August 16, 1946- May 13, 2012

There is little doubt that Governor Quinn will sign the engrossed legislation passed today by the General Assembly which ends subsidized health care for State employees.  Funding public pensions and other retirement benefits have continued to be one of the most controversial issues in the past few years and things are coming quickly to a head.  The issue is inescapable on a county, city, state, national and even international level.  The bottom line issue, however, remains the same: fairness.

Public pensions, as you are undoubtedly aware, are severely underfunded throughout the country because of sputtering revenue streams collected by governments and the habitual failure by many lawmakers to fund pensions.  Withdrawls were made regulary from employees paychecks toward their pensions, but by and large, governmental entities failed to pitch in their share.  And now, corporate interests represented by folks like the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club want public employees to pay for years of financial irresponsibility at the hands of our  politicians.  To make matters worse, the media has glommed on to and sensationalized numerous examples of political insiders who got sweetheart pension deals.  Regular folks see these media accounts and have been manipulated into thinking all public employees are getting luxurious pensions.

The underfunding of the  Cook County Pension is well documented.  Cook County Commissioner Bridget Gainer is chairing a committee for the County Board to deal with the underfunding.  She has a website and some ideas. Some proposals and a survey are presented on  the website she has set up.  AFSCME Council 31 has shared the Unions’s concern with her about the Constitutional infirmity of her proposals.  While it’s hard to tell what will happen for certain, odds are that during this legislative session, which has a few weeks remaining unless it is extended, substantial changes will be made to the State pension system but not the Cook County Pension.  What the lawmakers do with the State system will undoubtedly wind up being litigated in the courts, but if the changes survive legal challenges, you can anticipate they will be made to the Cook County pension fund as well. That is why the Local has organized a special informative meeting for the membership on this issue. You should have received details on the date time and location of this meeting through our email bursts.  If you are a member of the Local but are not getting the emails, please send an email to board@cookcountypd.org with your name and worksite and we will make sure you are in the know.

Bond Court Retro Check Debacle.

The County is still working on rectifying the mistake.  We will keep you posted.

Summer Party and Golf Outing

Stay tuned for details via email burst.

Facebook and  Twitter

You will notice that there are links to both social media sites at the bottom of this page.  At the moment, we have 380 likes on our Facebook page and 10 followers on our Twitter feed.  Posts on our Facebook page automatically tweet and vice versa. Please follow us #cookcountypd.

Final Thoughts

With all the attacks, assaults and swipes at public employees and organized labor on so many different levels, now is the time to remain united, informed and ready to fight!

In Solidarity,

K.S. Galhotra

President, Local 3315

AGENDA

1. ANNOUNCEMENTS

2. BOND COURT/PARKING UPDATE

3. SUMMER SOCIAL: LAND OR LAKE?

4. MEMBER COMMENTS/FEEDBACK/ QUESTIONS

5. OLD BUSINESS

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. NEXT GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATE (07-17-2012)
location and time TBD

8. ADJOURNMENT

JUSTICE KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.

This case involves a homicide which took place in July of 1983 when a man was shot to death in a Chicago tavern. A bartender, who did not see the actual shooting, did see this defendant and the victim, a frequent customer, talking just before the event. After the shooting, he saw the body on the floor and, outside, “saw the person running.” The defendant was arrested the next day and a preliminary hearing was held at which the bartender testified. The circuit court of Cook County found probable cause and set the case for further proceedings, but defendant failed to appear on the date set for his arraignment. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but it was accidentally purged from the system. Based on a 2006 tip from a man who said that he had seen his cousin’s killer, the defendant was located in Burbank in 2007 and arrested. Meanwhile, the bartender had been deported in 1984.

In a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. At his trial, there was testimony from the police detective who first responded to the scene and from two other individuals who saw comings and goings in the neighborhood outside the tavern. Each of these neighborhood bystanders had seen a man with a gun, and, in police station lineups, had identified that man as the defendant. However, there were no in-court identifications.

The prosecution asked for and received permission to, introduce at trial the 1983 preliminary hearing testimony of the bartender-witness who had been deported. After the conviction, this issue was raised in posttrial proceedings in which it was alleged that use of the preliminary hearing testimony of the now-unavailable bartender violated the constitutional right to confront. The posttrial motion was denied and defendant sought review in the appellate court. At that level, he obtained a reversal and a remand, with the appellate court finding that the defect was not harmless as a matter of evidentiary law. The State appealed.

In this decision, the supreme court affirmed the appellate court, but it did so on the basis that defendant had been denied his constitutional right to adequately cross-examine. For one thing, when the witness testified at the preliminary hearing, discovery in the form of inconsistent statements the witness made to police was not available to defense counsel for use in cross-examination. In addition, the record of the preliminary hearing did not show the constitutionally required adequate opportunity for cross-examination. The preliminary hearing commenced amidst an obviously crowded docket. The supreme court expressed concern about the atmosphere in which the cross-examination was conducted, in which the court made it clear to defense counsel that the court was not enthusiastic about proceeding immediately with the preliminary hearing. Cross-examination of the bartender was brief, and the court placed restrictions-overt and covert-on it, seeming to send a message to defense counsel to wrap it up. The supreme court said that “it is clear from the record that counsel would have done more with the witness *** if he had felt free to do so.” It could not be said that counsel was afforded the degree of cross-examination which is constitutionally required. Admitting the testimony was, therefore, error, and it was not harmless.

The appellate court’s reversal was affirmed.

People v. Wrice

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Justice Thomas took no part in the decision.

This appeal arises from an offense that is almost 30 years old. In 1982, a 33-year-old woman was sexually assaulted, beaten and burned in the attic of this defendant’s Chicago residence. Several other men were also implicated in the attack. Before his Cook County jury trial, Wrice’s motion to suppress his inculpatory statements was denied, and, after the jury was instructed on accountability, he was found guilty of multiple offenses in 1983. After his appeal to the appellate court, Wrice’s convictions for rape and deviate sexual assault remained intact, along with a combined 100-year sentence.

Wrice filed a pro se postconviction petition in 1991, complaining that Detective Peter Dignan and Sergeant John Byrne violated his constitutional rights because he was beaten while in custody at Area 2 Violent Crimes Headquarters in Chicago. The circuit court entered a summary dismissal, and the appellate court affirmed. In 2000, Wrice filed a successive pro se postconviction petition. He cited a report from the Chicago police department’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) establishing that abuse of prisoners and coerced confessions at Area 2 was widespread and systematic. He argued that this new evidence increased the likelihood that his statements would have been suppressed, changing the outcome. The petition was dismissed, and the appellate court affirmed.

In 2006, there was released to the public the Report of Special State’s Attorney Edward J. Egan, who had been appointed in 2002 to investigate allegations of torture by police officers under the command of Jon Burge at Area 2. Wrice received the report in early 2007 and sought leave of court to file a second, successive, postconviction petition, which is the subject of this appeal. This type of pleading is now subject to special requirements. Leave of court to file a successive postconviction petition must be sought and granted, and the petitioner must establish both cause for not raising his issues sooner and, also, prejudice. The circuit court denied leave to file, but the appellate court found that “cause” had been established based on the timing of the reports. It also found that prejudice had been established, relying on the Illinois rule of People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29 (1987), that the “use of a defendant’s coerced confession as substantive evidence of his guilt is never harmless error.” (The Wilson case had been the first Area 2 police brutality case to reach the Illinois Supreme Court.) The appellate court remanded for a third-stage, or evidentiary, hearing. The State appealed.

Before the supreme court, the State conceded that there was “cause,” but claimed that Wrice had not shown “prejudice,” arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that admission of a coerced confession is subject to harmless-error analysis (Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)). This is the principal issue presented for review.

In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court explained that the Fulminante case did not involve physical coercion. There, the United States Supreme Court agreed with a state court ruling that a confession was not voluntary when it was obtained by a paid government informant to whom the accused in that case (who was in jail) confessed in hopes that his listener would protect him from other fellow inmates, of whom he was afraid. The Illinois Supreme Court said that the United States Supreme Court in Fulminante used the terms “coerced” and “involuntary” interchangeably, as a convenient shorthand. Fulminante did not involve torture, and the Illinois Supreme Court said that the constitutional rule should be recast to provide that “use of a defendant’s physically coerced confession as substantive evidence of guilt is never harmless.” The court also noted that Wrice was not precluded from claiming both that he never confessed at all and that his confession was coerced.

The Illinois Supreme Court said that, although Wrice has satisfied both the cause and prejudice tests for being granted leave to file his second successive postconviction petition, he still has to establish the allegations set forth in the petition itself. What the supreme court is doing here is merely allowing the defendant to proceed. He still has an evidentiary burden to bear in the postconviction proceeding. What the appellate court had done was modified to provide that, on remand, counsel should be appointed for Wrice and that second stage proceedings on the postconviction petition should take place.

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

AFSCME LOCAL 3315

JANUARY 31, 2012 4PM,

2ND FLOOR CAFETERIA, 2650 S. CALIFORNIA

AGENDA

1. ANNOUNCEMENTS

 2. HOLIDAY BOND COURT

 3. PARKING

 4. MEMBER COMMENTS/FEEDBACK

 5. OLD BUSINESS

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. NEXT GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING DATE (04-17-2012) location and time TBD

8. ADJOURNMENT

2011 has been a very tough year for this local, but despite it all, we have met each challenge with strength and resolve.

President P began the year with the FY2011 budget battle that threatened the layoffs of, at one time, some 60 assistant public defenders.  Together, we were able to advocate effectively to prevent layoffs in our office.  Then we voted on whether or not to take 10 furlough days and you the members spoke and rejected  the County’s furlough proposal.  And after  more than 30 months of contract negotiations, we ratified a four year contract with the County that contained a modest wage increase with no change in health care.  Then, for the second time in nine months, we had to fight again to rescind layoff notices that were sent to ten our our attorneys and 27 of our investigators in anticipation of FY2012.  Despite our best efforts, 18 of our support staff were laid off.  And in addition to the highlights above, consider the following list which is by no means complete:

• we participated in the We are One Rally
• we supported our sisters and brothers in Wisconsin
• we held our annual summer party at Castaways
• we held our annual golf outing Eaglewood Resort
• we elected new officers for the 2011-2013 term
• we held general membership meetings at 26th St and Juvenile Court
• we maintained this website and revamped it (like the new look?)
• we maintained a facebook page
• we provided email messages to all members on our burst list (approx 300)
• we fought cuts to pension benefits by lobbying the general assembly
• we met the goal of having one certified steward for every 20 members
• we maintained 100% full membership
• we sent a delegation to the Council 31 State Convention
• we won Council 31′s Winners Circle Award for our superior level of PEOPLE MVP member participation
• we awarded the 27, 28th and 29th Jack Carey Memorial Scholarship
• we conducted a survey of membership

Congratulations to Jason Lee, a DePaul Law student expected to graduate in May, 2012.  Jason is the 29th recipient of the scholarship named in memory of Local 3315′s former president, John T. (“Jack”) Carey.  Jason was awarded the $2500 scholarship for the Spring of 2012 and is currently clerking for brother William Woelkers who is assigned to the Honorable James B. Linn’s courtroom.

As a 711 law student in Judge Linn’s courtroom, Jason has litigated three jury trials, including an Armed Robbery and has also tried four bench trials including Attempt Murder.  He has opened, closed and done both direct and cross of various witnesses in those trials and has participated in voir dire.  In addition, he drafted a motion for JNOV in a natural life, predatory criminal sexual assault case that was GRANTED.

Jason has been volunteering as a clerk  in the office since January of 2011 and put in 40 hours a week during the summer.  In addition to working for Willam Woelkers, he also assisted his partner, Patrick White, filing and arguing motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence and preparing and presenting an alibi witness in an attempt murder case.

On behalf of the Local and the selection committee of the scholarship fund, well done, Jason!