Three Cops Versus An Entire Community

Nearly a year ago, on March 30, 2007, when a 17 year-old black youth was stopped in Douglass Park, pepper sprayed, and sent to the hospital by Champaign police, it put the issue of police brutality in the spotlight just two weeks before an election for several seats on the Champaign City Council. The incident occurred down the street from the home of Gina Jackson, the only African American on City Council member and representative from the Douglass Park district, who was holding a Democratic Party social that fateful Friday night. She as well as City Council member Michael LaDue saw the aftermath of the event.

The incident was quickly swept under the rug by the local media, assisted by the comments of Jackson herself who at the City Council meeting following the incident stated, “racial profiling exists. It always has and it always will.” During the election on April 15, Latino Councilman Giraldo Rosales, who had been pushing for a police review board in Champaign, was voted out and the City Council shifted to the right. Three months later, the Champaign City Council voted down any future discussion about a police review board, against the recommendations of their own Human Relations Commission.

The trial of Brian Chesley, the 17 year-old charged with two misdemeanors for resisting and obstructing a peace officer, began on March 25, 2008 and ended four days later with a guilty verdict on both counts. A rotating group of 40-50 community members sat through portions of the trial in support of Chesley. Attorneys Bob Kirchner and Ruth Wyman took the case pro bono. They called 14 witnesses, most of them youth from ages 9 to 18, and all of them African American. The trial depended on who a jury would believe—three Champaign police officers or an entire community.

The trial started with the selection of an all-white jury. Of 46 potential jurors, only one was African American. During the questioning of jurors, attorney Ruth Wyman asked each individual what kinds of social groups and organizations they were members of and if they had any contact with African American youth. Most all of the white prospective jurors said they had no such interaction. It was predictable whose story they would believe.

The Police

First to testify for the prosecution was Andre Davis, the Champaign police officer who first attempted to stop Chesley. He was questioned by Assistant State’s Attorney Rob Scales, representing the office of Julia Rietz, up for re-election in November 2008. Officer Davis, a African American officer who has been with the Champaign Police department for three years and served seven years in the U.S. Navy, explained his reasoning for stopping Chesley. He said he parked in the circle drive in front of the Douglass Park library and gymnasium at approximately 8:30 p.m. to sort out some paperwork. Davis testified that he saw no one else, just two subjects walking through the park (the second individual he never identified). The park closed at dusk and he said he could have arrested them for trespassing. He also said he was not aware of any activities taking place at the gym that night.

Davis exited the vehicle, shined a flashlight on the two, and asked them to stop. According to Davis, Chesley said, “Fuck y’all. I ain’t got to do shit. You ain’t running me. I just left the open gym,” and accelerated his pace. Davis radioed for back up. After Chesley had crossed the street and was on the sidewalk, officers Justus Clinton and Shannon Bridges pulled up and confronted him. Davis saw the two officers struggling with Chesley and joined them in handcuffing him. Afterwards, when Chesley had to be taken to the hospital, Davis rode with him in the ambulance and, without an attorney present, asked Chesley why he didn’t he stop. Chesley said he was pissed off because he was hit in the face at the gym.

Under cross-examination by Bob Kirchner, officer Davis admitted that he had been instructed during police briefing to stop individuals, obtain their information, check for warrants, and enter the incident into a database. Davis said this was a “customary practice,” he had the right to stop “anyone” in the North district, and this was not based on color or nationality. Kirchner questioned Davis why he did not write anything about trespassing in his police report. Davis admitted that he never told Chesley he was trespassing and that he stopped Chesley because, “I wanted to know why he was in the park.” When Kirchner attempted to ask Davis whether the police were maintaining a database on African American youth, Judge John R. Kennedy, who denied the wide majority of Kirchner’s motions, refused this line of inquiry.

Witnesses would later testify that the gym was open until 11 p.m. and that there were people coming and going from playing basketball. They described approximately 50-60 youth inside the gym. It was one of the first warm nights of spring and there were 15-20 kids in the park that night in front of the library, on benches, and on the outdoor basketball court. Kirchner pressed Davis as to why he selectively stopped Chesley. The question went unanswered. How were youth expected to leave the gymnasium if all of the surrounding park area was closed at dusk?

Officers Shannon Bridges and Justus Clinton, both white, followed Davis on the stand. They detailed how they drove up 5th Street in a squad car and turned onto Tremont, where they saw Chesley on the sidewalk, across the street from the park. Bridges got out of the car and asked Chesley to stop. Chesley refused to stop and continued walking. Bridges then grabbed Chesley’s right arm and put it behind his back in a move called a “chicken wing.” According to her, Chesley “squared up” and took a defensive stance. Speaking in euphemisms, she said that she “secured” Chesley on a fence, but he fought back. By that time, officer Clinton had grabbed his left arm. Next, Bridges described officer Clinton putting Chesley in a “bear hug” and “assisting” him to the ground—the middle of Tremont street approximately 10 feet away. Bridges also confirmed that, due to recent criminal and drug activity, police were instructed to check IDs on individuals who had not committed, were not committing, and were not believed to be about to commit any crimes, and enter them into a database.

The Community

The African American youth who were in the park that night gave a different account of what happened. Due to their fear of retaliation from the police, we have chosen not to publish their full names. Among them were: Miguel, JJ, Jeremiah, Kermaine, Reyanna, Tashonda, Devon, Paris, Alicia, Alinda, Naysa. Community leaders Terry Townsend and Patricia Avery, also testified. As attorney Ruth Wyman stated in her opening argument, this trial pitted those who were professional witnesses against ordinary people who were “not polished, because they are not.”

Miguel, who was 15 at the time, and J.J. who was 8 years old, both testified on the stand that they were playing basketball with Chesley at the Douglass Park gymnasium as part of a Mission 180 program that was held every Friday night until 11 p.m. The three of them were leaving the gym to go to the “Arab,” a convenience store at 4th and Tremont, and then take little J.J. home. They said police stopped Chesley, pushed him into a fence, picked him up, and slammed him face first onto the concrete in the street. Chesley was not fighting back. They didn’t know what he was being arrested for.

While officer Bridges described Chesley as being “assisted” to the ground, others who testified said that police: “jumped him,” “tackled him down,” “piled up on him,” “stacked on top of him,” “were brutally beating him,” “whooping him,” and “manhandling him.” Two witnesses said police pepper sprayed Chesley three times. Another said the smell of pepper spray was “real strong.” All heard Chesley screaming out repeatedly that he couldn’t breath, but said police would not get off of him. Young J.J. said that his friend Brian, “looked dead.” Miguel thought the same until police picked him up. “He was wobbling,” Miguel described, “he couldn’t hold himself up.”

All the defense’s witnesses, children and adults, said Chesley was bleeding from his nose and mouth. Patricia Avery was at the Democratic Party social and went outside after one of the neighborhood kids ran to Gina Jackson’s house. Upon arriving, she saw Chesley bleeding, a large crowd with people taking pictures, and police forming a barricade around him.

Upon rebuttal by prosecutor Scales, Champaign City Council member Gina Jackson was called to testify. Jackson, a retired military officer, said what she saw was only mucous, not blood. In his closing argument, Scales used her comments to discredit the testimony of numerous others who said they saw blood, repeatedly referring to her as “Councilwoman Jackson.” It was dark, said Scales, and people were mistaken. Judge Kennedy nodded in agreement.

Friends who knew him described Chesley as a good kid, never involved in fights, and always playing basketball. Reyanna said he was “pretty cool.” Paris said he was friends with everybody, he had “no mouth, never fights or argues.” His girlfriend at the time said, “He don’t start nothing.”

Chesley decided to take the stand and testified that he heard Davis instruct him to stop, but told the officer, “I didn’t do nothing wrong.” He described getting his hoodie stuck on the fence when he was thrown against it. In reaching to get his hood unstuck, it appears police thought he was fighting back. Chesley described being “lifted up” and slammed to the ground with his chest and face hitting the pavement. He said his arm was pinned underneath him and he couldn’t move it because police had a knee in his back. He said he was never told that he was under arrest or what he was being arrested for.

Throughout the trial, Judge Kennedy overruled many of the defense’s objections, but the judge’s biases were most apparent in his severe limiting of the instructions given to the jury. Claims of racial profiling, selective enforcement of law, insufficient evidence for a Terry stop, all these were denied. Kirchner claimed he was left with virtually no defense, that he must be able to argue that the stop was not an authorized act.

Barred from considering the basis of the stop, the jury returned after three hours of deliberation with a guilty verdict.

A Broken System

Before the trial, Judge Kennedy ruled against a motion by Kirchner that the public could freely come and go from the courtroom. Such a motion should not be necessary because the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a public trial. Kennedy denied the motion and ruled that only during recess or between witnesses could the public enter the courtroom. Subsequently, numerous individuals were turned away by bailiffs. The public was denied access to a public trial. Judge Kennedy repeatedly referred to Chesley’s supporters as “spectators,” a term which Dr. Evelyn Underwood, president of the Ministerial Alliance and associate minister of Free Baptist Church, took offense at. “I’m tired of being called a spectator,” she said. “The government works for us. This is my judicial branch.”

Reverend Jerome Chambers, president of the Champaign County chapter of the NAACP, said, “My disappointment is largely in the travesty of a broken system that is in dire need of repair.”

Those who worry about the impending police state in the wake of the Patriot Act and “total information awareness,” should be more concerned about its arrival in black neighborhoods. Already given orders to stop, identify, and enter into a database anybody on the street, police now have a carte blanche to interrogate us all. Of course, so long as it is not youth in lily-white suburbs or students in parades of public drunkenness like the U of I’s unofficial St. Patrick’s day who receive such treatment, things will remain the same.

On Wednesday, April 9, at noon, CU Citizens for Peace and Justice is hodling a protest outside the courthouse. Kirchner and Wyman plan to file a motion for a new trial which will be heard on May 9, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom E.

Details, Details, Details

I note a peculiar detail that was present in this trial:

Officer Davis testified Chesley was bleeding.
Officer Bridges testified Chesley was bleeding.
Prosecutor Richard Scales, to minimize Chesley's injuries, reminds jury that a CHAMPAIGN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER Gina Jackson didn't see any blood on Chesley's face in Scales' final argument.

Protest at courthouse

Just a reminder - protest at the courthouse
this Wednesday at noon.
Downtown Urbana.

Just say no to police brutality, racial profiling, and all white juries.

BD

Lesson in Legal Reasoning

Please recall that Chesley was the one on trial here, not the police. In the context of this trial it doesn't matter how the arrest went down. Police misbehavior (e.g., an unreasonable search) is grounds for excluding evidence at trial, but it doesn't automatically excuse the offender. If he wants to sue and allege that his civil rights were violated that is a separate case.

Similarly, when a uniformed officer asks you to stop, you don't get to assume that you're a victim of racial profiling and insult him. The proper response is "Good evening officer. Thanks for keeping an eye on our neighborhood. What can I do for you?".

Finally, it is the defense attorneys who brought this thing to trial for political purposes that ended up getting the kid convicted. A reasonable attorney with his client's interests at heart (or any public defender) would have looked at the facts and gotten the kid into a diversion program. Sometimes pro-bono lawyers are worth what you pay for them.

UnAmerican?

Well, you are right about one thing. In Champaign County, one can count on the state's attorney automatically taking the side of police, even cooking up new charges at a time distant from the event in question. Is your comment about "it doesn't automatically excuse the offender..." something that happens in other counties where the prosecutor is not part and parcel of the police? It would be good if the prosecutor's office didn't have such a conflict of interest as it does in Champaign County, certainly better for justice.

You advice does seem good, if the presumption is that we do live in a police state. The police command and the citizen must obey, right?

As for the efficacy of attorneys not being paid by the defendant, if that is your concern, why would you recommend that someone take faith in the efforts of the public defender? They are overworked in this county because they have a much larger case load than the attorney's working in the prosecutors office. You're not quite making sense here, but maybe you already think we do live in a police state, so your logic may not be so good in a democracy?

I'll try again

The prosecutor and the police are supposed to be on the same side. It's not a conflict of interest. Ever seen "Law and Order"? If there is police misconduct, like the classic example of not reading someone their Miranda warnings (right to remain silent and request council) before questioning, then evidence resulting from that misconduct, like a confession, will not be admitted as evidence during the trial by the judge. The judge is supposed to be impartial, not the prosecutor. If the police violate someone's civil rights there are (supposedly) criminal or civil penalties. It's just not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

If you aren't expected to obey the police then why have them? Would you prefer anarchy with armed mobs for law enforcement? Our elected government gives the police the power to conduct investigations and make arrests, but they are trained and supervised and have to bring the arrestee before a judge in short order (habeus corpus = present the body). You're guaranteed due process and a trial by jury. As long as the rules are followed that's hardly a police state.

In any case, you're only expected to obey reasonable police commands. If an officer tells you to bark like a dog it's not a crime to say no.

My theory is that the pro-bono attorneys wanted a full trial political showcase for themselves rather than what was best for their client. A public defender doesn't have the time to pick stupid fights. It might look impressive to the press and the public, but the jury gets handed a sheet of paper with a set of definitions and simple yes-or-no questions on it to decide. A couple jurors might want to acquit for whatever political reason, but for a unanimous verdict you're probably going to stick to the facts of the case.

Is "nightwatch" a B5 reference?

Stops and Excessive Force

The park was open. Douglass gymnasium was open till 11:00p.m. that night with a program called "M-180".

There were others in the park.

Officer Davis had no reasonable suspicion that Chesley had committed a crime, nor was about to.

The Trespassing nonsense said at trial was a prosecutor's ad lib. The issue of trespassing didn't even appear in Davis' original police report. In order to trespass, you have to be asked to leave first, and then refuse to leave. The Park District was actually asking kids to come to the park by having open gym until 11:00 p.m.

Officer Bridges admitted on the stand CPD were briefed before going out on patrol to check I.D.'s for warrants in the north district that night.

All officers admitted they deposit the collection of I.D.'s and personal information into a database called A.R.M.S.

Now what other neighborhood would this happen in? "Stop, Warrior! I want to enter your personal information into a database!"

Would you want to stop for that reason alone? You probably would stop and give him your I.D. under the old adage, "I have nothing to hide." My opinion is this type of "compliance" without justifiable reasons also accepts the "Papers please" mind-set that allows officers to trample people's freedoms and their right to walk at night. Are we to accept police officers having the right to violate people's right to privacy, (unwarranted search of our persons and papers) and demand to see I.D. whenever they please for purposes of putting our info into a database?

Officers must respect people's rights, and if they wish to talk to a citizen, explain why they need to impede the person's freedom. The "I want to look at your I.D." is insufficient. Officer Davis admitted on the stand that he agreed with Brian it's a hassle to have to produce I.D. and to "...not make this any worse than it is."

Given that Chesley chose to walk on after explaining to Davis what he was doing, (walking his friend home, and leaving open gym) was it necessary to call it in, have two other officers slam the kid into a fence, bear hug him, throw him into the street face down, and witnesses said, "Whoop on him" and then pepper spray him in the face as many as three times?
Is that how we "community police" a seventeen year-old into producing his I.D. when randomly commanded?

Valid points, wrong conclusion

So, you're saying that if you set up a tent in my back yard it's not trespassing until I ask you to leave? I'm guessing that's not the case, but since there are a lot of no trespassing signs around I'm going to assume you're partially correct. That said, I think a "park closes at dusk" sign is sufficient notice, and if it isn't then how is someone supposed to tell you to leave if you won't let them talk to you?

I agree that running around checking everybody's ID on a public street isn't cool. It bothers me much more than whatever drug dealing was going on in the park. Since you object as well, I suggest that when the police ask for your ID without good reason you politely refuse and give your little argument. They'll either back down (likely) or arrest you (don't resist). Then you can get some nice publicity with a judge saying you were correct (or maybe not, I'm not a lawyer).

There's actually a recent Supreme Court case (http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/) where they decided that a Nevada "stop and identify" law was constitutional if the reason for the stop was a reasonable suspicion of having commited, committing, or being about to commit a crime. Illinois has a similar law:

(725 ILCS 5/107‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑14)
Sec. 107‑14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102‑‑15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.
(Source: Laws 1968, p. 218.)

In this case, the officer didn't get as far as asking for an ID or giving any kind of explanation before being told “Fuck y’all. I ain’t got to do shit. You ain’t running me. I just left the open gym.” I'm sure the police are trained to ignore verbal abuse, but they don't ignore being ignored.

Screw the Constitution

Well, Warrior, at least we know where you stand.

Kinda an odd name, though, unless you're at war with the People and the Constitution. Unfortunately, kissing the badge is more important to some than believing it's a free country.

Who cares about terrorists, when the police terrorize the community every day?

Excessive force and Civil Liability

"That said, I think a "park closes at dusk" sign is sufficient notice"

Sufficent noticed for what when there's an open gym, with many others in the park, coming and going? A crowd formed immediately when Bridges and Clinton slammed Chesley into the middle of the street. Where did this crowd come from?

Perhaps Chesley should have stopped and complied with officer Davis about his I.D.
But his reaction, (which you quote Davis to a tee on the stand- hmmm...) represents a longstanding mistrust of the police in that area, and this particular youth has not had good interactions with the police in the past (no arrests, however). Officer Davis knew he had no reason to stop him, but became insulted by Chesley's defiance, and Officers Bridges and Clinton chose to have some good old suburban fun by whipping a smaller-build youth in front of the other kids. (Both Bridges and Clinton, and later Davis were much bigger and better trained than the 17- year old.)

What remains unexplained is the use of force against this person when he chose to walk on. Police were seen whooping this young man down, no matter what euphemisms get used, no matter what legal justifications are proffered, the witnesses that night saw what they saw. As a public relations matter, the CPD has only fueled the problem. The State's Attorney choosing to slam the full force of its prosecutorial wieght against a person they originally offered adult diversion to, seems clear that NightWatch is right: the state wishes to send a definitive message: don't mess with us or we'll do whatever we want. Even our courts of law won't be truthful.

This case is once again the State's Attorney more concerned about civil liability than truth and justice. When Chesley refused to admit he did anything wrong, the State chose to prove a small point in front of a judge who rigged the jury instructions so that the ignorant jury had no choice but to vote guilty and absolve the Police Department from what might have been use of excessive force. The whole thing is childish and stupid, and a simple sit-down with the Chesley family admitting fault and reprimanding Bridges and Clinton would have solved this and perhaps avoid the worsening of relations between the minority community and law enforcement. Instead, we have another african american male with a criminal record, and who knows what "message" sentence Kennedy will impose; and a bunch of lawyers and cops smiling because the juries around here can be made to think they are always right. Very sad. Champaign County remains vulnerable to rogue police officers like Kurt Hjort, and hostile policies as practiced by Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney and Deputy Chief John Murphy.

Quoting the Supreme Court

The Hiibel Decision from 2005 is hardly the last word on such matters.
This is the same Supreme Court who've ruled that a drug dog is equivalent to "a cursory search", going to prison for life for stealing 6 CD's is "cruel but not unusual", and where some of the justices can rule on an election of a candidate who's father put them on the court.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the law says, so it must be so.

Quoting law sounds good, but...

"A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense"

Again, Andre Davis pulled into the circle drive where numerous youth were mingling by the Douglass Park Gymnasium, The Frederick Douglass statue and Chesley and his friends were leaving the park. The gym was open till 11:00 p.m.

What offense was Chesley committing, or had committed walking with an 8 year-old and another 15 year-old?

How does a town with so many intelligent people allow this?

You really have some racist pigs down there. How do you allow this?
Who owns your police department?

You pay them. remember that.

David Roknich
Galesburg 411

If I posted it here, it must be true -:)

It's agreed then....

Warrior's legal canard's are best summarized with his own admission:

"I agree that running around checking everybody's ID on a public street isn't cool."

Isn't "cool"?
Too bad the jury didn't get to consider this issue, which is really what "esculated" events from there. I still haven't seen anyone articulate a good reason to beat and pepper spray the kid after he refused to allow himself to be checked for warrants.

Post new comment