[Peace-discuss] STAY STRONG - Thompson trial update

[Brian Dolinar]

Second Hearing in Post-Trial Motion for Patrick Thompson
By Brian Dolinar

On February 7, 2007, attorneys Robert Kirchner and Ruth Wyman called
five people to the stand in attempt to further build the case that
Patrick Thompson has received ineffective counsel and has not  been
given a fair trial.  In July 2006, Thompson was found guilty by a jury
with no evidence and no witnesses.  He is now facing 6-30 years in
prison.  After the guilty verdict, Thompson fired his attorney Harvey
Welch and hired Robert Kirchner, who filed a motion for a re-trial.
On January 4, six witnesses testified and a second hearing on February
7 brought several others to the stand.  They included: the accuser, a
co-worker at Provena Bessie Sissney (previously Bessie Ann Slack),
Urbana Officer Duane Maxey, Thompson's previous attorney Harvey Welch,
and Patrick Thompson himself.

In the courtroom were 20-30 of Patrick Thompson's supporters, although
several late-comers were kept out of the courtroom due to the
enforcement of more restrictive courtroom policies.  Thanks go out to
students from the STOP coalition on campus for coming down to the
courthouse.  Also in the courtroom was Randy Rosenbaum, in charge of
the Public Defender's office, who watched on the entire day.  Mary
Schenk, writer for the News-Gazette, sat in the front row and nodded
off to sleep occasionally during the afternoon.  The accuser was
supported by her mother and several women from the Rape Crisis Center.

The Accuser

To start the day off, Special Prosecutor Michael Vujovich had
attempted to quash a subpoena served to the accuser.  It was rejected
by Judge Clem because it was filed too late.  The accuser then had to
take the stand.  The accuser recounted the events of August 24, 2004,
the day of the alleged incident.  She again stated she arrived to work
late between 7:10 and 7:15.  This is in conflict with Tarrence Ware's
statements on January 4 that the accuser was at work before 7 a.m. and
was laughing and joking like nothing happened.  Kirchner then asked
the accuser if she had told Urbana Officer Hediger that she had
"screamed" and "yelled" to fight off her assailant.  She said, "Yes."

Kirchner asked the accuser if she was the defendant in a criminal case
against her on August 24, 2004, the date of the alleged incident, and
she answered "No."  Kirchner was referring to a small claims case
where the accuser had been sued for several thousand dollars that she
owed (Case file no. 03-CO-1027).  A warrant for her arrest was issued
on August 11, 2004 and was quashed just two days after the alleged
incident, August 26, 2004.

The accuser was also asked about other pending charges against her at
the time when she testified against Thompson in the first trial.
Kirchner questioned her about charges of child endangerment on June 9,
2005 (Case file no. 05-CM-897).  A MTD bus driver had found the
accuser's child out in the middle of the street and called the police.
 The charges were dropped on September 9, 2005, after the accuser had
testified against Thompson six weeks earlier.  When asked why the
charges were dropped, the accuser said, "Because I didn't do
anything."  It was Urbana police who had filed charges for child
endangerment, the same police department who had failed to investigate
the accuser's apartment on August 24, 2004.

A charge of operating an uninsured vehicle was also pending against
the accuser and was dropped weeks after she testified (Case file no.
05-TR-06586).  When questioned about it, the accuser acted ignorant of
the charges.

Kirchner then turned to the events of August 24, 2004.  He asked the
accuser if it was true that she told Urbana Officer Michael Hediger
that Thompson had followed her from the laundry room where she was
picking up her clothes.  The accuser said, "Yes."  This is in direct
conflict with the accuser's other statements that she was first
approached in her apartment.

When asked if she was "yelling" and "screaming" after she was
allegedly attacked in her apartment, the accuser said "Yes."  When
asked if she continued yelling, her answer was "Yes."  Again, this is
in contradiction with her testimony during the second trial in July
2006 that she was "not a yeller" and only speaking above her normal
voice.  No neighbors reported to the police that they heard anything
that morning.

Vujovich questioned the accuser whether she had been offered any
promises by him or by the State's Attorney for her testimony and she
said, "No."

Bessie Ann Slack

Next to testify was Bessie Sissney, formerly Bessie Ann Slack.  Bessie
worked as a secretary at Provena at the time of the alleged incident.
She admitted to speaking to Urbana Officer Duane Maxey but says she
did not overhear anything between Arlene Medford and the accuser on
August 24, 2004.

Officer Duane Maxey

Urbana Officer Duane Maxey testified that on September 1, 2005 he
spoke with Bessie Ann Slack about a conversation she overheard between
Arlene Medford and the accuser.  Questioned whether he had written in
his report whether Bessie Ann Slack had overheard a conversation where
the accuser said she was "being cornered in a laundry room," he said,
"Words to that effect, yes."  Questioned whether the location of the
encounter was the laundry room, Maxey said, "Yes."  Again, in other
testimony the accuser makes no mention of this laundry room encounter
and says that the entire encounter occurred in her apartment.

Harvey Welch

Thompson's attorney in the second trial, Harvey Welch, was called to
testify.  [Thompson defended himself in the first trial, July 2005,
and hired Welch for the second trial, July 2006.]  Kirchner pressed
Welch on several issues of his trial strategy.  Welch verified that he
had been practicing law for 26 years, pursuing criminal work since
1986, and is currently a Public Defender in Ford County.  He confirmed
that on October 19, 2005 he was hired by Thompson, nine months before
the trial.  Asked if he was unable to defend Thompson within the given
time limit, he said, "No."  Kirchner asked Welch if he was familiar
with the original phone call the accuser made to 9-11 and if he knew
of the accuser's claim that her assailant had followed her from the
laundry room, he said, "Yes."  Kirchner asked if Welsh had defended
cases of home invasion and the answer was, "Yes."  Why then did he not
offer defense against home invasion by bringing up the encounter in
the laundry room?  Welch said these were third-hand statements and he
chose not to pursue that line of questioning.  Why did he not bring up
contradictory statements?  Welch said the witnesses also would have
made more sexual comments about fondling and that would be bad.  Welch
agreed that the accuser's credibility was essential.  But he could not
answer why he did not pursue the numerous inconsistent statements.

Asked if he talked with Arlene Medford or Bessie Ann Slack, Welch
answered "No."

In the January 4 post-trial hearing, Thompson spoke about a finger
splint.  When Welch was asked if he had known about such a splint,
Welch said "Yes, he made me aware of it."  Welch says Thompson told
him the splint was removable so he did not pursue it.  "It would do as
much harm as good," Welch said.  Asked if he was aware that the
accuser never mentioned the splint, Welch acknowledged she never did.

Kirchner asked Welch if he knew about Thompson's previous convictions
of drug trafficking and he said, "Yes."  Welch was asked if he ever
filed a motion of eliminate to prevent prior charges from being
admitted and he said, "No."  Welch admitted that because of the events
of the first trial, he did not pursue certain strategies during the
second trial.

Welch also said he had not spoken to Patrick's wife Maria Thompson,
but then said that he had talked to the two of them together.
Kirchner asked if he had spoken to Maria about the morning of August
24 and whether she had an alibi.  Welch said, "No."  Asked when the
first time he knew about Maria Thompson's whereabouts, Welch said the
first day of the trial.  Welch confirmed that Vujovich had no
objection to calling Maria Thompson to the stand but said, "It would
be more harmful than helpful."  Welch said an alibi is the last resort
in a defense, especially when from family or a friend.

Welch was asked if he ever questioned Tarrence Ware and he replied,
"No."  Ware testified on January 4 that the accuser was on time at
work on August 24, 2004 and was acting normal.  Welch said he did not
find Ware's testimony credible.  Welch could not explain why the
testimony of other co-workers the prosecution had brought was
admissible, but Ware's was not credible.

Welch also tried to explain why he did not call several other people,
such as a babysitter who the accuser spoke to and saw before work, or
the accuser's boyfriend Anthony Bates, who the accuser says told her
she should call the police.

Kirchner then questioned Welch about why he did not raise more
objections in the trial.  Welch had only raised 2-3 objections during
the entire trial.  Welch said it was a matter of style.

Vujovich cross-examined Welch about his 26 years of experience.  Welch
named off over a dozen counties he had worked in and the countless
number cases he had tried.  While Vujovich was trying to establish
Welch's expertise, it became clear throughout the day that Welch
handles so many cases that he cannot dedicate his full attention to
any one case.  Like many local lawyers in Champaign County, they take
on too many cases, do the absolute minimum of work, and then cash
their checks.

Patrick Thompson

Patrick Thompson took the stand for the first time and was questioned
by attorney Ruth Wyman.  Judge Clem again stated how this post-trial
motion was "something of an unusual posture" but allowed to
proceedings to continue.  Wyman asked Thompson if Welch ever asked
about what happened on August 24, 2006 and Thompson said, "No."  Welch
had said that Thompson would do a good job testifying because of how
well he had defended himself in the first trial.  Asked why he did not
then testify, Thompson said he was worried about his prior
convictions.  Asked why he did not testify in the first trial,
Thompson said he was not a legal expert and did not know how to
testify in a pro se case.  Additionally, prosecutor Elizabeth Dobson
had a second charge from another man named Patrick Thompson in Alabama
which she had threatened to use against him.

Thompson's supporters say that Elizabeth Dobson had played a role in
both the charges of felony eavesdropping and the charges of sexual
abuse and home invasion, all of which transpired in August 2004.  They
say this is evidence that the State was using the courts to put a stop
to Thompson's political activism.

Wyman asked Thompson about the events on the morning of August 24,
2004.  Thompson said he awoke at before 6 a. m., showered, spoke to
his wife, and was hurrying to get to Parkland College, where he is a
student, to beat the lines at the college bookstore because it was the
first day or two of classes.  He denied ever leaving the apartment or
ever having contact with the accuser.

Thompson then explained why he did not call his wife, Maria Thompson,
to testify in the first trial when he defended himself.  He said he
did not want his wife cross-examined by Vujovich because it would
allow him to delve into their relationship and ask about personal
matters.  Wyman asked if this was the same reason she did not testify
in the second trial and he said, "Yes."  Thompson said that Welch had
never told him about "spousal privilege," the case law for blocking
this line of questioning.

Thompson explained the finger splint he was wearing at the time of the
alleged incident and said he did not take it off in the shower or at
night and kept it tightly wrapped in tape.  He confirmed that he had
told Welch about the splint, but said he was never asked anything more
about it.

Special Prosecutor Vujovich then cross-examined Thompson.  Although he
was clearly agitated by Vujovich asking him several of the same
questions repeatedly, Thompson remained calm, cool, and collected.

Wyman then clarified with Thompson, if it were not for his prior
conviction, would he have testified in the first trial?  He said
"Yes."  If Welch would have filed a motion eliminae to prevent the
prosecution from raising his prior convictions, would he have
testified in the second trial?  He said "Yes."

Attorneys Kirchner and Wyman have 14 days to complete a written final
argument and Vujovich has 14 days to respond.  After those are
submitted, Judge Clem will set a date and deliver a decision that will
either send Thompson to prison or reverse the guilty verdict.

Lastly, due to the poor road conditions in Chicago, Chairman Fred
Hampton, Jr. could not make it to town for the scheduled press
conference.  Yet he may be able to come down for a future date.  His
final message to myself and to the activist community was, "STAY
STRONG."

-- 
Brian Dolinar, Ph.D.
303 W. Locust St.
Urbana, IL 61801
briandolinar at gmail.com