SYCAMORE, ILLINOIS-Welcome back, loyal and sporadic readers.

Something popped up in my inbox from a friend and I felt it warranted sharing. Chicago Attorney Sheldon Nagelberg has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the brass of the DeKalb County court system – from the State’s Attorney to the Sheriff – alleging that his client was basically held on pre-trial bond indefinitely without being given a preliminary hearing or without his case being brought in front of a grand jury. For those of you who haven’t spent years living in the shadow of the 6th Amendment, the right to know what you are charged with and to confront witnesses against you in a speedy manner is a hallmark of the fair trial provisions of the Illinois and United States Constitutions.

Ordinarily this story would have been only slightly interesting to me. This time, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I’m not going to waste your time rephrasing the article, but it basically tells the tale of an alleged criminal defendant who spent months (and months and months) in limbo in the Sycamore/DeKalb “justice” system before he was ever told why he was there in the first place.

It reminded me of a client I had not too long ago. Because of confidentiality, I can’t give any details about the client, but suffice to say he was charged with a serious felony in DeKalb County and he was not indicted until months after his arrest and until numerous court dates had gone by. In fact, I didn’t receive a grand jury indictment until AFTER I requested an arraignment. And we had an even bigger problem – my client’s bond was set at $300,000 and any arguments I made that he was being denied bond and the bond was punitive fell on deaf ears. Attorney Nagelberg’s client was fortunately on bond, so the issue of habeas corpus didn’t really come up. I assumed my client was already indicted, but I was wrong. When I requested a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, as I am entitled to under discovery rules and Brady v. MD, I was told that they only give that out when a case is set for trial. I thought my motion for discovery was pretty clear in requesting the transcripts, but I was stonewalled. In retrospect, I have to wonder if there ever was a grand jury that heard my client’s case. I would be curious to see the real transcript, but concern for my client’s well-being and for a timely resolution of the case was more important. We needed a plea to boot camp to keep him out of prison.

Part of the problem lay in the fact that the entire court was held over a video link to the jail. The only reason my client was even arraigned was a sheer fluke. I had objected to a DNA sample request by the State, so they had to bring my client into open court for the hearing. As an aside, I was asked if I wanted to do the arraignment or set it for another date. Of course I want the damn arraignment! I learned after looking into it that every court date in DeKalb goes “by agreement,” regardless of the actual reason for the continuance. The prosecutors have certain weeks where they are in court and even fewer dates where actual litigation or negotiation can take place. Contrast this with Cook County where an arrestee is brought in front of a bond court judge within a day or two, is given a preliminary hearing date shortly after that, and is generally either indicted or probable cause is found within around 30 days of the arrest.

Now, I’m the first one to admit that Cook County is far from perfect in its treatment of the criminal justice system, but for having one of the biggest cities on the planet in its boundaries, they somehow find a way to at least try to stick to the guarantees of the 6th Amendment and speedy trial rights. If you can’t make bond and must sit in jail awaiting trial, at least you know why you are there and there has been some semblance of procedure which keeps the State’s power over you in check. But here’s the most important part: If Cook County can ensure a timely preliminary hearing or indictment, there is NO REASON that defendants should be sitting in the DeKalb County Jail waiting for someone to wave their magic wand and get the process started. NONE! The only reason I can think of is that it is systemic or, and I hope beyond all hope that it isn’t true, intentional. I’m not accusing anyone individually of anything, but nothing in the legal system happens in a vacuum. Everything affects everything else. And everything affects the bottom line. Perhaps that is where the problem rears its ugly head. The all-important bottom line.

But what is the “bottom line” where human and civil rights are concerned? Civil rights of Americans no different from the people hired to prosecute or judge them. When does money become more important than humanity? And more importantly, what makes DeKalb different from any other counties? Is it different from other counties? Maybe not. But DeKalb is in the spotlight today thanks to a well-written article by Caitlin Mullen, the courts reporter for the Daily Chronicle – our only source of information coming out of the DeKalb County courthouse. It’s sad that one person on earth is responsible for disseminating this information, but I applaud Ms. Mullen for doing so.
-Jonathan

HAD A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE? KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS? CONTACT ME AND I’LL PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY. PLEASE. FOR EVERYONE’S SAKE…REMEMBER THAT IT COULD EASILY BE YOU IN THIS STORY!

______________________________________________
So, without further ado, we begin to chronicle the Sycamore Civil Rights case. Through the eyes of the media…enjoy! I have provided a link to the actual article as well as the text of the article below for your convenience.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/mobile/article.xml/articles/2012/08/02/86128583/index.xml

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Sycamore State’s Attorney, Sheriff, and Others
Story by Caitlin Mullen

Friday, August 3, 2012 5:31 a.m. CDT

“A drug defendant’s attorney has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state’s attorney, a former public defender, local police officers and others, claiming his client was not indicted or given a preliminary hearing in a timely matter after being arrested.

The lawsuit was filed July 29 in the U.S. District Court for the northern district of Illinois, western division, according to the U.S. District Court clerk’s office. A hearing date has not been set.

When reached Thursday, DeKalb County Sheriff Roger Scott, DeKalb County State’s Attorney Clay Campbell and Sycamore police Chief Don Thomas said they were not aware of the lawsuit and had not received notice of its filing. They declined to comment on it without reviewing it.

Attorney Sheldon Nagelberg represents Adrian Chaney, 28, of Sycamore, who was charged July 30, 2010, with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.

A Sycamore police officer stopped Chaney for no front license plate.

According to court documents, the officer knew Chaney from an investigation he was involved in and immediately contacted a police K-9 unit for assistance.

Police found two glass pipes and a small amount of marijuana in Chaney’s car, according to court documents. Upon further investigation at the Sycamore Police Department, police found 118.4 grams of marijuana and 15.4 grams of cocaine on Chaney.

Nagelberg states in the lawsuit that the traffic stop, detention and questioning of Chaney was “unreasonable.”

A public defender was appointed to represent Chaney after his arrest and continued to represent him until Nagelberg filed his appearance May 10, 2011. He filed a motion to dismiss the charges Aug. 29, mentioning that about 396 days had passed with no preliminary hearing or indictment for his client.

Chaney then was indicted Sept. 9. He was not arraigned until March.

Chaney’s case is Nagelberg’s first felony case in DeKalb County. He said the Illinois Constitution states that a defendant must be given a prompt preliminary hearing or indictment to show probable cause for the case to continue.

Nagelberg said the situation shifts the burden to the defendant to demand a preliminary hearing, when it’s the state’s duty to hold a preliminary hearing or bring the case before a grand jury.

Chaney and others are going through the court system and have never been indicted or had a preliminary hearing, “and that’s outrageous,” Nagelberg said.

Nagelberg said he’s trying to make it a class-action lawsuit on behalf of others, and hopes the suit results in the county abiding by the constitution.

Former public defender Regina Harris could not be reached for comment.”