With the growing number of exonerations in
recent years, it is obvious that Illinois has seen more than its
share of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and given
long prison sentences or the death penalty by our courts. When
those convictions and sentences were handed down, law enforcement
and prosecutors celebrated the virtues of the criminal-justice
system.
It is now becoming more common to read about
the angry reaction of those same prosecutors and law-enforcement
officials to evidence that the initial convictions they obtained
may be wrong. When these prosecutors continue to pursue individuals
despite such new evidence, it can result in what author Thomas
Frisbie calls the “Prosecution Complex,” which he
describes as “a mind-set that spurs some prosecutors, police
officers, and judges across the country to pursue convictions at
all costs in high-profile cases while settling for light sentences
in lesser crimes that don’t generate publicity. . . . The
Prosecution Complex leads police officers to tell a witness whom to
pick out of a lineup. It encourages assistant state’s
attorneys to make deals with dubious snitches or suppress
information that would help a defendant. It assures expert
witnesses that it’s all right to fudge test results. It
pushes judges to ignore the law if adhering to it would help a
defendant too much.” In those instances, prosecutors continue
with no apparent constraints or accountability to pursue the
defendant despite evidence to the contrary.
It is this mindset that was at work in the
case of Rolando Cruz, who was tried time after time for the murder
of young Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County in 1983. The retrials
occurred despite ample evidence that Cruz did not commit the crime
and after a convicted murderer, Brian Dugan, confessed to the
crime. Through the efforts of many, including local attorney
Michael Metnick and investigator Bill Clutter, Cruz’s
conviction was overturned and he was fully exonerated by former
Gov. George Ryan.
It is this mindset that is characterizing the
case of Julie Rea-Harper in Lawrenceville. Rea-Harper was convicted
of killing her 10-year old son, Joel, in 1997 despite the absence
of any physical evidence tying her to the crime. Shortly after
Rea-Harper began serving a 65-year sentence, students at the
University of Illinois at Springfield, working with Clutter and the
Downstate Innocence Project, helped unearth ample evidence of her innocence, including
a confession to Joel’s murder by serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells,
who is on death row in Texas. When Rea-Harper’s conviction was
overturned by the courts on procedural grounds in May 2004, it was
assumed that the new evidence, particularly Sell’s confession,
would be sufficient for prosecutors to take another look at the case.
It was assumed that prosecutors would at least attempt to get DNA
results of critical evidence. Instead — in a classical example of
tunnel vision and the Prosecution Complex — prosecutors
immediately went into court to pursue a new indictment and another
trial for Rea-Harper.
It is this mindset that leads prosecutors to
continue to resist efforts to release Herb Whitlock, who was
convicted along with Randy Steidl in the killing of Dyke and Karen
Rhoads in 1986 in Paris. The federal courts overturned
Steidl’s conviction last year because of a lack of evidence
to sustain the initial court judgment. When faced with the decision
to retry him on what the federal court found was suspect evidence,
prosecutors were forced to back off from pursuing a new trial.
However, when faced with a challenge to the continuing
incarceration of Whitlock, and even though the same evidence was
used to convict both men, prosecutors chose to resist his request
for either release or a retrial.
Recently another court challenge, directly
tied to the Steidl and Whitlock cases, took place. Illinois State
Police Lt. Michale Callahan filed a lawsuit against his superiors
for moving him out of an investigative role and into a patrol
position after he requested the authority to pursue leads that
could have proved Steidl and Whitlock’s innocence. Callahan
believed that a prominent Edgar County businessman, who may
have had ties to the mob and who contributed substantial funds to Ryan
and other state politicians, might be linked to the crimes. Callahan
sued his superiors for retaliatory action and in federal court in
Champaign won an important jury decision for both actual and punitive
damages against two of his ISP supervisors.
This brings us to the actions of ISP Director
Larry Trent. Given the court decision, Illinois citizens would hope
that the director would express some concern that an injustice was
done to Callahan and that disciplinary action would be taken
against any officers under his command who engage in such behavior.
Instead, Trent chose to condemn the verdict and attack Callahan. In
an e-mail he sent to his staff, he even asked them all to wear
their official uniforms on a designated day in a show of support
for those officers who had just been found liable for misconduct by
the jury.
Illinois has enough experience and knowledge
with innocence cases to know that something must be done to hold
these prosecutors and law-enforcement officers accountable. A few
years ago the Illinois Supreme Court implemented a new rule that it
is the duty of a prosecutor to pursue justice and not just victory.
The time has come to hold all representatives of the state who
participate in the legal system to this standard. If Trent cannot
accept this principle, perhaps it is time for him to look for a new
profession.
This article appears in May 19-25, 2005.
