Blind and Dangerous Judges

The Chicago Tribune here reports on a local horror story. It was horrible enough that a woman--a wife and mother--employed by Burger King in the Chicago metro area, was murdered in cold blood by a fellow employee, who strangled her to death with her Burger King bow tie last month.

The "suspect" in the killing, James Ealy, was 17 in 1982, out on bond for sexual assault, when he strangled four members of one family: a pregnant woman, a 15-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl, and a 3-year-old boy. He strangled the 3-year-old after he initially molested him sexually, then decided he had to kill him because he might be able to identify Ealy.

Ealy was sentenced to life without parole in 1984. But:

In 1986 the Illinois Appellate Court determined that police detectives had arrested Ealy without probable cause and illegally searched his home.

The judges ruled that evidence found in the search--including pieces of cloth that matched those used to strangle the victims--could not be cited in retrying him.. . .

... the appellate court pointed out that there was enough evidence to conclude Ealy had committed the murders, but the violation of his rights by police required them to throw out his conviction anyway.

Brian Telander, a former prosecutor who tried the original murder case, said the appellate ruling was flawed. And he said he had always feared Ealy might be violent in the future.

Really?

When Ealy's murder conviction was overturned, he was serving a 23-year sentence for a rape. He was paroled in that case in 1993, but was convicted in 1996 of attacking a prostitute on the South Side.

Ealy did confess to the quadruple murder--after 18 hours of questioning and detention. Aside from the confession, however, the case, as the appellate court noted, was still strong enough to convict the murderer and lock him up for life.

Retired Detective Vic Switski was one of the officers who questioned Ealy and searched his apartment. Police were questioning him because he lived in the building and dated one of the victims, and they had an inkling that he might be involved but had no hard evidence, Switski said in an interview Monday.

"I asked him to sign a consent to search his apartment, because we couldn't get a warrant. There wasn't enough [evidence] to search. And he did sign," Switski said. The terms of the consent were narrow and only allowed the detectives to search Ealy's belongings and personal space in the apartment, which he shared with his mother and brother.

"If we were acting improperly we would have tossed the place," he said. "There was nothing rash here. There was a lot of discussion about how to proceed."

Under Ealy's bed, the detectives found a sheet wrapped around some other fabric, including a piece of a torn garment that matched the ligatures removed from the neck of one of the victims, Switski said.

Apparently the appellate thought there wasn't enough probable cause anyway and set him free. Eugene Pincham, one of the judges, was asked about the case. He said he couldn't remember it specifically, but had no regrets. The system is there to protect everyone, he said. Tell that to the latest victim's family.

Sorry to go on with such details. My son is a Chicago policeman, and judges routinely dismiss evidence because they believe probable cause was not there. Fine. You want to protect against police abuse of rights? Makes sense to me. Fine the policeman. Eventually fire him. Fine the city for infractions, and hard. Given enough negative incentives, things might clean up--though in  many, probably most, cases the "no probable cause" escape is a joke and not the fault of the police. But why throw evidence out? Why put a man that everyone knows, even the judges know, is a murderer back on the streets?

Comments

[Bill R]

"But why throw evidence out? Why put a man that everyone knows, even the judges know, is a murderer back on the streets?"

The brutal, but honest answer is that judges rarely have to live with the consequences of their acts. If they lived in neighborhoods brutalized by the men whom they turned loose, the law would change tomorrow. But don't hold your breath: I was asking this same question more than 30 years ago when I was in law school.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

As it was explained to me once, those who populate our courts think of "justice" as a process, not a result. Thus, if all the appropriate procedural boxes and forms are filled out correctly, the result is "justice." Even if killers are set free to kill again....

The defense is always that a person's rights are thus protected by the application of "due process," except of course that the right of a person to be secure in his home and possessions and even his life are not the ultimate goal of such a system. Thus, the Supreme Court can rule that a woman's right to abort her baby is superior to the baby's right to live, and we kill a million babies a year to preserve the process of "choice."

[Joe Long]

Every instinct shouts: "Tall tree, short rope". The judiciary continues to set itself in opposition to every civilized value for the sake of legal esoterica - and the citizenry endures it; what has become of us?

[Daniel C.]

It seems these judges have a great deal of blood on their hands. Since we can't convict them as accessories after the fact, then I hope they never get a decent nights sleep until the day they meet their maker. I hope they are haunted by the dead they helped create. Eugene Pincham is a despicable human being.

[Daniel C.]

"Why put a man that everyone knows, even the judges know, is a murderer back on the streets?" Because these evil judges don't live on those streets, and, like tenured academics, they never have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

Here's an idea: The next time a judge wants to set a murderer free, because that judge's conscience was pricked by how evidence was gathered, release the murderer on the condition that he (or she) lives with the judge.

[LAbriAlumn]

Might it be better to modify the laws in such a fashion that where evidence is illegally obtained, it face closer scruitiny in case of 'planting', and if passed, still be used, yet the officers who broke the law to obtain the evidence be charged as any common citizen (whom they serve) for the crime they committed, such as breaking and entnering, assault and battery, whatever?

[Bill R]

"Might it be better to modify the laws in such a fashion that where evidence is illegally obtained, it face closer scruitiny in case of 'planting', and if passed,.."

Of course. Almost any alternative is better, provided that real evidence can be used against the wrongdoer. But I still remember my Crim Law professor (not just a liberal, but a lefty) who upheld the trashing of real evidence on the ground that that was the only real penalty that would force the police to obey the law--as if we had the power to compel people to do the right thing. It goes back to the belief that human nature is malleable, if only we have the "right" laws. You'd think that more than a generation of failure would make such people rethink their premises, but you'd be wrong.

[Bobby Winters]

There is a nice speech in A Man for All Seasons in which Thomas More talks about the folley of tearing down the laws in pursuit of the Devil. The upshot being that when all of the laws are torn down, what are you going to hide behind when the Devil comes after you?

[Reid]

The resemblance between our judges and the "Pharisees and teachers of the Law" at the time of our Lord is more than a little uncanny, and I believe it deserves some attention (or at least recognition). The New Testament describes them as men who, under the pretense of honoring every jot and tittle of the Law, subverted it entirely. This enabled them to indulge their every fallen, selfish desire while maintaining a reputation for extreme holiness (and enjoying the power and deference accorded holy men in that society). They tithed their garden herbs and made themselves rich by foreclosing widows' mortgages, ignoring the fact that the tithe existed, in part, to supply the needs of widows. They loved gold, so they considered oaths sworn by the gold of the temple binding. The did not love God, so they considered oaths sworn by His temple not binding. They loved receiving gifts but not obeying commandments, so they encouraged men to contribute to the temple to the neglect of their fathers and mothers. They carefully cleaned the outside of the dish while leaving the inside foul.

God gave the Law, among other reasons, to reveal His holiness and goodness and to call His people to be perfect as their heavenly Father was perfect. Instead the Pharisees strained at gnats while swallowing camels whole, twisting the words of the Law until it blessed and sanctified human selfishness and shed no light at all on the character of the God who gave it.

Small wonder that such men, beholding God incarnate, saw no resemblance to the god of their twisted law, and had Him, the true God, murdered as a blasphemer. Small wonder that American judges of today, filled with this same spirit of the Pharisees, happily countenance the mass slaughter of the unborn babies made in God's image.

[Bill R]

Well put, Reid.

Bobby, I've always loved the More quote. Here, however, we really have a law too many, not too few. Somehow, English-speaking lands managed to survive for centuries without such "laws," the effect of which is to punish the public for the constable's mistakes.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Here, however, we really have a law too many, not too few. Somehow, English-speaking lands managed to survive for centuries without such "laws," the effect of which is to punish the public for the constable's mistakes. <<<

Point well taken, but I want a burden put on the State to show the mistake was actually a mistake and not a ruse. There is a reason we have a system of checks and balances. The Judges might be (and certainly appear to be) out of balance at this point, but we have to take the long view.

[Bill R]

"Point well taken, but I want a burden put on the State to show the mistake was actually a mistake and not a ruse. There is a reason we have a system of checks and balances. The Judges might be (and certainly appear to be) out of balance at this point, but we have to take the long view."

And your point is well taken, too, Bobby. But the real point is that the validity of the evidence can be tested separately from the issue of potential police misconduct. Think of it this way: if you really do have a rogue cop, is he "punished" by allowing another rogue (the criminal) to be freed? Ironically, this is likely only to punish the well-meaning, but mistaken policeman. But again, the State is not punished for such misconduct (except in an abstract sense): it is the public. Not the same thing by a long shot!

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

There is no reason to throw out good evidence obtained by an honest procedural mistake as too
often happens. Judges expect mere humans (the police) to somehow ALWAYS be able to operate infallibly. The judiciary also cannot seem to comprehend the gross and crime producing injustice to the victims and the public in their court-concocted cuckoo remedy. All this is just more evidence that once lawyers get behind the bench many become arrogantly blind to their own fallibility.

[Francesca Matthews]

I can certainly understand the rage and anguish of the victim's family! The "justice system" failed them and the victim.

I can understand that judges need to maintain emotional detachment as a form of self-preservation and that they're constrained by laws they're sworn to uphold and can't change, but was there no other avenue than completely commuting Ealy's sentence? At what point does protecting society from a killer trump a procedural error? This wasn't a case of a parking violation! It was inevitable that Ealy would be a serious problem for the rest of his life.

Then there's the situation of convicted rapists and murderers later being absolved by DNA evidence, which underscores that the system also periodically fails the accused.

[S. Lindsay]

All this is just more evidence that once lawyers get behind the bench many become arrogantly blind to their own fallibility.

Sadly, as a lawyer myself, I can say with certainty that the blindness exhibited by many members of my profession to our own fallibility begins well before an appointment to the bench.

[Bobby Winters]

What is the joke about lawyers? 98% make the other 2% look bad.

[Reid]

Bill, thank you for the kind words.

Bill and Bobby, I would argue that unless the society in general and the judges in particular love justice and fear God, unless they see law as a valuable but clumsy means of attaining justice and honoring God, then the courts and the state are bound to commit one wretched injustice after another.

Weakening or strengthening the "due process" protections accomplishes nothing of value when due process merely means dotting the i's and crossing the t's without regard to the justice of the result. Queen Jezebel, wanting to murder Naboth for his vineyard, used the God-given due process of finding two (false) witnesses to say Naboth had blasphemed God. The Pharisees worked carefully to get their witnesses against Christ, and when that failed they still found a way to have Him killed.

In the same way the state will use whatever processes its laws or the courts devise to get the end it wants. The criminal on the street will take advantage of whatever processes exist to commit his crimes with impunity. And the courts will mistake their power for godhood, allowing the murder of the unborn, ordering the murder of Terry Schiavo, redefining sexual perversion as a form of marriage, taking children from their parents, and declaring the most vile wretches not guilty, just as long as the i's are crossed and the t's dotted.

[Bill R]

"Weakening or strengthening the "due process" protections accomplishes nothing of value when due process merely means dotting the i's and crossing the t's without regard to the justice of the result."

This is very true, and is (I believe) well illustrated in a recent Supreme Court decision upholding eminant domain proceedings for matters entirely unrelated to governmental functions, allowing private property to be expropriated for other private (not public) uses, provided that governmental officials believe such taking to be generally beneficial for the community as a whole (i.e., redevelopment). Your property rights are therefore subject to a governmental determination that the latter can do a better job than you can in managing your property. The Terry Schiavo case shows that this attitude may well extend to our bodies as well.

[James A. Altena]

Who was it that wrote, "Hell is full of lawyers, and due process is striclty observed"? :-)

[Reid]

Sounds like Lewis's conception of Hell in the introduction to the Screwtape letters (actually I think he described it as a heavily bureaucratic business office), but I don't recall him making that quote.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>I would argue that unless the society in general and the judges in particular love justice and fear God, unless they see law as a valuable but clumsy means of attaining justice and honoring God, then the courts and the state are bound to commit one wretched injustice after another.
<<<

Agreed.