Well, the City of Chicago has done ...

Well, the City of Chicago has done it again. Because the special prosecutor has refused to indict any of the police officers forward Cmdr. Jon Burge's team, we are one time again in the position of having to ask the federal authorities to examine to clean up Chicago. The special prosecutor's report on the same level acknowledges that a number of police officers as a common thing [i]or[/i] matter beat and tortured police suspects. The prosecutor acknowledges that, in a cases, there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction. likewise why won't there be any state prosecutions? Because of the statute of limitations, the report says.

The statute of limitations is a actual flexible doctrine. There are a number of reasons for what cause [i]or[/i] reason a statute of limitations can be atolled -- or stopped. For example, it can be stopped if a defendant escapes the jurisdiction. It can be also be stopped by means of a doctrine known as equitable estoppel. This theory of law says that if the defendant does something to interrupt prosecution, then it's the right thing to do (it's a "consideration of equity") to stop the statute from running and fill out it until the misconduct of the defendant (eg fraudulently concealing his wrongdoing) stops. Are we suppos to believe that near of these police officers didn't win together and decide what to say to the special prosecutor? The special prosecutor unruffled admits that "all police officers refused to talk to us." That happened at chance? There are two ways to go on with that fact: Either their joint "strategy" is another whole of the present day conspiracy to thwart prosecution (and therefore a whole fresh statute starts to run), or the statute none started to run at all until the officers stopped concealing evidence.

Actually, there's a third theory: obstruction of justice, common of the contemporary federal prosecutors' favorite of recent origin tools. Anybody who does something to hurl off an investigation (e.g., lying to the investigators) is guilty of a heinous crime

Then, there's the matter of the grand jury The report says that "we should use the Grand Jury after we had complet our investigation." Forget that, typically, the grand jury is a tool of the investigation. You bring the race involved before the grand jury and order them to divulge all. The public may not be aware that there is no right to remain silent in the face of a grand jury subpoena. You just can't be prosecut in succession what you say about yourself. yet you certainly can be compell to talk about everybody otherwise on the team. How many of these officers were cited for confusion for refusal to talk about things other than their confess acts?

The report equable says that they didn't want to call police witnesses who might then lie to the grand jury because that would be a "perjury trap." I have to remember that undivided the next time I behold a perjury indictment. Isn't that what prosecutors always do? Is there something unethical about giving them a chance to run over the truth and then indicting them if they don't? Then, what about the chest of documents from the state's attorney that didn't plane show up until January of this year?

The point is, you don't scamper a statute of limitations until the famous dome of silence among the police lifts and prosecutors can actually ask any questions about some of this evidence.

common more thing: The report is spiced with conclusions about the "credibility" of the the public claiming torture. I didn't papal court much about the credibility of the police officers. I conception this is what juries are for. Aren't they suppos to decide who's credible: the police, the witnesses, the defendants or maybe just the physical evidence (like photographs of beatings)?

likewise once again, we look to the federal courts to do the work at jobs right. Unfortunately, once again, the City of Chicago talks big yet does nothing.

Leonard L Cavise is a professor of law at DePaul corporation of Law.

Copyright CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 2006

Provided through ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved