TheAgitator.com
Wait, What?
Saturday, March 29th, 2008A top inspector for the City of Chicago’s Inspector General–that would be the office that fights corruption and holds city officials accountable–was recently arrested for shoplifting $130 in groceries. She says she forgot her debit card, and took the groceries out to her car with her to get it, despite not having paid for them. A surveillance video apparently shows her walking out of he store with the groceries.
Nevertheless, she was acquitted by a city judge, and now may sue to get her job back.
Having not seen the evidence, I have no opinion on whether or not she’s guilty. But this part is awfully weird:
Circuit Court Judge Stuart Katz found Buckley not guilty this week after prosecutors failed to play a surveillance video and waived their right to deliver opening and main closing statements.
So if you aren’t going to give opening and closing statements, and aren’t going to show the video showing the alleged crime, why bring charges in the first place?
“Failed” is the right word for it.
Maybe because she’s got something on someone. She probably broke out whatever leverage she has after charges were filed but before trial. Seems like a pretty clear case of prosecutors being pressured by someone.
“after prosecutors failed to play a surveillance video and waived their right to deliver opening and main closing statements”
They “tanked” the case on purpose so the Judge had to find her “not guilty.” surprising, though, how blatant they were.
The Dick Daley political machine in action. It reaches its tentacles in all aspects of Chicago city and Cook county government. They aren’t even discreet after 50 years of gorging at the public trough.
I concur with the above – having lived in Chicago for a few years, this is almost certainly the work of the Daley political machine at work, because this is how it operates – completely graceless, but ultimately effective for the allies of Daley.
I’d note that in pretty much every misdemeanor bench trial I’ve done as a defense attorney (a hundred or so I’m guessing), it is very rare for the prosecution to bother with opening and closing statements. Its one thing if its a jury whose deciding the case, but if its a judge it often times isn’t necessary since the judge or magistrate will already know the gist of the case.
Not sure if the surveillance video would have made any difference here either. It sounds as if there was no dispute over her taking the groceries from the store to the car; thats all the video would do is establish that fact, not her state of mind. If the defendant gave a statement that she did in fact take the groceries from the store, then playing the video would have been redundant anyways.
I don’t know any more about this case than whats in the linked article, so I can’t really comment on the evidence. I know 130$ of groceries sounds like a whole shopping cart full of stuff, but seeing that she had 2 items that made up half that cost, we might be talking about just a small hand basket or so. If thats the case, I could ‘understand’ going to the car first to get the money rather than putting everything back or waiting in line just to tell the cashier you have to go to the car and get your wallet (thus wasting a bunch of people’s time). Certainly not the smartest thing to do, but was the criminal intent to steal the groceries there or not? Sometimes these situations just aren’t that clear.
But my main point is the failure of the prosecutor to give opening or closing statements in a misdemeanor bench trial or to play a video that shows facts that aren’t in issue isn’t really a ‘tanking’ of the case. Its SOP in my experience.
Hey, I’m willing to concede that she may not have been trying to shoplift. After all, I’ve done the EXACT same thing myself. Well, except I’ve parked my cart INSIDE the store, gone to the car to retrieve my card and then returned to get get my cart and stand in line. Seems to me it would be MORE of a hassle to trundle my cart ALL the way to the car to “get my card” and then it haul it ALL the way back again to pay. Even as a Jane Q. Citizen, I wouldn’t be concerned AT ALL that doing so might look exactly as if I was shoplifting and that I may get arrested, it’s just that I’m lazy like that.
The case was probably brought at the insistence of the grocery chain. The DA’s office therefore stuck a fat finger in the store’s eye. If I were the store chain, I would post the video on youtube, even at the risk of having every health inspector in Cook County living in the grocery stores for the next few months.
chsw
yep, it’s pretty plain that the chicago democrat daley machine is filthy corrupt, as it has been for 50 years now. i just thank god no foully crooked slimeball chicago pol is running for *president*, know what i mean? can’t you just imagine the mess?
no….wait….
Once she has been acquitted, trying her again — like, say, after November — would be double jeopardy.
That’s why you would bring it to trial just to take a dive.
LOL I’m telling you guys, nothing in that article suggests the prosecution ‘took a dive’ in that case. Believe me, there are a hundred ways for the prosecution to tank a case without bringing it to trial. Most bench trials can be won by the prosecution simply putting a single witness on the stand and letting them ramble. Generally, in most misdemeanor bench trials, there is not a need for opening and closing statements or the intro of physical or documentary evidence.
There is plenty of government corruption out there to deal with, I just don’t see it here. Besides, if this was some big political thing going on, she would’ve already had her job back.
Hi OGRE…I can totally buy (har har) your post about common procedure. No need for the prosecution to do the whole dog and pony show in front of a judge when s/he can just read the case file and ask questions, right? Makes sense.
My “what?” came when I read Judge Katz’s “Almost every fiber in my being tells me that she is guilty of the charged crime, but a tiny, tiny little part of me has a question,” to explain the not guilty verdict.
Hmmm. Well, maybe this judge is just a stickler like that regarding reasonable doubt, even for citizens with no ties to the local government. I truly hope so. I’m stopping at the grocery on my way home, but I think I’ll skip the whole card-getting, cart-schlepping relay race. Just in case the judge I’d get has parts so tiny as to be non-existent. :)
Well, looks like she played out the loopholes. If anything, it’s a PR scandal and she may never work again without pulling political strings for the rest of her life.
It bears pointing out that one of the reasons the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is…rich people steal and get away with it, and the poor people go to jail.
saaaay, why IS obama being given a pass on being a member of the corrupt chicago machine?
if it were boss tweed – and, of course, if tweed were a republican – we’d be hearing “tammany” all day every day. (“william tweed, the wholly-owned subsidiary of the new york tammany political organization ….”), yet somehow we’re being given the impression obama became a key player in the daley/democrat chicago organization by….accident? coincidence? happenstance?
or is it racist to ask this?
It’s too bad the article was hyped up with misleading and obvious mistakes. It says the prosecution failed to play the tape of the defendant. Wow! Big news, they failed to play a tape of the defendant doing exactly what he said he did. Then in the same sentence, the article breathlessly declares the prosecution waived it’s right to opening and closing statements. It’s too bad the reporter did not ask anybody who would know whether this was common in misdemeanor bench trials. Allow me to finish that sentence – after prosecutors failed to play a surveillance video and waived their right to deliver opening and main closing statements (unlike every courtroom drama I have ever watched).