A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent.The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain? Kwidzinski was dealing with the case for a year and a half before even getting to trial.
After awhile, the worry and stress start to wear you down. During the year and a half waiting trial, Kwidzinski had watched the toll that stress took on his family, the money it cost for attorneys, and was made out to be “vilified in the papers and on the radio talk shows” (Bogira 334).Just like in the case of Troy Cameron, where he too was worn down through the typical grueling court procedures. Troy was actually sitting in jail for five months while awaiting his trial because, unlike Kwidzinski, Troy did not have money to even post enough for bail. Troy was “tired” and even though Troy wanted to go to trial, he felt like his public defender and prosecutor wanted him to take a guilty plea (Bogira 44). Troy realized, as did Kwidzinski, guilty or not their fate would be left in the hands of chance if they went to trial.
They decided the best case scenario would be to accept the plea and be guaranteed a less significant or better verdict. Another reason why Kwidzinski took a guilty plea is because his lawyer gave him his two options to choose from. One option would be to accept the plea deal and agree to the charges of the misdemeanor conviction and no jail time. The second option would be to go to trial on a felony charge and face the possibility of receiving jail time. Many cases that go to trial may look like an easy black and white decision, but there is no guarantee what the outcome will be with a jury and judge involved.
The mere thought of there being a slight chance of jail time played a major factor in Kwidzinski’s decision to accept a guilty plea bargain. As Kwidzinski’s attorney Bolger said, “once a person is facing felony charges, the issue no longer is whether he did the crime; it’s how to limit the damage” (Bogira 334). Clearly this was on Michael Kwidzinski’s mind when deciding whether or not to take a plea deal. Kwidzinski opted for the guilty plea, and in doing so, was able to limit the possible damage that he would incur had he chosen to go to trial.Several individual cases wind their way through the year-long proceedings in Judge Locallo's courtroom. In any judge's life the occasional “significant case” appears on the docket.
Also known as a "heater case," it is a highly publicized case involving either a sensational crime or a well-publicized defendant. For Judge Locallo it will involve three white teenagers charged with a brutal beating of two young African Americans who wandered into the wrong neighborhood.The racial overtones of the crime coupled with the political connections of one of the defendants brought substantial pressure for the Judge to deal with. Because judges are elected in Illinois, the case had serious implications for Locallo's career. How such a case impacts the independence of our judiciary raises important questions for anyone concerned about that issue.
It was a high profile case and the detectives and prosecutors of the court wanted to get charges issued against possible offenders in the case right away.Also, the Mayor was anxious to announce that three alleged criminals were arrested in the beating – “Mayor Daley had assured reporters shortly after the story of the beating broke that police were handling the matter and would be making arrests” (Bogira 328). Even though there were four women who told the grand jury that they overheard Jimmy Guadagno bragging about kicking the victim, detective turner thought he could not charge Guadagno because the women’s statements were “inadmissible hearsay” (329). Jenson, Caruso’s lawyer, wanted to call two girls from the party to testify against Guadagno.Judge Locallo said the state would then be allowed to call Deena, Caruso’s ex girlfriend, to testify.
Deena’s statement would then not only implicate Guadagno in the case but it would also place Caruso, Jenson’s client, at the scene of the crime (Bogira 329). If Guadagno would have been forced to testify he would have been viewed as the third criminal and could have cleared Kwidzinski of any charges. A significant reason the courts continued with prosecuting Kwidzinski was that reversing the charges would make people question the legitimacy of the case all together. The state’s attorney’s office had already charged three alleged attackers.If there was any doubt of Kwidzinski being involved in the case there would be a problem with the lawyers of the other two attackers by trying to jump on the bandwagon to freedom.
Even though Kwidzinski may have been justifiably innocent and wrongly accused, the attorneys for Jasas and Caruso would have claimed their clients were wrongly accused as well. Another major reason for keeping the prosecution for Kwidzinski going is when prosecuting attorney O’Reilly presented to the grand jury a request for an indictment on Caruso, Jasas ; Kwidzinski, he presented one witness, Detective Turner.Also the questions O’Reilly asked to the detective were scripted which he answered in basically one-word responses. He never disclosed the witnesses statements or their interviews to the grand jury, nor did he summarize what those witnesses even said which would have helped the grand jury in their decision to indict or not to indict. At least it would have possibly kept the grand jury from handing down an indictment on Michael Kwidzinski had they at least been privy to the information that both Detective Turner and Prosecutor O’Reilly had knowledge about.As it turned out, the Grand Jury handed down an important decision affecting someone’s life without making an “informed decision” because as stated; “But an informed decision wasn’t being sought” (Bogira 333).
The prosecutor’s goal was an indictment, and an indictment is what he got. There are many instances in the judicial system where innocent people openly accept a guilty plea bargains simply because it looks to be the best route to take in their situation.With the case of Troy Cameron, he has a long conversation with Judge Locallo regarding pleading guilty. Cameron is tired, and he states that to Judge Locallo a few times in their conversation. Cameron wants to go to trial, but he is afraid that he won’t win based on his past experience with court and his feeling of helplessness. It seems that Judge Locallo gets this by talking with Cameron and asks him over and over if he understands that he is giving up his right to a trial.
Cameron makes it pretty clear that he will plead guilty but that is not actually what he wants. He makes it clear that he is innocent but feels somewhat forced to take the guilty plea because he has no choice. It is obvious that Cameron is hesistant, and Judge Locallo must recognize that and that’s why he continues to ask Cameron if he understands that he is pleading guilty. Cameron states “I don’t understand nothing whatsoever, but I’m just taking something that I don’t even understand myself” (47).
Some judges will hurry o get the plea deal, and even though Judge Locallo takes the time to question Cameron over and over, he is still aware of the possibility of Cameron being innocent, but he only mostly slows up his questioning “to make it clear in the record that Cameron knew what he was doing when he pled – so Cameron would have a hard time claiming on an appeal that he didn’t” (46). As Judge Locallo’s retention election grew closer, he actually had “1,058 dispos” (39) so based on his experiences as Judge, he could not be so naive as to think that innocent people do not at times, select a guilty plea (39-40) even when they are not guilty.Judge Locallo realizes that prosecutors have weak cases at times, and offer plea deals to defense attorneys. More times than not, the reason for a weak case is that a person is purely innocent. But rather than that person take a chance on going to trial, they opt for a plea deal.
This is sometimes viewed as a win-win situation for all involved. Not that the defendant is guilty, but that if the defendant can walk with probation after pleading guilty, the prosecutor gets a conviction, the judge gets a dispo, and the defense attorney drops one client off their overworked schedule.So although the defendant may very well be innocent, rather than spend stressful, frightening time in the court system, he gets to get out of this arduous court process altogether. Judge Locallo referred to plea deals as a “very attractive scenario”, and that if he was in Kwidzinski’s situation, facing a felony charge and the possibility of “3 – 30 years”, he would “probably have jumped at” a plea offer, guilty or not (334).
With Judge Locallo’s view on Kwidzinski’s plea deal scenario being that somehow Kwidzinski was fortunate to have been given a plea bargain, even if innocent, he must have shared this view with many of the 1058 dispos he was part of – innocent or not. What does this say about the ability of the justice system to dispense justice? Not much! It says that the justice system is more concerned with efficiency of cases, of pushing cases through the assembly line so that the courts systems don’t get jammed up.
