21 January 2004
From: Executive Director, Malcolm Rich 
To:
Members and Friends of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Chicago Appleseed Fund For Justice


In this e-Newsletter:


President's Column
In this edition, Chicago Appleseed President, Diana C. White discusses an upcoming initiative by Chicago Appleseed:  a comprehensive examination of the criminal justice system in Cook County.         

An Examination of Criminal Justice in Cook County

In last month’s Council-Appleseed newsletter, Locke Bowman wrote about the importance of an independent federal judiciary, not straitjacketed by Congress or the Attorney General in deciding what sentences are fair and just for particular criminal offenders.

This month, I take my turn at the "bully pulpit" Locke and I share to highlight a related initiative of Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice – a comprehensive study of the criminal justice system in Cook County.

The last such study was undertaken in 1929 by John H. Wigmore. Seventy-five years and a constitutional revolution later, it is time to take a fresh look at one of the largest criminal justice systems in the world. We know where some of the broken places are – innocent people sitting on death row, DNA testing delayed for years, "witnesses" to crimes held in detention and isolated from lawyers prepared to represent them, prosecutions tainted by police misconduct, the disparate effects of the "war on drugs," etc. Our goal, however, is not to focus on any single facet of the system, but to see how the various parts of it interact with (or distort) one another on a daily basis.

The first (planning) phase has been funded by a $25,000 grant from the Chicago Community Trust. In this phase, we have identified and interviewed 20 key players in the Cook County criminal justice system, asking each to identify the most pressing issues the system faces and to suggest ways to deal with those issues. We have also issued invitations to key members of the criminal justice community and the public to serve as a Community Advisory Board. The Advisory Board will assist us in focusing the issues, and in designing the interview instruments and questionnaires we will use. When the research phase of the project is over, the Advisory Board will help set priorities for suggested reforms and build community support for implementing those reforms.

We have designed a multi-faceted research strategy, which includes a survey of the relevant literature; interviews of randomly selected prosecutors, public defenders, private defense attorneys, and judges (current and former); interviews with prosecutors and defenders in other jurisdictions; interviews with criminal defendants and victims of crime; and questionnaires sent to all current prosecutors, current defenders, and sitting judges. Social scientists will help us analyze the data these standardized interviews and mail surveys produce. We will also review court records and statistics; analyze data relating to caseloads, case processing, and budgets; and examine the results against national standards.

The actual work will be carried out by the indefatigable Malcolm Rich, with expert advice and assistance from Tom Geraghty, Director of Northwestern’s Bluhm Clinic; and Jack Heinz, Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation and Professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. We are seeking funding for a research director, a small staff, and social science consultants. We are also seeking volunteers (attorneys, paralegals, and laypeople) to conduct interviews, gather literature, prepare reports, and undertake court watching.

The Advisory Board, while still in formation, already includes Prof. Albert Alschuler, Prof. Susan Bandes, Darren Bowden, Hon. Lou Garippo, Michael Howlett, Jr., Patricia Mendoza, Prof. Randolph N. Stone, and Hon. Earl Strayhorn. From Alschuler to Strayhorn, this group is a who’s who in criminal justice in the Chicago area. There is plenty of room for volunteers at every level, and we hope Council members and Appleseed supporters will participate themselves and recruit others to participate too. It’s bound to be fascinating and important work, and a worthy successor to Prof. Wigmore’s 1929 study.


 

From the Council:  The list of judicial candidates running in the March 2004 primary -- If you are familiar with the professional work of one or more of these candidates, we need your input.

Lawrence Andolino
David B. Atkins
Barbara Ann Bailey
Robert Balanoff
Bernadette Garrison Barrett
Edward J. Barrett
David Michael Barry
Edwin Jon Belz
Athena Frentzas Bubaris
Kathleen Marie Burke
Magaret Ann Carey
Michael Patrick Casey
Peggy Chiampas
Laguina Clay-Clark
Jeanne R. Cleveland Bernstein
Robert Clifford
Brian M. Collins
Amy Marie Corrigan
John Joseph Coyne
Lisa R. Curcio
Paula Marie Daleo
Robert A. Dawczak
Anna Helen Demacopoulos
Jay Paul Deratany
John R. "Jack" Duffy
Mary Beth Duffy
Laurence J. Dunford
John H. Ehrlich
John F. Erickson
John Noonan Farrell
Roger G. Fein
Charles Fitzgerald
Patrick D. Flanagan
Ellen L. Flannigan
Michael J. (Yakov) Fox
William James Haddad
Orville E. Hambright
Kay Marie Hanlon
Thomas J. Hennelly
William E. Hoverson
Richard Frederick Johnson
Michelle Jordan
Thomas J. Kelley
Dennis J. Kellog
Timothy Michael Kelly
Bonnie Therese Kennedy
Bill Kunkle
Mark A. Lefevour
Michael F. Lefkow
Theodore "Ted" London

James E. Macholl
Susan Patricia Malone
Ginger Mance
Richard H. Marcus
Leroy K. Martin, Jr.
Michael John McCarthy
Terrance J. McConville
David G. McDermott
James Michael McGing
Clare Elizabeth McWilliams
Diedre Ann McGuire
Mary Lane Mikva
Laura J. Morask
Penelope Morris
Patrick T. Murphy
Siobahn Maura Murphy
Timothy Patrick Murphy
James C. Murray
Ronald J. Nelson
Timothy D. Nimrod
Mary Lou Ryan Norwell
Melanie R. Nuby
Thomas G. O'Brien
Annie O'Donnell
Ubi O. O'Neal
Kathleen Ann Panozzo
Sheryl Ann Pethers
Jackie Marie Portman
Aurelia Marie Pucinski
Carolyn G. Quinn
Mary Therese Quinn
William Burnett Raines
Robert Kevin Reardon
Jean Marie Reynolds
Patrick Dennis Riley
Bridget Healy Ryan
Jim Ryan
Don R. Sampen
Catherine Sanders
John J. Scotillo
Anthony C. Scrementi
Diane M. Shelley
Henry M. Singer
James E. Snyder
Denise Y. Staniec
Michael Alan Strom
Angelo J. Toscas
Ursula Walowski
Mitchell Ware
Edward Washington


Chicago Appleseed and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago to Undertake  Study of the Chicago Immigration Court’s Video-Teleconferencing Hearings.

The right to be physically present for one's own trial is a basic tenet of our justice system. The increasing use of Video-Teleconferencing Hearings (VTC) is said by some to threaten this basic protection. Nowhere is this threat more apparent then in the use of VTC hearings in removal proceedings. Although all non-citizens have statutory and constitutional due process rights, VTC hearings may increase the risk that these rights will be violated and that immigrants will be unfairly deported from the U.S. and forced to leave their immediate family with no hope of return.

Although the Chicago Immigration Court has been conducting removal proceedings by VTC for over a year, no study has been done to gauge the effects of VTC hearings on immigrants’ rights. We wish to complete a thorough study and publish a report on the effects of VTC hearings in immigration cases. We are seeking pro bono lawyers and law students to assist us in monitoring VTC hearings and in writing a report detailing the results of our research. 

Please contact Malcolm Rich (312-988-6552 or email:  malcolmrich@chicagoappleseed.org) if you are interested in volunteering or need more information. 


Chicago Council of Lawyers / Chicago Appleseed Fund For Justice
750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Fourth Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60611
Phone: 312-988-6565 / Fax: 312-654-8644 
E-mail: ccl@chicagocouncil.org or caffj@chicagoappleseed.org
Website: www.chicagocouncil.org or www.chicagoappleseed.org