Alleged Police Brutality at Area 2

A man who has been imprisoned for 31 years for a crime he claims he didn’t commit told a judge and court members that two police officers beat him into a false confession for the rape of a south side woman in 1982. On Dec. 5, 2013, for the first time since his original trial, Stanley Wrice testified about the alleged constitutional violations executed by Former Chicago Police Sergeant John Byrne and former Chicago Police Detective Peter Dignan at a Chicago Police Department.

Wrice was arrested in September for a sexual assault case that involved the mutilation of a woman walking home from the grocery store on Sept. 8, 1982, according to court documents. Wrice was convicted of the crime despite his claims of innocence and no hard evidence linked him to the crime, according to court documents.

Three other men were arrested for the crime years later and plead guilty, according to court documents. They all received prison sentences shorter than five years.

Despite the men’s guilty convictions, Wrice was never exonerated. He has more than 60 years on his prison sentence, according to court documents.

Sitting in the audience was Wrice’s daughter, Gail Scott, and his grandson. Monday was only the second time Scott has seen her father in two years, she said. She holds the state responsible for her father's alleged wrongful imprisonment.

“I blame the state because they didn’t investigate more. They could have done more,” said Scott.

During his testimony on Monday, Wrice stated that Dignan and Byrne beat him with blunt instruments in the basement of Area 2 headquarters and coerced a false confession from him. Wrice said that right before he was taken from an interview room on the second floor, one of the officers told him that they were going to introduce Wrice to some police brutality.

The officers handcuffed Wrice behind a chair during the assault, Wrice testified. Wrice and his attorneys claim that the two officers then whipped a large flashlight and a rubber stick across his thighs, neck and sides. Wrice said he could not remember how long the beating took place or how many times he was hit.

Wrice also told the courtroom that during the beating, the two officers were also yelling racist slurs directed towards him.

“Tell the truth nigger,” Wrice said was the phrase he remembers the most.

According to his testimony, the two police officers handcuffed his hands above his head and assaulted him a second time by hitting his genitals with the same blunt objects.

Wrice testified that later that evening he spoke with Assistant State Attorney Kenneth T. McCurry but never admitted to any crime, sign a sworn statement or mention the beating.

Attorney Myles O’Rourke, representing the state of Illinois, told the court it was odd that Wrice never spoke of the assault to anyone in the police headquarters. O’Rourke cross-examined Wrice intensely about this and had Wrice retell the story numerous times. Wrice claimed fear kept him quiet.

“I was afraid for my life. There were two white, angry police officers,” Wrice said.

Wrice was worried other police would beat him if he told anyone that he was beaten already, he said.

Wrice was not the only person to testify on Monday. Wrice’s pro-bono attorney Jennifer Bonjean called Bobby Joe Williams to the stand.

Williams, who initially testified against Wrice in the original trial, claimed that he lied during the trial. Williams claimed that the same night that Wrice was allegedly assaulted, he too was beaten by police officers at the Area 2 headquarters into implicating Wrice for the crime. Williams said that he didn’t remember who the officers were.

Bonjean asked Williams why he lied initially to officers at Area 2 and again during Wrice’s trial.

“Well, I was beaten into a false statement. I was scared,” he told Bonjean.

The state did not cross-examine Williams.

Bonjean also called to the stand the two officers who allegedly beat both the men. Both officers took the stand but, didn't testify.

“At any time did you use physical violence to coerce a statement from Mr. Wrice?” asked Bonjean.

“I am going to assert my Fifth Amendment rights,” responded Dignan.

When Bonjean asked Byrne similar questions he responded the same way and would not speak in court.

During both the former officer’s testimonies, Judge Richard F. Walsh sat back in his chair in an exasperated manner. The state did not cross-examine either of the gentlemen.

Wrice and his attorneys are fighting for a retrial and hope to exonerate the man.

After years together, wrongfully convicted defendant's children part ways

           Joel and Armando Serrano Jr. have shared many days in court the past 20 years - years of watching their father fight to prove his innocence for a murder he claims he never committed. But, for the first time in their long ordeal, the two brothers have set out on different paths.

            After dropping out of university and pursuing odd jobs to make ends meet, the younger of the two boys, Joel Serrano, left Chicago for basic training in the U.S. Army two weeks ago; leaving his brother's side for the first time.

            Armando Serrano is learning to cope with that as he adjusts to his brother absence.

“Of course, you know, it was hard for the first few days,” he said.

Until two weeks ago, Armando Serrano let his brother into the house late at night after partying, went out to eat together with mutual friends and supported one other through the tribulations of their father’s alleged wrongful imprisonment, he said.

            When they were younger, the boys would sometimes spend the week at different family members' houses but saw each other during the weekend, he said. They have never been separated for this long.

            Since Joel Serrano left, his brother has not been in touch with him.

“I try not to think about it too much cause it makes it even harder,” he said.

            Joel Serrano will be on leave from basic training for two weeks during Christmas and New Year’s Eve, said the boy’s aunt, Maria Serrano, who spoke to him recently.

            During his brother’s holiday break, Armando was hoping to gather some of their mutual friends to throw him a surprise party, he said.

            Despite his brother's absence, Armando Serrano looks on the bright side - including weekly phone calls from his father, in prison.

            “Now that Joel is gone, that means now I have more time to talk to him,” he laughed.

           

            

How to find criminal court documents

Many criminal court documents, although not readily available to view, are public documents and can be requested by anyone. Here's how to do it.

            First, look up the case’s number. This can be done many ways at the Cook County Criminal Court Building, located at 26th Street and California Avenue, in the clerks office on the fifth floor.

            People can use one of six computers to review certain cases by the defendant’s name or by entering a defendant’s individual record number.

            Next, request the transcript or files using the case number of the desired criminal case. This step is also done in the clerk’s office.

            At the clerk’s counter, a clerk will present you with a document request form. It asks for a name, case number and a phone number. The files take about three days to be sorted and made publicly available, according to the clerk’s office.

            After the waiting period, call the file room at 773-674-3152 and ask if your files have come in. The clerk’s office will not call you to tell you that the documents have arrived, according to a clerk who asked to remain unanimous.

            The request will cover any evidence used in the trial but not if impounded by a court order; trial transcripts and other documents like arrest warrants or police reports.

            When the files come in, view them at the clerk’s office. Proper photo identification is required to view the files. Documents cannot be removed from the office but copies can be made.

            The cost to copy a single page is $2. For more than one page the cost drops to 50 cents for the first 19 pages. After 20 pages the cost changes to 25 cents.

            The documents will be available for 10 days. To review them later, a person can request an extension for the document’s availability.

University student weighs in on exonerations

Blog viewership data skewed

            Page views that have come through a referrer spam site are skewing statistics of the Chi City Justice blog. Since the blog was launched in September, it has steadily increased in web traffic but recently has come under the attack of spam bot websites.

            Most of the blog’s traffic is being referred through the website www.vampirestat.com, according to google's statistic keeper. Vampirestat is an online web domain statistics and appraisal service that tracks and collects data about a website’s statistics, according to Vampirestat. Owners of websites can look up statistics about their sites on the Vampirestat homepage.

            The most views in a single day for Chi City Justice came on Halloween when 94 visitors visited the page, most from www.vampirestat.com. Those numbers helped October become the busiest month for traffic since the blog went live early September; the total number for the month was 177 views. This also brought up all time page views to almost 300.

            But, a Google search of www.vampirestat.com reveals that the website acts as a spam bot.  A few other bloggers who have experienced similar jumps in viewership say that the page views should not be counted into the blog’s statistics in online forum conversations.

            An email sent to the website was not returned in time for this article’s publication.

            Despite viewership spam, some of the website’s traffic statistics remain unaffected and give an idea on what the blog’s readers enjoy.

            The blog’s most popular post has been the article “Son of inmate in exoneration case losing faith in the courts.” This article has 15 individual page views and was once commented on. The comment author removed the comment before the blog creator could read it.

            People also viewed the articles “Nonprofit encounters challenges assisting former inmates” and “Trial causes drama at criminal courthouse.” Those articles have eight and seven views each.

            Forty eight percent of the blog’s traffic is coming from computers using Microsoft Windows operating systems. But only 12 percent of the blog’s traffic uses the Windows-only browser Internet Explorer. The majority of viewers use the Firefox web browser to view the page.

            Almost all of the page’s views come from computer systems in the United States. Viewers from the Ukraine and Russia have also visited the blog a few times each.

Drama follows trial at criminal courthouse

            Armando Serrano Jr. knew something was different when three tall security guards blocked access to the courtroom viewing area, he said. He had been to many of his father’s hearings at the criminal courthouse at 26th Street and California Avenue but he had never seen security guards bar access to the crowded courtroom, as they did Oct. 17.

            Serrano's father, Armando Serrano Sr., and his codefendant Jose Montanez, were convicted in the 1993 murder of a Humboldt Park man. Since their arrest 20 years ago, both men have claimed they are innocent and have attempted to overturn their conviction many times.

            As Judge Maura Slattery Boyle of the Cook County Criminal Court announced her decision to dismiss, Serrano Sr. and Jose Montanez’s request for a retrial, the families of both men began to choke-up and cry.

            The three security guards began to usher out the sobbing families when Armando Serrano Sr., who was prohibited from testifying at his trial, began to shout at the judge.

            “I didn’t kill that man,” he said. He continued to yell even after the judge quickly turned off the speakers in the viewing area. Audience members still heard him through the glass windows telling the judge she had perverted the criminal justice system.

            Armando Serrano Jr. and his brother Joel watched red faced and teary eyed as their father was removed from court; his ankle prison chains clanged and dragged across the court’s carpet.

            Outside the courtroom, defense attorneys of both men attempted to comfort the crying families. Defense attorney Russell Ainsworth and Jennifer Bonjean lamented the judge’s decision and told the disappointed families that they would appeal it.

            They cautioned the families that the appeal process could take up to a year or more but they would not give up proving both men’s innocence. Both families vowed not to give up either.

Law enforcement resists reform, says author

            Most of law enforcement doesn’t want to accept the science behind forensic evidence, according to David A. Harris, author of “Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science.”

            “They [law enforcement] basically take the attitude that they are going to resist science,” he said last week at the Gage Gallery at 18 S. Michigan Ave.

            Harris, a writer and educator focused on law enforcement practices and national security issues, was the second speaker for the third annual Wrongful Convictions Distinguished Speaker Series, presented by Roosevelt University. He drew an audience so big that late comers sat on the floor and tables when all the chairs were used.

            “I enjoyed it and I think a lot of other people there did too,” said Daisy Perez, a Roosevelt University student who attended the lecture.

            Perez has studied forensic science and knew about some of Harris’s talking points but also learned some new things, she said.

            Harris highlighted key points of his book that is about the tense relationship between law enforcement and the field of forensic science. Although law enforcement agencies are more frequently utilizing the science now, there are still many agencies that refute the accuracies of the science, he said.

            During the lecture, Harris said that one of the challenges to reform the way law enforcement perceives the science behind forensics is to change how evidence is gathered. But law enforcement is resistant to change its practices and this is a problem, he said.

            “They ignore what science can bring them and the result of this is failed evidence,” he said.