"jl" wrote:
"JennyPenny" wrote:
> I have no idea why you thought contacting the State's Atty. might be
> helpful, jl. I would've addressed this to you privately, but you don't
use
> a
> real address for posting, so I had no other choice.
I meant for you to write a letter in your own handwriting but probably
didn't make it clear. These letters never hurt, always help -- from
someone who used to prosecute cases.
My reply:
Oh yeah, right. You made it clear. I planned to write a letter. I had to
call the State's Atty's office to find out who was assigned. I got
switched
around until I got this woman who answered. I told her I wanted to find
out
who to direct a letter to. She asked what kind of letter. I told her I
have
info. about the case. She wanted to know what info. I told her I have
personal knowledge of the defendent and can attest to her character
without
reservation. She told me this is totally irrelevant, and that any info. of
that kind should go through the defense atty. She said a letter would be
even more inappropriate than a phone call. She said me contacting her is
highly inappropriate and making any sort of contact with her could
actually
damage the defendant's case.
I don't know what state and county you practiced in. Maybe in your
jurisdiction these things were allowed and could work to the defendant's
favor. But not apparently in Cook Co. IL. Me making contact w/ the SA's
office, according to the prosecuting atty. is improper and possibly
illegal.
The hearing was today. I went with a close family member who knows my
worker. We had an op****tunity to talk to the so-called "defense" atty. He
said he would not "bet the farm" on her winning a jury trial, or the state
backing down if he said they would go to trial. He said they have
surveillance tape from the store showing she attempted to use a stolen
credit card, and another showing her using gift cards. He said he had not
seen the tapes, but was told they have them. He also said he was told the
defendent's made "incriminating statements" in the police re****t, which he
said he also had not seen, but was relying on the word of the state's
atty.
Also, he said his office asked about reducing the charges for a plea to
"misdemeanor probation" but the state would not agree. They insist they
won't go lower than felony probation. I pointed out to him if she goes
along
with this, it could impact her ability to get work in the future, for the
rest of her life. He said yes, he's aware of that, but at least he can
guarantee this way she won't do jail time. But he agreed it's up to his
client. He said the money is not an issue: if she wants to go to trial,
they
will on the fee agreed to.
He looked at the surveillance video later. He said it showed the two
sisters
at the cash register attempting to make a purchase. The state and the
store
manager claim the card in this tape is the stolen credit card. My worker
says it was her sister who attempted to make that purchase and the sister
said it was a gift card. The defense atty. said he could not tell from the
video what the card was, but the state claims it's the stolen credit card.
There's paperwork that could answer the question definitively, but he had
not seen the paperwork, and it was not available. He'd have to ask for a
continuance to look at it, which of course should've been done months ago.
He said he did not look at the second tape that supposedly shows the day
she
went back in with her sister to use the gift cards she had. The state is
arguing that after the stolen credit card was denied use in the first
attempt, the women came back and purchased two store gift cards with the
bad
credit card. There was no surveillance tape of this, and no paperwork to
back the charge. Furthermore, if anyone thinks about it, it's pretty
absurd
to suggest a credit card that was already rejected for being stolen could
have been used later to purchase something else in the same store. But
that's the absurd case the state is making, and the atty. was disinclined
to
challenge it.
My worker has no confidence in the justice system and felt certain the
state
would sell her up the river if she asked to go to trial. Additionally, the
state pressured the sister, represented by a public defender, to pressure
her sister to take the plea bargain with her, or the offer is off the
table.
They told the sister if the case goes to trial, they would push for the
maximum sentence which apparently is a number of years in jail. So
naturally
she pushed her sister to accept the felony probation plea with her. My
worker is tired of the whole thing, is convinced she can't find justice
and
so she agreed to take the plea. I tried talking to her about at least
waiting to see what the other evidence is, but her mind was made up.
Not only that, but when the "defense atty" came out of the meeting with
the
state's atty, he said they told him the judge said he "resented and was
offended" by my appearance in the courtroom, which he interpretated as a
means to pressure him to side with the defendant out of sympathy for
someone
in a wheelchair there on behalf of the defendant. He said he also resented
hearing that I had called the state atty's office. That could be something
the State's Atty. said completely apart from the judge, just to be nasty,
but it hardly matters.
So I sat there and watched while she accepted the felony conviction on her
record permanently in exchange for one year probation, about which the
atty.
advised her "to be careful to stay out of trouble" as if she has any
control
over that, based on what I've just witnessed. She also must pay $680 in
fines, payable over one year. She is struggling to pay her rent and car
insurance at this time. The minute she needs to get a new client to care
for
so that she has income, it's very possible this conviction on her record
will doom her.
This is our justice system. This is our tax dollars at work.
Jenny
|
