[Peace-discuss] Judge Ford's Ruling

[John Baldridge]

Judge Ford's Ruling

I, for one, will do my level best to be there.  It would be a fine way to recognize Peace Day.

John.








  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: lori serb 
  To: peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com ; lucylibosha at mchsi.com 
  Cc: herringb at prairienet.org ; trudyv at staff1.cso.uiuc.edu ; dreadheadartist at aol.com ; HCWinCourt at aol.com ; raeann at uiuc.edu ; mikeu at shout.net ; rubyismydog at yahoo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:02 AM
  Subject: [Peace-discuss] Judge Ford's Ruling


   Well, as Thelma said to Louise: "The law is some tricky shit"




  Judge Ford ruled in favor of the City of Champaign. I have a new court date to determine my fine (anywhere from $175-$750).


  Harvey will file a motion on 9/12 disputing the wording in the Judge's statement.


  My new court date is Friday 9/21/03 at 1:30PM in courtroom D (same place). I would like as many supporters as possible to show up and prove this miscarriage of justice is not going unnoticed. Please remember "appropriate" attire: no shorts, halter tops or tank tops allowed in the courtroom.


  Below I have typed out (all grammerical errors intact) the statement from Judge Ford to my lawyer this is public domain and anyone can use any of it to create a story or letter to the editor or whatever.


  Thank you to everyone who has given their time, suggestions, and  good wishes to me since May 3rd. Thank you Harvey Welch for your talents and confidence. Thank you to Kimberlie & Danielle for being organized, diplomatic and legal jargon translators. To Ricky for takin' names and walking into the police station with me in his Malcolm X T-shirt. To Trudy for her colorful commentary and dislike of SUVs. To Randall, Jan, Darryl, & Laura for agreeing to be my star witnesses. Thanks to Paul for puttin' together the IMC piece that will make Arlo a star, and to Jeff for an insightful interview after playin' so much phone tag.
  Thank you to Peter and Rebecca for letting me crash on your couch.


  To Lucy, while many miles away, let's me vent and reminds me that she is still here.


  Thanks to Mike for reminding me I'm human and helping me pick out something nice to wear.


  To April and Muata and Linda for their perspectives, hugs and fantastic vegan food. To Cope for offering to be a character witness. To Grandpa for given 'em a heap o' trouble.


  And to all the members of AWARE who helped with lawyer fees, came to my day in court, asked how I was doing and coping when they saw me at various events and on the street since May 3rd and overall kept me in their thoughts and prayers.


  This is what community means to me.


  Lori




  ORDER:




  On July 18, 2003, a bench trial was had before this court in the above-captioned cause. The City of Champaign appeared by assistant city attorney Rhonda Olds and Robert C. Christopherson, 711 senior law student. The Defendent appeared personally with her attorney Harvey Welch. Cause was had for hearing and evidence heard. On August 1, 2003, the parties filed written closing arguments. The matter was taken under advisement for the Court to rule.

  The Court has considered the evidence presented, arguments of the parties and the law in this matter.

  There are a number of agreed facts in this matter. It has been agreed that there  were two gatherings of demonstrators on North Prospect on May 3, 2003 inside the City of Champaign. The groups had a buffer area between them. It is uncontradicted that two of the demonstrators by what has been designated a "pro-war" group walked over towards the "anti-war" group. One of the demonstrators who came over had a disposible camera and was taking pictures of the "anti-war" persons. When these two came upon the Defendant who was in the "anti-war" group, the Defendant apparently made it clear she did not want her picture taken and hid behind her demonstration sign. One of the subjects who had the camera moved around the sign to take a picture of the Defendant. The Defendant grabbed the camera away from the female subject and punched her in the arm a number of times. The Defendant apparently "ripped" the camera from the "pro-war" demonstrator and was about to or was in the process of stomping the camera.

  It is further uncontradicted that the Champaign police were monitoring the situation and were wearing clothing that identified them as police officers. It is also clear that the Defendant and every other witness who testified knew that the police had a presence at the demonstration.

  This is the point where the evidence conflicts. Champaign police officer Robert Wills testified he noted the altercation between the Defendant and this other woman. He testified he ran up to the scene from behind the Defendant. He testified he identified himself as the police and grabbed the Defendant's right hand. She pulled away and officer Wills grabbed the Defendant again. She again pulled away. the ground they were standing on was not even and they fell. When they were on the ground he advised he was a police officer again. Officer Wills did testify he approached from the backside of the Defendant but at the time of contact with the Defendant he was on her side.

  Officer Jon Swenson was also at the scene. He came running behind officer Wills. He testified that as they reached the females he was a few feet behind officer Wills and heard officer Wills announce, "police." He testified he saw officer Wills grab the Defendant's arm and again heard the announcement of "police." He testified that he was about five feet away from officer Wills at that time. He also testified as to the Defendant pulling away and officer Wills and the Defendant falling to the ground.

  Officer Chad Shipley was approximately ten feet behind officer Wills running towards the fight. He also saw officer Wills try to grab control of the Defendant.

  The Defendant testified that a person came up to her and took her picture over the Defendant's objection. The Defendant testified she then grabbed the person's camera and stomped on it three times. She testified she was tackled from behind, felt a sharp pain in the middle of her back, which was probably from a knee or an object, and did not know who had made contact with her. She testified then she fell down to the grass. The Defendant testified she did not hear anyone say "police".

  Darryl Kruse testified he was in the same group as the Defendant. He testified he saw the struggle over the camera which was about five to eight feet away from him. He saw the officer get out of the car at Tires Plus and run towards the altercation. He saw the officer make a running tackle from behind and the Defendant hit the ground. Mr. Kruse testified that the Defendant was facing towards  him at the time. He testified that he didn't hear the officer say anything. Upon questioning by the Court, he stated that after the officer tackled the Defendant the were still five to eight feet away from him.

  Laura Haber testified that she saw the Defendant grab the camera. The camera was then on the ground. She saw the Defendant start to stomp on it. She testified that she was about eight feet away from the Defendant at her side. She testified that a man in a yellow shirt came running at the Defendant at full speed and tackled her from behind.

  The Defendant fell face first. She testified that when the Defendant and the officer were on the ground she was about two feet away. She testified that she saw the officer running and she moved closer.

  Randall Cotton testified that he ran to the area of disturbance and saw the Defendant breaking away onto the grass to stomp on a camera in the grass. He testified he saw three officers running "full bore" from the north towards the Defendant and that the Defendant was facing southbound. He testified he did not see the incident when the officer came in contact with the Defendant but about two seconds later he saw the Defendant facedown on the ground. He testified he was about five feet away and did not hear the officer say anything. He testified he did not see any tackle or hear any comments from the officer.

  Jan Kruse testified she heard a commotion and saw the Defendant and a woman in a struggle. She stated she looked to the right and saw an officer had knocked the Defendant to the ground and had his knee in her back. She did not see the contact or hear the officer  say anything to the Defendant.
  The above is the main evidence necessary to decide this matter, The city charge claims that the Defendant:

  "did knowingly resist the performance by an individual known to the Defendant to be a peace officer for the City of Champaign, namely: officer Robert Wills of an authorized act within his official authority, namely: breaking up a physical altercation, by pulling away from said officer in the 1800 block of North Prospect Avenue, Champaign, Illinois,S"

  There is no question that officer Wills was a peace officer for the City of Champaign. There is no question that officer Wills was acting within his authority. The Defendant has not claimed that he was not. It is clear that the Defendant had committed a theft, or theft from the person and was in the mist of committing a criminal damage to property. Of course, she has not been charged with any of those violations. The matter was in the 1800 block of North Prospect Avenue in Champaign. There is a dispute as to whether the Defendant pulled away from the officer depending on which version is believed. The only other issue is whether the Defendant knew officer Wills to be a peace officer for the City of Champaign. The burden of the City is to prove the elements of the offense by a clear preponderance of the evidence.

  Aside from the Defendant, all the Defendant's witnesses testified that the officer came running from behind towards the Defendant. The evidence is clear that the officer came from the parking lot, ran through that and into the grassy area. The Defendant's witnesses testified that the Defendant was tackled from behind by an officer who was running at "full speed" or "full bore." The Defendant testified that she felt a sharp pain in the middle of her back. The Defendant and a few others testified that the Defendant landed on her face. Ms. Haber testified that she was on the side of the Defendant and that the Defendant ended up closer to her after she was tackled by the officer who was running full speed. Mr. Kruse testified  the Defendant was no closer to him after the Defendant was tackled from behind by the officer than before she was tackled from behind by the officer. He testified the Defendant was facing him before she was tackled from behind. All the testimony shows that before contact by the officer she was in process of stomping on a disposable camera. There is no evidence that the Defendant is an immovable object. One could imagine the scenario where the Defendant, being tackled from behind "at the knees" might go straight down although the upper part of her body would fall forward. However, the Defendant testified the sharp pain was in the middle of her back. All the testimony from the defense witnesses was that the officer was running "full speed" or "full bore" when he hit the Defendant and tackled her. From the defense facts, the laws of physics dictate that they had to move forward toward Mr. Kruse. The Defendant's witnesses testified that that did not happen.

  All the officers testified they came up running from behind. Officer Wills testified that when he got to the Defendant  he was at her side and grabbed her right hand . That she pulled away and he grabbed again. That the footing was uneven and they fell to the ground. It is uncontadicted they were in a grassy area. That the officers at the Defendant's side pulling at her arm and she's pulling away her momentum is going towards her left side to pull away from the officer he is trying to pull her towards her right side. Depending upon how he grabs hold of her, which way she's pulling and he's pulling, they could fall straight down, to the side, forward or backward.

  None of the Defendant's witnesses nor the Defendant heard officer Wills say "Police." He recalls saying it once as he attempted to grab the Defendant's right hand. Officer Swenson recalled him saying it then and second time before they fell to the ground. If the officer is at the Defendant's right side reaching for her right hand he is basically by the Defendant's right ear. Officer Swenson is right behind him, maybe by five feet. None of the Defendant's witnesses testify that they are closer than that at that point in time.

  When you consider the placement and positioning of the witnesses, their credibility, physics, and logic of the situation, it is much more probable than not that the officer did not "tackle" the Defendant to prevent her from stomping on a disposable camera and leave his back exposed and himself on the ground in the midst of an anti-war demonstration. It is much more probable than not that the officer reached to grab the Defendant. It is very likely from the footing and the situation that the Defendant and the officer stumbled. Officer Wills was in a position to know what he said and officer Swenson was right behind him. It is more probable than not that officer Wills announced himself as "Police."

  The question remains as to whether officer Wills was known to the Defendant to be a peace officer. Since the Court believes the testimony of officer Wills that he announced himself, the evidence further shows that he would have been right at the Defendant's right ear when he made that statement. You cannot expect more from the peace officer. If the officer was not known to the Defendant to be a peace officer, it is because the Defendant did not want to know it.

  Wherefore, the Court finds that the City has proven by a clear preponderance of evidence that the Defendant committed the offense of Resisting/Obstructing a Peace Officer as stated in the complaint filed June 20, 2003.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030911/5bc06142/attachment.htm