The Trial of Tiawanda Moore

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

The felony charge against Tiawanda Moor has finally reached a courtroom.

Moore faces up to 15 years in prison for recording her attempt to report a Chicago cop who she says sexually assaulted her. Moore says she recorded the conversation because she felt Internal Affairs officers were pressuring her not to file a complaint. The Tribune article focuses on whether or not that claim is true. Which really misses the point.

State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez ought to be tossed on her tuckus for bringing this case in the first place. In a city with a long history of police abuse and corruption, where we only recently learned that for two decades people were tortured in police stations while Chicago police supervisors, prosecutors, and politicians looked the other way, it’s an absolute outrage that Alvarez would prosecute a woman for trying to protect herself while trying to file a complaint. And shame on the Illinois legislature for not having the courage to repeal this ugly, blatantly unconstitutional law.

My HuffPost article on Moore and other people charged on the law here. My longer Reason piece on the War on Cameras here.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

26 Responses to “The Trial of Tiawanda Moore”

  1. #1 |  JS | 

    hmmm, so that’s how tuckus is spelled.

  2. #2 |  ktc2 | 

    What are the odds? Anyone taking bets?

    They have to convict her of course to preserve their authoritah.

  3. #3 |  Jesse | 

    Anita Alvarez is just a standard, bootlicking police lapdog prosecutor. Sad that she’s also a woman with no empathy for the other women the police choose to victimize.

  4. #4 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Please, Gods, let this end with a Supreme Court ruling that no government functionary dealing with a member of the public has, ever, under any circumstances, any ghost of a right not to be recorded.

  5. #5 |  JS | 

    Jesse “Sad that she’s also a woman with no empathy…”

    Nailed it. That seems to be the chief characteristic of our authorities these days.

  6. #6 |  Bob | 

    I wonder who the “Jury of her peers” consists of?

    She has a recording of the cops “Making her a deal she can’t refuse”. That got played in court.

  7. #7 |  Jeff | 

    “Jury of one’s peers” is now the equivalent of “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment: meaningless (especially in federal cases). I’ll never forget when I was called for federal jury duty in Philadelphia years ago (since it was federal court I guess they can harvest prospective jurors from the suburbs). A teenaged, inner-city black male–an alleged gang member, if I recall–was on trial for gun and drug charges (I do not believe they accused him of harming anyone’s person or violating anyone’s property). They bounced me from the jury, of course, but I did get a glimpse of the final selection. It looked like an extras casting call for “The Golden Girls”. “Peers” in this context means “anyone of the same species.”

  8. #8 |  Mannie | 

    I often refer to Ill Annoy as The Criminal State. It is criminal at every level from the Governor to the slimiest beat cop, to the crack peddler on the street corner. Of course criminals stick together. They’re thick as thieves.

    Honest Citizens need not apply.

    Shut up and eat your cake.

  9. #9 |  CyniCAl | 

    “Tossed on her tuckus” — fun, alliterative turn of phrase. Some future considerations:

    Catapulted on her culo
    Defenestrated on her derriere
    Heaved on her heinie
    Pitched on her posterior
    Flung on her fundament

  10. #10 |  Kristen | 

    Can’t wait for the “the law is the law” folks to show up on this one.

  11. #11 |  Dave | 

    It’s actually spelled with a H. Tuchus. I know it’s something silly to correct you on. Yiddish has no Ks.

    As to the merits; this is of course a perfect example of the police and D.A. abusing their power to protect their abuse of power. But what should we expect from the authorities in Chicago?

  12. #12 |  Fuzzymuscles | 

    Wow. What a biased and low-information article. Please, take a journalism class. Drop out after a week, I don’t care. You’d still learn enough to improve on this drivel.

  13. #13 |  Fuzzymuscles | 

    Now the HuffPost article you wrote: that was well written. Still a bit biased, but it’s difficult to not be biased in a case such as this one.

  14. #14 |  the innominate one | 

    +1 for defenestrated

    I believe the correct spelling is “tuchus”

  15. #15 |  Radley Balko | 

    Still a bit biased, but it’s difficult to not be biased in a case such as this one.

    I’m an opinion journalist. I try to be fair and accurate, but I don’t claim to be unbiased.

  16. #16 |  Me | 

    and you kid yourself that the US isn’t a corrupt country. this is the sort of thing you’d expect to hear about in eastern countries.

  17. #17 |  JS | 

    Dave “But what should we expect from the authorities in Chicago?”

    Or anyplace else in America.

  18. #18 |  Pablo | 

    Do we know the current status of her complaint against the officer she said harassed her? (and committed sexual battery, if what she says is true). I wouldn’t be surprised if it is “still under investigation.”

  19. #19 |  supercat | 

    #7 | Jeff | August 24th, 2011 at 2:50 pm //“Jury of one’s peers” is now the equivalent of “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment//

    Actually, the two concepts are very strongly related. While courts like to read all sorts of complexity into terms like “unreasonable”, it’s actually very simple. If twelve jurors agree something is unreasonable, it is. Likewise if they would agree that some particular punishment would be “cruel and unusual”, or some fine would be “excessive”. I think it’s very important to note that while there are a few rare cases where juries should acquit someone for reasons entirely outside written law, the vast majority of so-called “jury nullification” cases are really nothing more than the jury upholding the law and refusing to violate the Constitution.

  20. #20 |  A woman faces up to 15 years in prison for recording her attempt to report a Chicago cop who she says sexually assaulted her at SatelliteHeadlines.com | 

    […] by maxwellhill to politics [link] [55 […]

  21. #21 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @7 – Quite. The jury selection system in the US is badly broken. The one in the UK is only *mildly* broken by comparison…

  22. #22 |  Harley | 

    The jury acquitted her. Her attorney says that the results of her complaint are under a protective order and haven’t been released. The commenters at the Sun-Times just can’t let go of the fact she was a stripper and therefore less of a human being.

  23. #23 |  Lucy | 

    The Lord will judge her, and many other authority figures as harshly as they judged others.

    Btw, this nation is a fascist nation. And soon and even now in some cases, you’ll have to watch what you say about the government, or else you’ll be imprisoned. Thanks to corporate american for buying out our politicians and corrupting the government for their own power, wealth and gain.

    P.S. I don’t even want to have children now, because I don’t want them to have to suffer trying to survive in a fascist nation. Which Is another reason why I’m thinking about immigrating to a new country. Legally of course. But it’s also so difficult to find a country that isn’t tainted with corporation assholes and politicians that want to rule the world.

  24. #24 |  Reggie | 

    The aim is to avoid police accountability. Can you imagine if police suddenly had to obey the laws, be honest and serve the public in good faith? They’d have top stop doing most of what they do now, and then they’d actually have to work.

  25. #25 |  To Protect and Serve – who? « The Crawdad Hole | 

    […] Radley Balko: State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez ought to be tossed on her tuckus for bringing this case in the first place. In a city with a long history of police abuse and corruption, where we only recently learned that for two decades people were tortured in police stations while Chicago police supervisors, prosecutors, and politicians looked the other way, it’s an absolute outrage that Alvarez would prosecute a woman for trying to protect herself while trying to file a complaint. And shame on the Illinois legislature for not having the courage to repeal this ugly, blatantly unconstitutional law. […]

  26. #26 |  fatfred | 

    Anita Alvarez is widely despised by the Chicago PD, see Second City Cop
    blog. She won’t file on multiple felons caught with guns but does file on
    citizens for chickens___ charges like this.

Leave a Reply