Patrick Thompson's third trial has begun:
Thompson, a member of the Visionaries Educating Youth and Adults group, which tried to shed light on local police interaction with young black men in the summer of 2004, is charged in connection with an Aug. 24, 2004, incident in which he is alleged to have entered his neighbor's apartment at 1702 E. Colorado Ave., U, without her permission and fondled her.
His first trial in July 2005, in which he represented himself, ended in a mistrial when a jury couldn't come to a unanimous verdict. Represented by Urbana attorney Harvey Welch, Thompson was retried in July 2006 and convicted of the Class X felony of home invasion and the less serious criminal sexual abuse charge.
Thompson then hired Kirchner and Wyman in August 2006 to represent him. They filed a post-trial motion asking for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance by Welch. In April 2007, Clem granted the new trial.
Discuss.
UPDATE: One charge dismissed:
Judge Harry Clem said the prosecutor had not presented enough evidence on the count of home invasion lodged against the 39-year-old Champaign man to even send it to the jury.
Conviction on that charge would have meant a mandatory prison sentence of six to 30 years for Thompson. The trial on the remaining charge of criminal sexual abuse, alleging Thompson fondled the woman in her Urbana apartment on Aug. 24, 2004, will go forward Thursday. That is a Class 4 felony with penalties ranging from probation to one to three years in prison if convicted.
With no preconceived opinion about this case, I was struck by the following two admissions: The special prosecutor admitted there was no physical evidence linking Thompson to the crime. Urbana police officer Michael Hediger, who interviewed the alleged victim, didn't think it would be useful to examine the alleged crime scene, so this was never done.
No physical evidence, no witnesses, no crime scene analysis. How did this ever get to trial? This is not a rhetorical question.
Based on what I've heard, I can't form any opinion about whether Thompson is guilty. I think the alleged victim is considered a witness, though.
There are lots of times in which there is no physical evidence. Suppose you are walking down the street. Someone comes up to you, has a finger in their jacket and demands money. That is considered Armed Robbery. They then run away. They are caught and returned to the scene where you ID the suspect. Where is the physical evidence in that case, but your the one who got robbed and you id the person. Same thing here.....People watch too much CSI
I've been to plenty of trials, and there usually is some physical evidence.
No *corroborating* witnesses.
Let's play pretend.
For example, I've met IP. Put me in the place of the victim in this case and IP in Patrick Thompson's place. I can identify him. I say he attacked me. They arrest him. Is my say-so without any physical evidence or other witnesses meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof?
Why the police didn't investigate the crime scene or why neither suspect was physically examined are both unknowns---and perhaps those questions should be answered. But because neither was done, I can't see how the state can possibly meet the burden of proof. With what?
As a member of CU Citizens for Peace and Justice I happen to know Patrick Thompson and, as a feminist, it goes against my beliefs to accuse any alleged victim of a sex crime of being a liar. So, for me, the challenge is how can I support the innocence of this man and still be respectful of his alleged victim?
For myself this is what I have seen to support the defense of Patrick Thompson.
- Patrick was wearing a splint on his hand which would have made it impossible for him to attack anyone in the way that his alleged victim testified
- Officers did not follow there own established protocol in investigating the scene of the alleged attack
- Photographs of any injuries to the alleged victim or of her apartment were not taken - considering that a report was filed on the day of the incident the opportunity to gather evidence was there.
- Previous testimony indicated that Patrick wasn't even in the building at the time of the reported assault.
We are not talking about a situation where a woman was attacked and then waited several days to report this. For all I know this individual could have been assaulted by someone who is similar in appearance to Patrick. If she had been aquainted with him as a neighbor then I'm surprised she needed a photo lineup in order to make an identfication. I freely admit this is sheer speculation on my part - but it also takes into consideration the possibility that this woman was attacked and the lack of solid police work made it possible for the wrong man to be accused and the right man to get away with this crime.
On May 14th, 2008 at 07:09 PM, Marti Wilkinson said:
As a member of CU Citizens for Peace and Justice I happen to know Patrick Thompson and, as a feminist, it goes against my beliefs to accuse any alleged victim of a sex crime of being a liar.
"Alleged" victim, either you are a victim or not, Were forensic tests done on the victim?, by whom? , and if not why?, Also if these tests were done and not used by the Urbana Police, Why are the Illinois State Police not involved in the investigation?? I'm not calling this woman a liar either but evidence and facts are needed on both sides.
Kirchner has gotten his share of grief over a few cases, perhaps justifiably so. But in this one, perhaps he's on to something
One charge was dismissed tonight.
The link to the story is in an update to the original post above.
No *corroborating* witnesses.
Let's play pretend.
For example, I've met IP. Put me in the place of the victim in this case and IP in Patrick Thompson's place. I can identify him. I say he attacked me. They arrest him. Is my say-so without any physical evidence or other witnesses meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof?
Why the police didn't investigate the crime scene or why neither suspect was physically examined are both unknowns---and perhaps those questions should be answered. But because neither was done, I can't see how the state can possibly meet the burden of proof. With what?
There are lots of times that there is no evidence other than the victims testimony and people are found guilty every day.... As I stated before, the presumption is that the victim is not lying... why make something up and then put themselves into this position? In this case, he was found guilty one time, a mistrial the next. This is one of those cases that only two people know what happened. I would not want to be on that jury.
"Alleged" victim, either you are a victim or not, Were forensic tests done on the victim?, by whom? , and if not why?, Also if these tests were done and not used by the Urbana Police, Why are the Illinois State Police not involved in the investigation?? I'm not calling this woman a liar either but evidence and facts are needed on both sides.
Hi Gregg:
It's my understanding that forensic tests were not done. It's one persons word against another. Assuming that Patrick Thompson is innocent until proven guilty then the 'victim' can only make allegations until the verdict is in. As Ish1925 put it....I would not want to be on that jury.
According to one of the updates I received a nurse testified that Patrick had a splint on his hand at the time of the reported incident.
I do agree that evidence and facts need to be presented on both sides....and perhaps this is where the biggest criticism comes into play. Considering that there is no forensic evidence to support the accusations it really makes me wonder why Champaign County has pursued this case...again and again and again.
Only two people will ever know for sure what happened that day. I don't buy the idea that the police and SAO conspired to retaliate against Patrick Thompson, but I'm also not convinced that he's guilty.
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know why the home invasion charge was dismissed, but not the sexual abuse one? It seems like they're closely related.
Marti
The photo line-up was not for her to ID the suspect, it was to confirm his ID from her to the police.
The Home Invasion charge was dismissed because---ready for this?---The state did not prove he was not a police officer making an otherwise legal entry
The Home Invasion charge was dismissed because---ready for this?---The state did not prove he was not a police officer making an otherwise legal entry
That's surprising, though the idea of Patrick Thompson as a cop is sort of funny.
There are lots of times that there is no evidence other than the victims testimony and people are found guilty every day.... As I stated before, the presumption is that the victim is not lying...
You seem to foget the other presumption: That Thompson is innocent until *proven* guilty by the state---regardless of the accuser's veracity.
"- Previous testimony indicated that Patrick wasn't even in the building at the time of the reported assault."
Marti, I would sure like to know more about this...
Pretty hard to be a copper when you are on federal parole for distribution of cocaine at the time you are being accused of all of this...
"The Home Invasion charge was dismissed because---ready for this?---The state did not prove he was not a police officer making an otherwise legal entry"
I'm not sure that is even possible. How do you prove a negative? Would they have to provide a list of every police officer in the universe, to show that his name wasn't on it?
This seems to me to reverse what common sense would indicate is the burden of proof on this particular point. In other words, it should be the responsibility of the defendant to prove that he is a police officer, if they can, in order to counter the charge.
I know how to prove someone is a police officer. I have no idea how one could possibly prove they aren't. This is probably why I'm not a lawyer.
wtf? failing to prove he's a police officer? Time for lawyers to chime in. Is the defense grossly incompetent or is the judge just trying to make it go away.
On May 15th, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Politicalchemy said:
"- Previous testimony indicated that Patrick wasn't even in the building at the time of the reported assault."
Marti, I would sure like to know more about this...
I received an email from someone who had followed the previous trials very closely and I was informed that my information, in this instance is faulty, so I am taking the opportunity to admit that I'm wrong.
From an email I received this morning as I was on the road.
PT was in the apartment Aug 24, 2004.
Maria Thompson just testified this morning
that PT was in the apt with her.
Yep...I sure screwed that one up and I stand corrected.
Peace, Marti
Marti,
Thanks for the retraction, it's nice to hear someone admit that they were wrong every once in a while without trying to make excuses for it. I do have an issue with some of the other things you've said, though.....
- Officers did not follow there own established protocol in investigating the scene of the alleged attack
- Photographs of any injuries to the alleged victim or of her apartment were not taken - considering that a report was filed on the day of the incident the opportunity to gather evidence was there.
First of all, I question your assertion that the police have a specific protocol in investigating the scene of the attack. I'm speculating that this assertion is being made because of some meeting that someone briefly mentioned that took place with Urbana's police chief. I'm wondering what exactly was said during that meeting. I'm not trying to be rude, but some of your associates have a knack for twisting words and taking things out of context. Can you provide any solid evidence that such protocol exists?
Secondly, I question your statement about photographs. I'll readily admit that I don't know the exact injuries that the victim claims to have had, but from what I gather the allegation has something to do with being fondled. I'd think that there are a number of ways to fondle someone, and most of the ones that I can think can probably be accomplished without leaving any marks, especially any marks that would show up in a photograph.
Michael Vujovich, the special prosecutor in PT's case, has done some controversial things.
From a N-G story on March 15. 2008:
From a N-G story on Nov. 20, 2007 by Noelle McGee:
The Trib's Eric Zorn used the word "slime" to refer to some of Vujovich's comments about Herb Whitlock's case. From a Jan 10, 2008 column:
There have been at least two other cases where the judge has decided that Vujovich did not prove his case in a sex crime trial.
From an April 4, 2008 N-G article by Noelle McGee about the David Lewis trial:
There was another case in Streamwood where the judge dismissed charges before the defense made its case. From a September 20, 2002 article in the Daily Herald by Tom O'Konowitz.
Sounds kind of familiar.
wtf? failing to prove he's a police officer? Time for lawyers to chime in. Is the defense grossly incompetent or is the judge just trying to make it go away.
In the Thompson case, it sounds like the defense is doing what they're supposed to be doing, including the motion to dismiss. But Clem's not the first judge who's dismissed charges in a sex crime case prosecuted by Vujovich before the defense made its case (see above post).
There is a standardized procedure for investigations at the Urbana Police Department that is contained in a policy manual called the Urbana Police Department Directive. "Crimes of significance", which includes criminal sexual abuse, are to be reported to a Criminal Investigation Section. This unit is an on-call group of officers consisting of a supervisor and 4 investigators. The shift commander is to notify the CIS commander in a timely fashion, whereby, they notify an available investigator to begin the preliminary investigation. Patrolman Hediger's responsibilities were threefold, according to the manual: secure the crime scene from contamination, collect the clothing, interview potential ear-witnesses. None of which Hediger did that morning. It was the duty of shift commander Sgt. Joel Sanders to report the incident to the CIS team. He failed to do so.
Interestingly, Sanders, who signed off on Hediger's police report, is also one of the officers who appears in Thompson's documentary. In the documentary, Sanders doesn't seem too bothered by Thompson's videotaping him while on duty. The motive to set up Thompson can't be said to exist from Sander's reaction to Thompson's camera. There is no question, however, that had UPD done its job on August 24, 2004- this would have been over by August 25, 2004; instead of May 16, 2008, and 3 trials later. There is enough evidence from the eavesdropping police reports to suggest police were well aware of who Thompson was by the time the accuser showed up crying wolf. Remember too, Thomspon has been in civil litigation with the officers, the prosecutors and city governments over the eavesdropping prosecutions since June 2005. That may be one reason prosecutor Vujovich couldn't let the criminal charge go.
Interesting too, is the amount of time Piland and Vujovich wasted using investigator Duane Maxey to back-engineer the case to fit the story months, years after the incident. Duane Maxey was sent back to Sunnycrest Apartments and the accuser's work site repeatedly to collect evidence- not of a criminal sexual attack- but rather, small trivial stuff that would prove Thompson's wife may have violated the HUD lease (discrediting the alibi witness), current tennants of the complex to figure out locks on doors, and co-workers at the accuser's work-site who saw the accuser upset the day of. The problem was the accuser kept telling different stories to each person who saw her upset that day.
"Can you provide any solid evidence that such protocol exists?" The Urbana Police Department does have a document that outlines general procedures for investigations and delegation of duties. It's called the Urbana Police Department Directive. In that document it outlines what should have happened when Officer Hediger reported a criminal sexual abuse. Criminal sexual abuse is considered a "crime of significance", and the shift commander was supposed to notify a team of specially trained officers called the Criminal Investigation Section, comprised of a supervisor, and 4 on-call investigators. This team is to conduct preliminary and follow-up investigations. Patrol officers are delegated the responsibility to collect clothing in cases of sex crimes, and offer the victim an examination by a SANE, a sexual assault nurse examiner. Sgt. Joel Sanders, the morning of Aug. 24, 2004 did not notify the CIS team and Hediger did not collect clothing, offer the victim the SANE examination nor secure the crime scene, nor search for neighboring witnesses that should have screaming that the victim first claimed to have happened.