[Chicago] City Lawyer Who Hid Evidence In Police Shooting Case Resigns, Reports Say

[ksen]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...ce-police-shooting-of-darius-pinex-judge-says

A top city lawyer resigned from his post Monday, hours after a federal judge accused him of concealing key evidence in a police shooting lawsuit, according to media reports.

Jordan Marsh, senior corporation counsel for the city, resigned after a judge threw out a previous ruling and ordered a new case in the wrongful lawsuit death brought by the family of Darius Pinex, killed by officers after a 2011 traffic stop in Englewood, according to the Tribune.

Judge Edmond E. Chang on Monday granted Pinex's family a new trial, saying in a scathing ruling that Marsh intentionally hid evidence from the family's legal team prior to the start of the trial.

According to the Sun-Times, Marsh failed to turn over a police radio transmission that proved officers who shot Pinex did not actually hear what they said they did over the radio, which the officers pointed to as their reason for pulling Pinex over in the first place.

Why should we give any police officer the benefit of the doubt again?

How many more stories need to come out about police officers lying about the situation where they killed someone or government officials hiding evidence bad for the police officers before anything serious is done?

And we should totally let them continue to investigate themselves and then just accept the results of those investigations.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

#NotAllProsecutors

Just because one individual prosecutor concealed evidence in a police shooting, doesn't mean that all prosecutors are evidence-concealers.

 

[Trausti]

#NotAllProsecutors

Just because one individual prosecutor concealed evidence in a police shooting, doesn't mean that all prosecutors are evidence-concealers.

It is rare; even non-lawyers know it's wrong. That's why this story made the news. The city's attorney will probably face discipline from the bar for this.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why should we give any police officer the benefit of the doubt again?

.

Because "benefit of the doubt" merely means that you start by presuming it is less than 50% likely that the officers response was criminally excessive. The number of cases with strong evidence of such wrong doing is still a tiny % of all officer involved altercations with suspects. Thus, it is highly irrational not to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt until their is case specific evidence showing otherwise.

Your extreme over-reaction is indicative of why rational progress that is more good than harmful is unlikely to be made on this issue.

 

[ksen]

#NotAllProsecutors

Just because one individual prosecutor concealed evidence in a police shooting, doesn't mean that all prosecutors are evidence-concealers.

It is rare;

Is it?

https://www.google.com/search?newwi....0..2..0...1.1.64.hp..25.9.2192.0._p2lkMA5-Z4

even non-lawyers know it's wrong. That's why this story made the news. The city's attorney will probably face discipline from the bar for this.

Oooohhhh, from the BAR? He should be facing discipline from the inside of a jail cell.

 

[ksen]

Because "benefit of the doubt" merely means that you start by presuming it is less than 50% likely that the officers response was criminally excessive. The number of cases with strong evidence of such wrong doing is still a tiny % of all officer involved altercations with suspects. Thus, it is highly irrational not to continue to give them the benefit of the doubt until their is case specific evidence showing otherwise.

Your extreme over-reaction is indicative of why rational progress that is more good than harmful is unlikely to be made on this issue.

Extreme overreaction is what you get when the system continually fails and no one is held accountable.

Too many people are literally being killed by agents of the State for no good reason.

Meanwhile we wait and wait for rational progress towards some level of accountability as the bodies keep piling up.

 

[Derec]

#NotAllProsecutors

Just because one individual prosecutor concealed evidence in a police shooting, doesn't mean that all prosecutors are evidence-concealers.

In this case it was not a prosecutor at all, but a city attorney.
And regardless of why police pulled over Darius Pinex he should not have driven his Oldsmobile at the cops, hitting and dragging one of them.

According to police, once the vehicle was stopped, officers ordered Pinex and a passenger out of the car. The passenger opened his door and Pinex put the car in reverse striking and dragging an officer.
Pinex then put the car into drive in an attempt to strike another officer, but hit a light pole instead, police said. The officer said he feared for his life, fired his weapon and shot Pinex, who later died.

Sounds like justified shooting to me.

Pinex had more than two dozen previous arrests on his record, including drug possession, burglary and resisting arrest. His most recent conviction came last month, when he was given a conditional discharge for resisting arrest, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Upstanding citizen I see.

Despite that, Johnson insisted that her grandson was a good person who "didn't give anyone any problems."

D-word?

The officer that was dragged by the car was taken to an area hospital with non-life threatening injuries. The passenger in the car was taken into custody, but that person's identity was not revealed.

Unlike with Sam Dubose there seems to be no doubt the officer was struck and dragged.
Police Shoot Driver After Officer Allegedly Dragged

If the city attorney violated the rules or the law he should be held accountable for that, but that still doesn't mean Darius Pinex' family should become millionaires or that the cops who shot him should be facing homicide charges.

 

[Trausti]

It is rare;

Is it?

https://www.google.com/search?newwi....0..2..0...1.1.64.hp..25.9.2192.0._p2lkMA5-Z4

even non-lawyers know it's wrong. That's why this story made the news. The city's attorney will probably face discipline from the bar for this.

Oooohhhh, from the BAR? He should be facing discipline from the inside of a jail cell.

It is rare. Have you a sense of how many prosecutions and civil actions occur in the country annually? Incidentally, your Google search link brought up several links for the Freddie Gray case. Presumably you extend your suspicion to the prosecution there, too.

 

[ksen]

If they're hiding evidence then yes.

 

[Derec]

If they're hiding evidence then yes.

Who is they and yes to what? Quote functionality exists for a reason.

 

[dismal]

Cities like Chicago have been run by republicans for decades so you have to expect this. If only they could get some Democrats in there everything would be great.

 

[ksen]

In this case it was not a prosecutor at all, but a city attorney.
And regardless of why police pulled over Darius Pinex he should not have driven his Oldsmobile at the cops, hitting and dragging one of them.

According to police, once the vehicle was stopped, officers ordered Pinex and a passenger out of the car. The passenger opened his door and Pinex put the car in reverse striking and dragging an officer.
Pinex then put the car into drive in an attempt to strike another officer, but hit a light pole instead, police said. The officer said he feared for his life, fired his weapon and shot Pinex, who later died.

Sounds like justified shooting to me.

Pinex had more than two dozen previous arrests on his record, including drug possession, burglary and resisting arrest. His most recent conviction came last month, when he was given a conditional discharge for resisting arrest, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Upstanding citizen I see.

Despite that, Johnson insisted that her grandson was a good person who "didn't give anyone any problems."

D-word?

The officer that was dragged by the car was taken to an area hospital with non-life threatening injuries. The passenger in the car was taken into custody, but that person's identity was not revealed.

Unlike with Sam Dubose there seems to be no doubt the officer was struck and dragged.
Police Shoot Driver After Officer Allegedly Dragged

The initial stop should never have happened. That's the point of this. The officers didn't have probable cause to pull the Oldsmobile over. If they did they wouldn't have had to lie about it.

I'm not arguing that the police weren't justified in shooting a guy trying to run them over.

- - - Updated - - -

If they're hiding evidence then yes.

Who is they and yes to what? Quote functionality exists for a reason.

So does not posting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...ce-police-shooting-of-darius-pinex-judge-says

A top city lawyer resigned from his post Monday, hours after a federal judge accused him of concealing key evidence in a police shooting lawsuit, according to media reports.

Jordan Marsh, senior corporation counsel for the city, resigned after a judge threw out a previous ruling and ordered a new case in the wrongful lawsuit death brought by the family of Darius Pinex, killed by officers after a 2011 traffic stop in Englewood, according to the Tribune.

Judge Edmond E. Chang on Monday granted Pinex's family a new trial, saying in a scathing ruling that Marsh intentionally hid evidence from the family's legal team prior to the start of the trial.

According to the Sun-Times, Marsh failed to turn over a police radio transmission that proved officers who shot Pinex did not actually hear what they said they did over the radio, which the officers pointed to as their reason for pulling Pinex over in the first place.

Why should we give any police officer the benefit of the doubt again?

How many more stories need to come out about police officers lying about the situation where they killed someone or government officials hiding evidence bad for the police officers before anything serious is done?

And we should totally let them continue to investigate themselves and then just accept the results of those investigations.

An improper pullover shouldn't change the outcome of a wrongful death lawsuit. This is sanctions coupled with pandering to the BLM crowd.

 

[KeepTalking]

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/201...ce-police-shooting-of-darius-pinex-judge-says



Why should we give any police officer the benefit of the doubt again?

How many more stories need to come out about police officers lying about the situation where they killed someone or government officials hiding evidence bad for the police officers before anything serious is done?

And we should totally let them continue to investigate themselves and then just accept the results of those investigations.

An improper pullover shouldn't change the outcome of a wrongful death lawsuit.

Which makes one wonder why the city attorney decided to conceal the evidence.

 

[ksen]

An improper pullover shouldn't change the outcome of a wrongful death lawsuit.

The city attorney withholding evidence and the police officers lying ought to. Or should those things be tolerated?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The initial stop should never have happened. That's the point of this. The officers didn't have probable cause to pull the Oldsmobile over. If they did they wouldn't have had to lie about it.

I'm not arguing that the police weren't justified in shooting a guy trying to run them over.

If they're justified in shooting the guy trying to run them over then the verdict in the wrongful death case should stand.

(And I doubt he was even trying to run them over. What usually happens in this sort of situation is the perp is simply trying to escape, they aren't seeking to run anyone over but neither are they trying to avoid people. That doesn't change whether a shooting is justified, though--you can defend yourself against attempted manslaughter just as much as you can defend yourself against attempted murder.)

 

[ksen]

If they're justified in shooting the guy trying to run them over then the verdict in the wrongful death case should stand.

I don't think that's how it works. Hopefully a resident lawyer can help us out.

But as a laymen I'd think that if the initial stop was illegal that anything that followed from that would be illegal(?) . . . inadmissable(?) (I don't know what word I'm looking for here) as well.

And apparently the judge thinks it's worth a new trial . . . so there's that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If they're justified in shooting the guy trying to run them over then the verdict in the wrongful death case should stand.

I don't think that's how it works. Hopefully a resident lawyer can help us out.

But as a laymen I'd think that if the initial stop was illegal that anything that followed from that would be illegal(?) . . . inadmissable(?) (I don't know what word I'm looking for here) as well.

And apparently the judge thinks it's worth a new trial . . . so there's that.

From the standpoint of using the evidence at a criminal trial, yes, it's inadmissible. That doesn't mean that a self-defense shooting suddenly becomes wrong because the traffic stop was improper.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think that's how it works. Hopefully a resident lawyer can help us out.

But as a laymen I'd think that if the initial stop was illegal that anything that followed from that would be illegal(?) . . . inadmissable(?) (I don't know what word I'm looking for here) as well.

And apparently the judge thinks it's worth a new trial . . . so there's that.

From the standpoint of using the evidence at a criminal trial, yes, it's inadmissible. That doesn't mean that a self-defense shooting suddenly becomes wrong because the traffic stop was improper.

The shooting might be justifiable. The lying and concealing evidence are not.

If the police lied in their sworn statements, they committed perjury. If the Prosecutor concealed evidence, he committed prosecutorial misconduct. Both actions are against the law because both undermine the fair and just application of the law.

Just because you like an outcome doesn't mean whatever steps were taken to insure that outcome are acceptable.

 

[barbos]

#NotAllProsecutors

Just because one individual prosecutor concealed evidence in a police shooting, doesn't mean that all prosecutors are evidence-concealers.

It is rare; even non-lawyers know it's wrong. That's why this story made the news. The city's attorney will probably face discipline from the bar for this.

My understanding lawyers are sent to prison for that. Being disciplined is not enough.