© U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of investigation Washington, D.C. 20535 November 12019 411A HIGHLAND AVE DEPT MR 61208 SOMERVILLE, MA 02144 sor. 001 Civ Action Number 1-10-0v-4048 FOPA Request No: 1417740000 Subject BURGE, JON GRAHAM Dear Me. Ader: The enclosed documents wee reviewed under the Freedom of InformationPrivacy Acts (FOIPA), Tie 5. United States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you wil ind checked boxes. under appicable stades for to exemptions asserted to protect information exe fom scours. The propriate exemptions re holed on the processed pages not redacted oman. In acon, a Geleed page oration shee was seed o nate hers pages were wihed analy pus. 10 appicablo xemprons. An Explanation of Exemplon s ncised 10 Tuner expan siicaton fr wibhas formation Section52 Sectionssza I~ ®X) I~ OA (as) I oe I ome) roe me) F ®m©) wi Rule bl), Federal Rules of I emo) I ®@ Criminal Procedure ©ImO) we 18U5.C. 835030) oC) 0 50 U.S.C. § 3024()(1] I~ OXF) a) ee I woe we I~ ®)X5) Xo) we) ¥ ®Xe) wm 502 pages were reviewed and 340 page are boing eased: Please see the paragraphs below or relevant information speci to you request and the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for standard responses appicaief ll rests. T™ Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other ‘Government Agency es) OGA I” This information has been referred to the GAs) fo review and direct response 10 you. I We are consuting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information When he consutaton s completed Please rf tothe enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for acdional standard responses aplcabie 10 your oquest “Part 1 of th Addendum includes standard responses that appy To al rocuists “Par 2 ncuds aitional standard responses tat app 10 all equess fof records on nikal. “Part 3 nciodes gonral information about FBI records that you may find useful. Alo anciose four Explanation of Exemptions Although your request is in litigation, we are required by law to provide you the following information: You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of Justice, Sixth Floor, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following website: https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified. Please direct any further inquiries about this case to the Attorney representing the Government in this matter. Please use the FOIPA Request Number and/or Civil Action Number in all correspondence or inquiries concerning your request. See additional information which follows. Sincerely, David M. Hardy Section Chief Record/Information Dissemination Section Information Management Division Enclosures: In response to your FOIA request and subsequent civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Distrcit of Illinois (Chicago Division), the enclosed documents contain records Bates Stamped 19-cv-4048(FBI)-1 through 19-cv-4048(FBI)-502, which represents the FBI’s first interim release of responsive informantion. All material in this case in being provided to you at no charge. To minimize costs to both you and the FBI, duplicate copies of the same document were not processed. For your additional information, a record that may be responsive to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request has been transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). You may desire to direct a request to NARA, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Please reference the file number 44-HQ-55456. For your information, a search of the indices to our Central Records System reflected there were additional records potentially responsive to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request. We have attempted to obtain this material so it could be reviewed to determine whether it was responsive to your request. We were advised that the potentially responsive records were not in their expected location and could not be located after a reasonable search. Following a reasonable waiting period, another attempt was made to obtain this material. This search for the missing records also met with unsuccessful results. FBI FOIPA Addendum As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA Addendum includes information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. Part 2 includes additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records on individuals. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records. For questions regarding Parts 1, 2, or 3, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.” Previously mentioned appeal and dispute resolution services are also available at the web address. Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests: (i) 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2006 & Supp. IV (2010)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements of the FOIA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website. (ii) National Security/Intelligence Records. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of national security and foreign intelligence records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and PA exemption (j)(2) as applicable to requests for records about individuals [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2); 50 U.S.C § 3024(i)(1)]. The mere acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption (b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC § 3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that national security or foreign intelligence records do or do not exist. Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals: (i) Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or do not exist. (ii) Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist. Part 3: General Information: (i) Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by searching those systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A reasonable search normally consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled and maintained by the FBI in the course of fulfilling law enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization and encompasses the records of FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ), FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide and includes Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) records. For additional information about our record searches visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records. (ii) FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on every person, subject, or entity. (iii) Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheets. These criminal history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks. Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please contact CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590. (iv) The National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private citizens cannot request a name check. EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552 (b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order; (b)(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; (b)(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; (b)(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; (b)(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; (b)(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; (b)(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or (b)(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells. SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a (d)(5) information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding; (j)(2) material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or apprehend criminals; (k)(1) information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods; (k)(2) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(3) material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056; (k)(4) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records; (k)(5) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence; (k)(6) testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process; (k)(7) material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence. FBI/DOJ 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 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 .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 "V a 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- 449llection 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 Cu7?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,