[Peace-discuss] Judge Ford's Ruling

[lori serb]

  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,Š"

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/d1a697c7/attachment.html