date 2/13/92? DIRECTOR, FBI (44A-CG-78234) (ATTN: CIVIL RIGHTS UNIT) FROM SAC, CHICAGO 244A-CG-78234) 1y) (so. 12) SUBJECT COMMANDER JON G. CIVIL RIGHTS a 00: CHICAGO captioned investigation. 1 1 I If Bureau (Enc. 3) (attachments 4) Ojfice, Chicago, Illinois. BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, I I Enclosed_for the Bureau is the original and two copies of a letterhead memorandum (LEM) with atta?hed copies of four local newspaper articles dated concerning One copy of the LHM, With attachments, was furnished to the United States AttorneY' b6 -2 b7C -2 - Ch_icago . __7wmr?a? . i1?? ij qqA?cqv?z?g?zse- SEARCHEDJ SERMUZEW i FEB 1392 I b6 ?1 I MC -1 Approved: Transmitted Per (Number) (Time) 9; .1 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Chicago, Illinois 60604 10 0. i February 13, 1992 1 UNKNOWN 9 COMMANDER JON G. BURGE, CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, b7C -2 -5 0n Februarv 4. 1992J I Itelephone Iadvised that her grOup has received complaints .regarding acts of torture by Chicago Police Officers, specifically in Area 2, where the victims al_leged that they Were coerced i_nto confessing to crimes they did or did not commit. .advised that inl b6-Q,-5 ?victim was arrested andl Area 2 Detectives-regardind I Iadvised thatithis case was scheduled hearings in '1 therefore, she will recontactl or an update and try to persuade 'them to contact the IREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI). Along these same lines stated that she Will check her files for additional cases 1n whiCh the victims alleged their were coerced. 3 On February 5, 1992,] b6 b7C telephonel Iadvised thatlthe. 'Appellate Division has no recordkeeping ability that would allow information to be readily retrieved regarding victims who allegtd ESE: their confessions were coerced b1 Chicaao lice VlSe advised that one of their clients ad hat his confession was coerced. owever, he will nee some time to compile a list of additional clients who alleged that their confessions were obtained through torture and other-forms of coercion by Chicago Police Officers. 3 - Bureau USA,Chicago (Attn: AUSA Chicago b7C ?3 LS/cjy (6) I i i This document contains neither retommendations nor c_onclusions of the Eat. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency. law-meansHad gou G. I (CPD, telephOne advised that the City Police Board hearings' regarding BURGE and two other CPD Detectives were moved fromIpolice headquarters to the Everett McKinleF-Qirgseg Eederal Building for security reasons. She stated that and other incarcerated witnesses had voiced some concerns about the hearings being held in a police environment. She also stated that there were some concerns of wardens about the escape risk of their prisoners. On February 7: 1992: I Investigator, bG'Qr'4r5 OFFI OF PROFE 91mm. ans, CHICAGO pomce DEPARTMENT 1?70 19-w?4348Q?Fm-4g5 .- 1 - .4 n. -mwA?90-350 (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount Capping in Space Below) By Charles Nicodemus sea: Writer long-suppressed Police Depart- ment report says crime suspects were ?systematically? brutalized at Area 2 detective headquarters for 12 years and that ?particular" top commanders there knew of the abuses. The October, 1990, study of 50 al- leged abuse victims by an intestigator for .the department?s civilian-staffed Office of Professional Standards was ordered released Friday by us. Disw trict Judge Milton l. Shadur in con- necti0n with a police brutality suit. Police Supt. LeRoy Martin, who commanded the Far South Side head- quarters for nine months during the 197440-1986 period studied, attacked the report prepared by investigator Michael Goldston. ?The methodology used for the re- port is ?awed and unsubstantiated, bringing into serious question the cregibility of its sat . He said a preliminary review of the report by the Washingtonobase?d -Po~ lice Foundation found that because of ?gaps in the data" and other ?incom the material does ?not necessarily suppOrt investigator Gold- .ston?s conclusion" of systematic abuse. As for the allegation that certain unidenti?ed Area 2 commanders were aware of the abuse of suspects, Martin said, ?it?s a lie, an outright lie. Who- ever said that doesn?t know what they?re talking about.? Mayor Daley also lashed out at the report. saying its conclusions were i ?too broad? and Were based in part on ?allegations still under investigation.? Daley. state?s attorney during part of the period studied. has been ac- cus'ed by critics of failing to investi- gate allegations of police miSCondu'ct. Release of the Goldston report comes three days before the opening I Report cites 12 years Of So cop hm lrgi- m?h I tality of civilian Police Board hearings on Offic'd'of Professional Standards brua tality charges against Cmdr. Jon Barge and two of his detectives. Burge formerly headed the Area 2 violent crimes unit. and the Goldston study was included in the OPS investigation of him. The hearings starting Monday will probe allegations by convicted cop killer Andrew Wilson that Burge and Detective John Yucaitis tortured him to obtain his mnlession in February, and that Detective Patrick O?Hara was aware of the torture and failed to report it. Release of the Goldston report was forced Friday by attorney Flint Tay- ?lor. He represented Wilson in two unsuccessful federal damage suits against Burge and was researching an unrelated brutality case when the Goldston report came to light. Taylor said Martin ?sat on"'the Goldston report (or 15 months. (Indicate panama! .PAGE 4 newsoacer. cry and state.) SUN-TIMES CHICAGO, IL Date: 2/8/92 Edition: 5* SPORTS FINAL we; ?12 YEARS or 5. SIDE cor mummy Characa'c: 057 Classification: Submitting Of?ce: CHICAGO hdexing: :?uwxm 7 a; Fin-350 (Rev. 5-8-81) (Mount C?ppm'g'in Space Belay) Ponce ybmtalitY Scaled for months By Charles Nicodemus . I Staff Writer i Like a ticking time bomb, the . ?Goldston report." which charged longtime police brutality at Area 2! detective headquarters, lay sealed in US. District Court files for months. Friday. it exploded into view-with Police Supt. LeRoy Martin expressing outrage at its charge that "systematic? . abuses were condoned by commanders at Area 2, which Martin once headed. The report cited -cases in Which police allegedly gave electrical shocks to. prisoners by attaching alligator clips to various parts of their bodies; the current being generated by a de- vice resembling a handcranl: tele- phone box. Other alleged torture in- cluded a practicehnown as ?bagging? in which a plastic bag would be tied around the neck of a suspect, leading the prisoner to believe he was going to suffocate. in some cases, the prisoner passed out. the report said. The report alto angered Mayor Da- ley and focused further attention on tomorrow?s opening of police brutality hearings for former Cmdr. Jon Burge and two other of?cers. After the long-secret study was made public Friday in federal court, Daley?s and Martin?s criticisms raised serious questions about its validity. But whatever the report's merits, Daley?s reaction?rcondemning the re- port as ?too broad? and its charges as ?unsubstantiated?-?seemed ironic. The [GO-page statistical study and analysis was mitte'abyT Michael Gold- stonIE an investigator for theiOfficc of . (Monte page. name 0: PAGE 4 newspaper. cry and slate.) sun-trues CHICAGO. IL nae: 2/9/92 Edam: 5* SPORTS FINAL POLICE BRUTALITY STUDY KEPT SEALED FGR MONTHS ?238? Character: or Ciass?caton: Submitting Office: CHICAGO 'l Professional Standards, the Police'Dc- I civilianstaffed unit ore-i ated to, investigate allegations of bru~ i tality. The agency is headed by Gayle Shines, whom Daley named to the job in May. 1990. to toughen up the much-criticized agency. . Shines supervised the Goldston mooring: study of 50 allegations of police bru- tality at Area 2? between 1974 and 1986. Shines sent it to Martin on Nov. 2, 1990. calling it a ?masterful job" 1 whose ?conclusions arecornpelling." At the same time. Shines also gave 3' Martin another report, by investigator . Francine Sanders. it dealt only with i convicted cop-killer Andrew Wilson?s contention that his confession had been extracted through torture by Burge and his detectives. One year later. Martin used the Sanders report as the basis for his recommendation to tbePolicfe Board?, that Burge and two detectives, John Yucaitis and Patrick O?Hara, be fired. But the Goldston report never was publicized. Attorney ?Flint Taylor. who forced its disclosure last week, contends that Martin "covered up the report? be: cause Martin was Area 2 detective commander for nine months in 1983. Martin 'retorted that anyone who said any Area? commander had con. don'ed brutality was lying. He said he had kept the Goldston report secret because he believed Goldston?s meth? . Otis and findings were flatbed. To get an ?independent" evaluation, h'lartin idi?li?e? cdntigtoed ?the Police Foundatio l, iillsashihg h; ann- a I I .3 ?think tank? staffed byformer officials, in October, 1991. J. Taylor on Friday called the action ?unprecedented" and said the founda- tion was not ?independent." '5 Taylor. an attorney with the_?Peo- pic's Law Office and ?a crusader against police brutality, learned of the report last year while preparing for the trial of an unrelated brutality lawsuit. The city provided a copy only on the condition that it remain secret. US. District Judge Milton Shadur unsealed the report Friday. a .Martin then revealed a preliminary reSponse from the Police Foundatidn. which questioned the ?rcport?s conclu- sions. . ?i '5 Correspondence between Martin and the Police Foundation, rei?asbd later Friday byMartin to discredit the Goldston report, also ?reveals ,Burge was the target of 51 percent 'of the abuse charges from the .50 alleged victims who figured in the OPS study. William Kunkle. Burge?s attorney. called the report ?garbage? and stressed that it was inadmissible in the upcoming hearings. Taylor noted that tickets for a fund. raiser to help pay the accused officei's' l. t? legal bl are being sold in disk police Stations. Said Taylor:~ . i ?011 the one hand. we have a Polrce Department report detailing systemat? ic police brutality. and on the other hand. police are peddling tickets in police stations in an attempt to help keep officers accused of brutality on the force. ?Looks like we have South Afr: . Style police repression in Chicago.? ig'W?q??rS?F?lj??. 7315' ES 10030.1 1 00.100000100000110 0. 105100; ommownpooeo 0031.11.01.10 10310111000 90 ?52001620 01.30009. 0.13.0 01H. 0000000010 1003.130 moo 1000. 1 m3 1 .3. 50051030538 mwoawaa? 10mmowao 00000000 0000000 . ?.030 000 Eu 110000.030: 0 0mg 3 011011133 38015 15? .1 E: an Harm! burgh??ma hwmmu?uguun mas_h? 300000000000 . '?lnlf motif-hi. .l?u 181.011.153.10 - .5030. do 1.- 1 31.1.0 00.31.015.00. 0.000005 ?aw 91.10.11. .. .fuoaJuum Ammo. utili . 1min? imamwb?h a 1.0110110110111501.-. 100m03203000000m?wwu 1.03 -laxbmmummu. 3.1.. a . 1.1th]. .om??onm. 1051.11.41. ghomma 2.me ?human 1.010.110: ?and.- Maud 911?13-. 5055??an . 100000000010030000000 0.1.1- .818? E11 850g1w?cwpu31..? .1111: tuba?l1.) rrlw?rl. 1 I 8.330550 009.30 "00355. . .303? 3 0003 gh?? JshvEBOH?udhf ?mowm?w? 555%.. 1511.105. 1.01.01. 15.1.0251. 1.113005% 0500.0 01000505000100.? DPIJ 0.0103100 1 005.5% 1. EWEsbucw." 2 0380 0.03. 00 000 2 0.00080 9.: 00.150.100.05 10.8.. ?1.05.1.1 ?1050. 00.100.01.051?.? ?0W0111mw 00-1% .111.? 0000 00 . 0 cl . HIV. 1? 3 5.3.0-0508 0.0 1a ..V 0000.? 1 .1 k: 1.1.1.110 11 1.00.112 . . - .1 . . 0 11.4151? 1' 0 101.814 pr ?Hitl?utull .l .I?ln I 1 1.111.. 0.111.101.0101 ..1 1.1.101. 1.1.00. 1 1 1. . [fir .1 .1 1.1.1.01 r?hhqu?ywl .. h- - 1.0.. Li?? 5.3.10 .. 1 1 .51.. 1M: MHYauhMi?u.? ?ha 01.46.11.550. .011.101.100?. 1..15" . 1. .1 . VI 3900 830 00006 111311?. I 0 . ?r?rj l" Accuses comman d? if; .r (oontinued from page the result :of "the. department? frustration over the de?aihs of three claims Bu'r'ge told him his ?repu- tatignwas atstake 1mm 1 i so At one point, following an alleg- ed gruesome beating at Area 2 detective headquarters Wilson claimcd Burge _entered a room alone and clamored, ?Fun Time!? .In the company of another officer, Burge allegedly handcuffed Wilson?s hands to a wall while Wilson knelt' in front oi a radiator After clamping the-Telectrodes attached to a black box to his- small fingers, Burge cranked the hand generator, causing an elec? tronic current to surge through? Wilson ?He kept cranking itI recalled Wilson nonchalantly whileismppeq: healleged. demonstrating on his knees ?It made my teeth grind together. 1 was hollering for help but he didn?t have to stop because I couldn?t (get the clamps) off. Wilson contends the box was its-.1 ed with limited success ?fo other times but he was able to knee an officer in the groin and another time release the electrodes from_ his cars by rubl;in_g them on his shoulders. Prior to those alleged att??cks, Wilson accused another officer of attempting to suffocate liixnwitliagarbagebag. -. According in Wilson? testimony, moments _later,"} '"Burge tortured him with a foot long caitle pied? which r?sembled a curling iron with a wire protruding from one end. .1- While remaining cuffed' in front of the radiator; EWilson claimed Burge ?rubbed _it around my legs up and down ?very slowly (about three or four times); 'It was ting} ing (feeling) 0n the last pass, he jabbed it into the center of my back. (The impabt) slammed me intothegrill. 4? Wilson then :began regurgitating blood and the torture momentarily When Burge': con!ronted him again hours later 'at another loca? tion, Wilson Said the lieutenant ?was playing with his gun in my mouth choking it back andforth. I agreed to make a statement to kgep from getting shot, he clairnn? During the testimony, Wilson, dressed in blue jacket and jean, der,?2 detectives Burge reportedly cracked smiles. at his fellow deieEdaan John Yucaitis and Patrick O?Hara, and shookhish?eadin disbelief. - . A plethora of spe?tators filed in-? to the packed courtroom passing through two metal detectors and hand searches of all bags. Several police officers sat with the brother of William Fahey, one of the of- ficers whom Wilson was convicted of killing. Members of anti- police brutality groups were also in at- 'tendence. Despite the gaphic testimony, Wilson, many confused and unceriain about his account as evidenced by mistaken'? 1y identi!ying officers. The defen- dant?s attorney, William 'ixunkle, will most likely capitalize on the" inconsistencies in the days to?.l come. Officer John lJineeE president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said late Monday Wilsori?s story has changed dramatically throughout the years and that the word of a convicted killer is less than con- vincing. Throughout the deadelong in- vestigation, the officers have maintained their innbcence and were acquitted by two civil juries. 1o-m-anaelrei) and) 1 i I t" . i fry. a I a F0350 (Rev. 5-8-81) . (Mount Clipping :1 Space Below) ?kirk?g1 mug?. I Wm pia?es? 16:17:; h?to ?Se my -I ?Image ?misc rim-w. "r $g1hi? tur vii-{way Lei By Sherman Stein: {re?ears after his arrest for; itheikilhn of two police of?cersn Andrew ilson lifted his shirt .M?'nday and displayed to a' packed courtroom the scars he says he suffered whiie being tor?i tured by three Chicago police of-1 ficers. Wilson was the first witness Monday in.the first day of' hearings before the Police Board, which may hear four to six weeks of testimony. The city rs seeking for the first time, through this administrative proceeding, to dismiss Cmdr. Jon Burge, Detective John A. Yu caitrs and Detective Patrick J. O?Hara, the of?cers accused of. torturing Wilson. The of?cers, all of whom were present at the hearing, deny the charges which have not been proved in two federal court cases and a previous police investiga- *tion. Bure ,Yucaitis and. O?Hara have suspended since No- vember. If the char es are sustained, B_urge woul be the hi best-ranking Chicago police orcial to be dismissed in 20 0cars. Andrew Wilson and his brother, Jackie, were convicted of1 the murders and are ng life sentences without parole. ha?The Question is, why did this hapen? said city attorney June; mi, in an opening statement. ??It happened for two reasons. He ?was just arrested for the murder of two Chicago police of?cers, and there- had been three deaths of?poliee of?cers over one week. The first purpose was to ex- tract a confession? Ghezzi said. ?The second was to extract a pound of flesh, to punish him be- cause the of?cers were so upset about the murder of the police of?cers.? William Kunkle Jr. one of the lawyers for the three accused of?? cers, ?reserved his opening state-' ment for a later time. . a? ?But in afternoon cross?exami? a. tSee Police, pg. 8 (indicate page. name of newspaper. city and state.) 322:1: 2 Chicago Tribune Chicago, Illinois Da?fFebruary 1992 Sports Final i nw;Burge-Case Panel Hears of Torture ii Character: or Ctassifxca?on: Summag Of?ce: Chicago mam: . - baa-rm ??want: ram?u. 9: menu-noun? 1 mnei ?633$ ed from page 1 .u . nation of' Wilson, Kunkle insisted ugon?rlelving ?into. Milsont?s? ereabouts and act Vities from 1' the ?police of?? Fee-,9. l932.?wh?n cm were ,murd a South Sideapartment. Kunkle insisted that during those days Wilson had time to learn from?ydtherpe'ople what the police i knew about his involvement in the fore ?how: to plan his, later statements of was arrested. - ?3 Although Wilson took ,the 5th Amendment and refused to answer many'of the questions at. the advice of an attorney resenting him in a criminal appegi Kunkle said he expected-to ?utilize the right of negative inference? regarding Wil? son?s refusal to answer. eaan Officer Michael Berland gran ed request. . Wilson, who was permitted ai the city?s request to testify Without wearing handcuffs or manacles, de- tailed 'in a low-key ?v?oice the" beatings electrical shocks and choking he'said he?sufl?ered at the hands of Burge and others follow- l4.~ - Burge and the other two officers kept _a steady on Wilson and occasionally looked at each other during testimony. 3* .. . Frequently Sounding irritated by the questions, Wilson described how he was taken by p0, ce officers to'a second-floor room at the old Burnside ?Area detective headquari ters at _90?9_ Cotta?ge?irorre Aye. There, the said, Yucaitis, among carriers. ?starter beats me paint. .mefslappm?s basrarlly Just beatingjup on me.? Wilson said of?cers .hit him? with -, - . their ?sts, kicked whim -'{abuse stepped. . knocked 5 .. Later, Wilson said, Bulrge took around the room, ;a ear, and Feb. refs; [982, whenWilson?was arrested at?, 1 1 shootings of: the officers and there-"ii ing his arrest at 5:15 am. that Feb. "rent. The shock was so and .. cers face dismissal it charges of torture are sustained. "Jon Burge I him olnto (tihe refit lie saigagn (gig- cer pace a pastic gar over his head until he bit a hole through it, and then-threw him against a Window, causing the glass 5to_ shatter. - ire - iWhen Burge Ehterw the room during some of the beating, Wilson - testi?ed, hejBurge} observed what was happening. He said if it had .been him, he wouldn?t have messed amy face up, he wouldn?t damage me where it wouldhbe noticed,? Wilson said. i - Later, Wilson said ?rst Yucaitis and later Burge shocked With a :?blaek box? by attaching clips to ear and nostril and cranking the ..box .to produce an electrical cur? in the ?rst session, Wilson said, that he ?who then punched him in the mouth. '5 _said Yucaitis 'contini'ied \Tcranking the b?ox?iand shocking him, but Wils0n?s shouts brought attention to the room ?and the him to _a mohd the brown paperbag containing the clectrrealdevrce, Wilson?said Burge ahnoiinced it wasir?iffun tune,? and then'attached, the ths?to his'ears. iWheri' Wilson? Was?a?lgle to ?nudge :ofl? the clips on inseam by lowering ahis chin against shoulder, Wil? =son said, Burge stretched him '5?.across the radiator in the room, handcuffed him in place and re-at? *tached the clamps to his little a fingers. . was hollen'nggi?i?or? hel wir- "s'bn said. thinkjus iiusorne blood out, and he stop . .yVilson also testified that when later 'tranSported to Wentworth Area headquarters, ;where he was urged to make a _;statement, he? was left alone in a room With Burge. . . . ?He had his gun ainside my mouth, and he 'was. clicking it back and forth, cockingit,? Wilson said. ?He told me that if I 'gave a state- ment, what happened earlier wouldn?t reoccur.? In his initial cross-examination, Kunlde, asked Wilson whether any of the officers had questioned him about the killing of .theupolice ofli~ cers, to which Wilson said no. Kunkle then tried to ascertain where Wilson slept on the nights, before his arrest, whether he was worried about anything and other questions related to Wilson?s: whereabouts and state of mind. am arguin that What hap-f pened between ch. 9 and feb. rs important to the _?credibility of Wilson?s account pfxwihat happened at the police stations bnfeb. l4,? Kunlde said. . . An internal Police Department report_ released Fnda by apf?ederal courtJudge charges, .. ic torture __was perpetrated by at - leaSt 'seven ?ipolice ;;otiicers" at the South3 Side police? Station from 197.330 ?19.86 and that ?police supemsors in 'the Area kgiew about and condoned the a use. . . . . 3i rat-w-aaeetreij3-5na; n-