Roderick Pritchett wins--COURAGE PAYS OFF!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Don Gwinn

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
6,384
Location
Virden, IL
Roderick Pritchett goes on trial TOMORROW--be there!

Roderick Pritchett will be on trial TOMORROW, May 17th, at 11 a.m. If you planned to go on the 18th as previously advised, don't.


We still need everyone who can make it tomorrow morning! I'm taking a day off and driving three and a half hours. Do what you can.

If you're not familiar with Roderick's case, you can google "Roderick Pritchett" and find out all about it. Essentially, Roderick is a black guy with dreadlocks who says he made the mistake of legally transporting his handgun. He says it was in a case and unloaded as required by Illinois law. Two white Chicago cops claim it was illegally transported.
Roderick has rejected all offers of deals and plea bargains in favor of a trial and the chance to be vindicated. That by itself leads me to believe his side of the story. We'd like to have as many gun owners as possible there, all wearing blue shirts and, if possible, FOID cards prominently displayed.

I know it's the heart of Mordor, but you can go for a good cause!

Here's John Birch's email on the subject. It gives the name of the judge and room where the trial will be held.

Roderick Pritchett has decided to take a bench trial. That means the entire trial should happen Monday, May 17th at 11am in front of Judge Linn, Room 202 at 26th and California. We had advised you to take the May 18th because the assumption was this was going to be a jury trial and Monday would be set aside for Jury selection. Now that the trial will be solely in front of Judge Linn that changes things. The entire trial should be over and done with on Monday, May 17th.

Do not come on May 18th and if you can please change your schedule to 11am, Monday, May 17th.

We recommend the wearing of blue shirts to show solidarity. I sure do look forward to this case being over and done with. Don' miss this opportunity to see the justice system in action. It's not like LA Law for sure. You will not be bored.

I can think of nothing better than a sea of gun owners attending the trial of Roderick. Cops do this all the time. We need to as well. This is an important case to the Cook County State's Attorney. They are LIVID at the fact you have supported Roderick. And they are livid that Roderick has lived up to his promise: NO DEALS.

So Roderick is potentially facing felony conviction and jail time. It is important you be there as the Cook County State's Attorney needs to learn this lesson: When you arrest one gun owner, you arrest ALL gun owners.
 
hope he wins though doubt he will.

unlawfull use of weapons I belive is the charge. felony if I am not mistaken.

whole thing sickens me that and the homeowner that stood up for what was his. :barf:
 
Ugh! I read about this case a while ago. I'm saddened to see the authorities didn't drop the charges. :cuss: those JBT's
 
Damn - if I was still at school, I'd be there. If anyone can make it, please convey my support.
 
There's still time for them to drop the charges. That's what they did to Vana Haggerty. Offered deal after deal--most of which still involved jail time, all of which required her to plead guilty to something. She refused and refused. They offered one last deal when she arrived for the trial, then when the judge convened the trial they immediately moved to dismiss all charges.
In other words, they had no case, and knew it--she was innocent, and they knew it--but they figured that if they sweated her long enough, maybe they'd get lucky and the innocent woman would plead guilty to a lesser trumped-up charge and send herself to jail. :fire:

I don't know if Roderick can win, but I admire his determination to fight rather than accept a deal that might be nothing more than an admission that they know he's innocent but they still want to send him to jail. :fire:
 
Jesus... asking for a bench trial? He must feel he's on 100% solid legal grounds. I hope he's well represented, or he's going to hang for sure. It sucks, though, that he's obviously certain that a jury would hang him, either for being black or for daring to own a gun.
 
The whole case is a serious and concerning reflection on total INjustice. Hard indeed to believe it happened in this country.

I read up again on the report at KABA ..... his treatment was worthy of concentration camp behavior .... as for the ''Q-Tips'' ..... :(

I am trying not to hold my breath but .. sure would like to hear of a positive outcome.
 
Congratulations Roderick!

First the important part: Roderick was cleared today by Judge Linn and sent home a free man.

I know we engage in a lot of hyperbole here, calling places like Chicago "Mordor" and "People's Republics" and such. Normally, I frown on it. However, the Cook County Courthouse is genuinely a scary place. It really did remind me a little bit of Mordor (and many Orcs and Goblins were about!)

Chicago is a filthy, ugly, dangerous place. The area I was in honestly reminded me of scenes from Escape From New York. The Courthouse itself is part of the giant Cook County Jail complex about which I'm sure you've all heard the stories. Scary place.

The courtroom was a large rectangular room divided into two sections. Entering from the hallway, you find yourself in a spectators' area with benches facing the courtroom proper, which is entirely sealed off from you by a curved, faceted wall of inch-thick glass. It's about 25 degrees hotter in the spectators' area than the hallway, easily 90 degrees. A set of double doors lead through the thick glass wall into the courtroom itself. The judge, witness and each attorney have microphones through which their voices are piped out to the spectators. The glass is soundproof, so when the judge kills the microphones the spectators are out of luck.

There were about 25-20 people, mostly middle-aged white guys, who showed up on Roderick's behalf. All of us wore blue shirts. In addition, a very nice lady and her daughter, a student at Duke University, were there taking notes on the whole thing, as was Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (Zorn writes the "Rhubarb column" and, though he isn't what most at THR would call pro-gun, is very good about giving us equal time and coverage. He has a good working relationship with John Birch, it seems, even if they're not exactly buddies. He asked very fair, intelligent questions after the trial.


The strategy behind asking for a bench trial was solid, but it was definitely a gamble, and more than once during the short trial we were asking each other if it was too late to get a do-over and take a chance on a jury! The reasoning was this:

1. You can't trust any Cook County jury. The average person in Cook County would not care what the law was, they'd just know it was their job to put this gang-banger in jail for having a gun. (They'd know he was a gang-banger because he's a 26-year-old black guy with cornrows who had a gun in his car.)

2. Theoretically, a judge should know the law better and also be better able to parse the law, and Pritchett's defense hinged on that. Remember, he stipulates that the gun was in the car, in the CD case. He was only arguing that it was unloaded. A jury could well have decided that was one of them there technicalities that Callahan used to complain about and sent him up anyway.

3. Judge James F. Linn apparently has a very strong reputation for fairness and rigorous thought. Attorney Maksym thought it was a better gamble to bet on Linn's fairness than that of 12 people from Chicago too dumb to get out of jury duty. (No, he didn't say that, I did. You can complain to me.)


Before Mr. Pritchett's case came up, we had the chance to observe justice in action. The first gentleman who came before the court pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery (with a fake gun, apparently) and was admonished by the judge for turning to a life of crime at age 37. He told the judge that he'd gotten divorced, had 5 kids, etc. etc. etc. and was sentenced to two years' probation minus 260 days served. :scrutiny: We weren't sure whether to be shocked or hopeful that the judge was in a lenient mood today.


When Mr. Pritchett's case came up, we were all pretty worried. Quite frankly, it seemed that on purely legal grounds the case should be simple--the cops had no proof that the gun had been loaded, and an unloaded gun is not illegal. Simplicity itself. Their only evidence was the word of a Chicago police officer, which would not seem to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard. But we knew that often the law doesn't matter as much as the private emotions and agendas of the players in a trial like this. It was terrifying to imagine myself in the place of this guy who, after all, is the same age as I am and facing many of the same problems in life. But it was also clear to me that as a white kid who lived far away from Chicago, I routinely did things Roderick simply can't get away with doing--like driving on expired plates for a day or two.

The police officers didn't show up to testify. The prosecutor instead used their recorded testimony from the indictment, with Attorney Maksym (WM hereafter) stipulating to the fact that the officers would have testified to those facts had they been present. Essentially, the cops' testimony was the same as Roderick's, except that they claimed the gun was loaded and he claimed it was unloaded.
 
Part II--We get in some trouble, judge alternately bored and angry

The courthouse is on California Ave. at California and 26th. If you go there from I-55, don't take the left turn lanes on the ramp even though you want to turn left. They'll force you to turn left again and get right back on I-55 going the other direction. Don't ask how I know--I just know.



When the judge saw us all sitting behind the glass (it was hard to see in because the glass was angled in toward the courtroom and thus reflected the ceiling lights, besides being awfully dark glass--it really was a Star Chamber type of room) he first asked whether we were a class of some sort. When he found out we had come in support of Roderick, he wasn't happy. He beckoned WM and turned off the microphones, but we could see him pointing and gesturing angrily. I assume WM apologized for our presumption with a some resigned and helpless mien. In any case, we weren't going to leave! About tht time, Roderick was called and his girlfriend and son walked in with him. The judge was exasperated by this and demanded loudly that the child be removed. It was obvious that the judge was wondering why he had to be surrouned by amateurs and idiots.

This attitude didn't get any better throughout the trial. WM, apparently thinking of setting up an appeal, insisted on attempting to introduce all sorts of evidence and testimony the judge thought irrelevant, and the judge lost patience with it fast. I wondered if WM might not be overdoing it since he seemed to be ticking off the one person who would decide his client's fate. However, apparently the judge understood that it was just business and didn't take things personally, his obvious irritation aside.

At many other times, it seemed to those of us in the peanut gallery that the judge was bored. I now wonder if that wasn't because he had a pretty good idea what his ruling would have to be unless there was a bombshell of some sort, and after enough years of being a judge he has stopped waiting for bombshells. ;)

In any case, the first big dispute was over the acceptance of the cop's old testimony. The prosecutor, a young woman, tried gamely again and again to get WM to stipulate to the facts in the testimony, including the fact that the gun was loaded, rather than stipulating that the officer would have testified to that effect (which would not mean admitting that the officer was correct or telling the truth.) She was perfectly willing to play dumb and pretend not to understand what WM was saying, and kept restating her version of the facts in different ways, then asking whether he agreed. It began to look like there would be no testimony from the police, in which case the judge would hold over for a different day. Nobody wanted that! They eventually got it straightened out.

Next, WM questioned Roderick. He told the same story he always has. Attempts to introduce the following facts failed:
1. In 1993, when Roderick was about 15 years old, a student at his high school was murdered right in front of him. Roderick watched someone pour five shots into the victim. WM intended this to show that the defendant's state of mind demanded that he carry a weapon.
2. Roderick did custom artwork for several very worthy charities and even sold two pieces to Mayor Daley. As the judge put it "they're very worthy, they're great organizations, and it's wonderful that he helped them and it's also totally irrelevant."
3. Roderick purchased his gun legally, used a case that met the legal requirements, held a valid FOID card and had studied both the statute itself and a DNR/Illinois State Police publication called "How to Transport Your Gun Legally." WM intended to show that Pritchett showed every sign of wanting and trying to obey the law, thus he probably had the gun unloaded.


Next, the prosecutor cross-examined Roderick. She didn't have a lot of questions, since the only real issue was always whether he really had the gun unloaded or not. She tried repeatedly to get him to agree that "the bullets were in the gun, right?" For some reason she also argued with him as to whether the gun was under the seat or between them. I didn't see the ponit. Either is legal and neither indirectly affects other legal areas.

There was one odd moment in the cross-examination, but I'll have to wrap this up tomorrow. I spent a good 9-10 hours in the car today, too much of it in very bad neighborhoods in Chicago, and I've just got to sleep.

Roderick, wherever you're laying your head down tonight, savor the feeling of doing it as a free man!


Coming In Our Next Exciting Installment:
  • The prosecutor springs her cunning trap--right on her own nose!
  • Don, John, and all their friends are held in contempt of court and thrown out of the Cook County Courthouse!
  • Tears and hugs.
  • While others celebrate in a friendly tavern, Don tries to figure out how he ended up at a dead end in the worst neighborhood he has ever seen. Luckily, there are lots of young men lounging around drinking ginger ale out of brown paper bags and selling the tourists pet rocks (I'd never seen Pet Rocks before. How come they're all white?)
  • Don discovers the bullet-proof convenience store, sure sign of a friendly neighborhood!
 
The courthouse is on California Ave. at California and 26th. If you go there from I-55, don't take the left turn lanes on the ramp even though you want to turn left. They'll force you to turn left again and get right back on I-55 going the other direction. Don't ask how I know--I just know.

ok i think i know where that is. i havent been up there in awhile so my street memory is starting to get fuzzy
 
Definitely :rolleyes:
The judge just got annoyed because we applauded the decision. We didn't realize that was verboten. He had us escorted from the building. :D
 
Wouldn't it be nice if people just admitted their mistake, took the consequences and moved on instead of dragging things out and refusing to admit that they are wrong. I'm sure the reason that the cops didn't show up was because they knew they were going to lose and they didn't want to be photographed.
 
Mr. Pritchett has not, of course, gotten his gun back. However, some of you may have read about his mother sacrificing her Christmas and savings to get him out of jail and get his car out of the impound lot. Before we left the courthouse, Mr. Maksym made a point of collecting a legal order for that money to be returned to her. It was genuinely heartwarming to see her get her savings and her son back.

It's not clear at this point whether Roderick will attempt to get his gun returned. Cook County is famous for refusing to return anything, especially firearms, and the outcome of the case will not really matter to them. Depending on who handles the case, he might get it back with no hassle at all (unlikely, but possible) or it might take years and never be resolved.

That's why it was suggested that members of Concealed Carry, Inc. pitch in to buy Roderick a new gun. I know I'll donate. I THINK the money will be sent to John Birch at concealcarry.org, but I don't know that for sure yet. I hope some THR members will pony up as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top