Illinois: 19 Pardons!

The Chicago Tribune reports Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) - whose record for delay and non-action on clemency applications has attracted the attention of a U.S. District Court judge - has granted 19 pardons. According to the Tribune, most of the pardons were "for lesser crimes." However, three of those pardoned were exonerated after a federal investigation forced Chicago police to re-examine the kidnapping and murder that led to their convictions. Some of the pardons are also reported to involve cases dating to the 1970s.

The Chicago Sun Times had this fun snippet:

Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero said Friday there is no set manner that the governor makes decisions on the petitions. "The governor is constantly reviewing" the petitions, said Guerrero. "Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis."

See story here and here.

Illinois: Waiting on the Governor

The Chicago Tribune is commenting on the inaction of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), the same inaction that has attracted the attention of a federal district court judge. It is reported that Marlon Pendleton was cleared of rape by DNA evidence and released from prison two years ago, but he is still waiting on a pardon and $140,000 in compensation. The Tribune reports there are about 1,600 others who have been "waiting for months and even years" for clemency decisions. PardonPower credits the Tribune for taking the time to find a real expert on pardons:

Since taking office in 2003, the governor has pardoned 67 people and denied 1,160 clemency petitions. But in more than a year, he has announced a decision on only one petition, rejecting that clemency request."I don't understand why [the governor] doesn't just deal with the cases," said Margaret Love, former head of the pardon office at the U.S. Department of Justice. "I don't know of any other governor that has a backlog like this." The delay has led a dozen convicted felons to file a federal lawsuit alleging Blagojevich is taking too long to make pardon decisions.

In a significant decision (here), U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled that the Governor can make any decision that he likes on pardon requests, but the State's clemency statute requires that the governor "make some decision within a reasonable period of time." Lawyers for the Governor are taking the position that he can "exercise his power of clemency in any manner he deems appropriate, including considering a petition for a period of time that others may considerable unreasonable." PardonPower related to the Tribune writer, in an interview for this story that took place weeks ago, that the district court's decision appears "to be one of the nation's first to address the swiftness of executive-clemency decisions and could have wider impact than in just Illinois if upheld on appeal."

The article also notes:

Critics contend Blagojevich has largely ignored the recommendations of the Prisoner Review Board, which scrutinizes the petitions.The chairman of the review board recently said half of the petitions received each quarter are "slam-dunk" yes-or-no decisions."Unless you are processing out [these petitions] every quarter, you are going to get a backlog," said Arvin Boddie, a member of the review board from 2000 to 2004. "I think you've got an unprecedented number of applications that have backed up."Boddie, who was appointed by former Gov. George Ryan and served briefly under Blagojevich, said Ryan made pardon decisions on a routine basis."These are some of the important decisions that get made that have a direct impact on the lives of real people," he said.

Of course, the governor's office maintains that the number of petitions has sharply increased since Blagojevich succeeded Ryan. See story here.

Illinois: Commutation Revisited

From the Associated Press: "A St. Clair County judge has ordered a former death-row inmate to spend life in prison without parole for the 1994 killing of a Belleville convenience store clerk. Circuit Judge John Baricevic resentenced 32-year-old Bobby Williams on Wednesday for the slaying of Sharon Bushong. Williams was convicted of first-degree murder in 1996 and was given the death sentence. That was later overturned by a higher court, and the case was sent back to St. Clair County after former Governor George Ryan commuted the death sentence of inmates on Illinois' death row. The 32-year-old maintains his innocence and his lawyers say they will appeal Wednesday's ruling."

Comment: "I promise not to pardon ..."

The Chicago Sun-Times recently got a charge out of reporting that presidential candidate Barack Obama had promised not to pardon or grant even a commutation of sentence for his friend, the recently convicted Tony Rezko. As it turned out, Mr. Obama made no such promise. The story was based on commentary by an Obama spokesman. See story here. Here are some reasons, however, why I think Obama should never make such a promise, and no candidate, or president ever should:

1. Say Rezko is in prison and doctors certify that he is on his death bed, less than twenty-four hours to live. If Obama makes such a promise, and intends to keep it, then Rezko might die in prison. Clearly many people would think that would be just fine. People die in prison all of the time. They would argue that a death-bed is no excuse for anyone being let out of prison. And that is fine. But many a president has felt differently. How does Obama feel about it?

2. Rezko was convicted. But what if, at a later date, some evidence develops which shows he is actually innocent? Not going to happen? No way? Impossible? Stranger things have happened dear readers. Do you keep an innocent man in prison because of such a promise?

3. Rezko will be sentenced on the basis of 16 counts. What if, at some later date, it is shown that he was innocent of a couple, or even one of the counts? What if substantial doubt emerges with respect to a count here and there because of new evidence, a confession, etc.? Should Obama insist that Rezko serve the original sentence, no matter what, because he made a stupid promise to a reporter?

4. Let's say Rezko goes to prison and repents. Everyone whose opinion matters believes he is sorry for what he did. He joins self-help groups and lead religious meetings. He assists others. He seems to rehabilitate. It is right to take the position that somehow he is exempt from this sort of transformation? Are his crimes really the very worst ever committed? Rehabilitation is a classic goal of sentencing. What if the goal appears to be accomplished in his case, again, from the standpoint of the persons who make such judgments? Should Obama ignore it as though it did not (or could not) happen?

5. Say Rezko decides to become the government's key guy, revealing all sorts of crime and corruption beyond his case. Clemency is routinely offered up as a kind plea bargain tool in such scenarios. Prosecutors say, "You give us the goods. If there are convictions, we will support your bid for clemency." They cannot promise clemency, of course, but a judge might also be impressed by such cooperation. So, you are President Obama. Rezko has served a portion of his sentence. He is cooperating with the Department of Justice and convictions are falling from the sky. The prosecutors and the sentencing judge recommend some form of clemency - not necessarily a full pardon, but a reduction of a year or two. Do you blow them all off because of your promise? Do you refuse to reward the cooperation?

6. If an imprisoned Rezko has the sense that a President Obama will never, in any circumstance, pardon him or grant a commutation of sentence, then he (Rezko) will certainly have no incentive to ever cooperate with the government on any other count.

On a final note, as I wrote number 5, I wondered when the conspiracy theorists are going to emerge with the obvious ... (imagine creepy music here) ... "the Bush administration will wait until October. Then surrogates of the President in the Justice Department will approach the imprisoned Rezko and offer a clemency deal. But they will do so in a subtle way so that Rezko will not be able to spot it and reject it loudly. Clemency will be offered in exchange for information which implicates presidential candidate Obama. The validity of the information will not be so important. The desire will simply be to fill news headlines with words like subpoena, grand jury, investigation, criminal investigation, possible indictments, etc., right before the election ... kinda like the way Mr. Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger the Friday before the 1992 election (end creepy music).

Oh boy, I can see the Huffington Post whirling that one around!

Campaign 08: Obama Pledges No Pardon for Rezko?

The Chicago Sun-Times reports Democratic candidate Barack Obama has promised that, if he is elected, he will not pardon Tony Rezko for his corruption convictions or grant a commutation of sentence. Rezko was recently convicted on 16 of 24 corruption counts. The Sun-Times reports that "Republicans quickly seized on the verdict with an immediate round of internet-based advertising questioning Obama’s past personal and professional ties to Rezko." Hmm ... promising not to grant a pardon ... in any circumstance ... knowing that circumstances always change ... I just don't know about the wisdom of that ...

But, as it turns out, it was actually an Obama campaign spokesman (Ben LaBolt) who said the senator would not be granting clemency. The spokesman would "not elaborate on Obama’s rationale for ruling out clemency." He also refused to "offer any kind of guiding principles on who would and would not qualify for pardons or commutations in an Obama White House."

In other words, this one isn't going away! See Sun-Times story here.

Comment: Daily Hearld and the Limits of Limited Intelligence

Today, the Daily Herald wonders "whether the presidential power to pardon and commute sentences should be somehow limited -- whether the pardon power itself has become a source for cynicism about our government." It is indeed, one of those classic questions that everyone ignores for the first 3/4 of an administration, or until the aftermath of a particular pardon they do not like. The Daily Herald has already come out against the possible (although not particularly likely) commutation of former Governor George Ryan's sentence. Such would be, in the words of the Hearld "unthinkable." Why consider limiting the pardon power now? The Herald says there is a "growing recent history" that "suggests" that it should "at least be debated and considered."

But, if anything is certain, it is that that the Herald's levels of knowledge are unthinkably low and its pitiful memory banks are only "recent." Were the lenses more wide, the Herald would discover "unthinkable" pardons are a great American tradition, stretching back to the administration of George Washington. Where Alexander Hamilton clearly saw opportunities to get tough with public hangings (none of the 76 month sentence stuff) and to send the right "message" to lawbreakers and all that, George Washington saw opportunities for mercy ... at the last minute, right before he left office.

But the Herald complains that "in the recent era," the pardon power has "been used to aid political friends and supporters." Which is so true if you are not familiar with the way Thomas Jefferson pardoned the editors of the newspapers that supported him. And "the recent era" is great to beat up on if you have no clue what the Whiskey Ring was all about. Here is your clue Daily Herald: the pardon power was used that way in England for centuries and American presidents simply picked up the ball from there and ran with it accordingly, from the get-go.

The Herald notes the pardon power is "subject to abuses that undermine our rule of law." This would, of course, be true of any other power, in any other branch of government and hardly constitutes a reason for limitation. But some limitations are considered:

A widely suggested modification of that power would be for pardon applications to be reviewed by an advisory commission, which would deliberate publicly ... Just the other day, the liberal political blog Daily Kos itemized several options in a viewer poll. Among them: giving Congress power with a two-thirds vote to revoke a pardon; prohibiting pardons for anyone holding a public trust; and requiring pardons to be approved by a special committee made up of members of all three branches of government.

Public deliberation of clemency applications. What an awesome idea. Imagine all of the support there would be out there for convicted felons! And maybe we should allow the victims of crimes to testify too. Imagine all of the politicians lining up to support them! Imagine how immune such public spectables would be from "politics." Imagine the praise that would be heaped on the commission as it made its many, many favorable recommendations! How about this Herald: just remove the pardon power altogether or let the American public vote on pardon applications American Idol style?

Congress? A check on the pardon power? The Daily Herald clearly has no clue how closely tied Congress is to the pardon power and how much Congress contributes to its abuse. Here is your free education Daily Herald. Yeah, if Congress were 90 percent Republican, that would sure put a halt to any Republican abuse of the pardon power. Duh! See Daily Herald disaster here.

Watch List: The Ryan Pardon Campaign is Off!

The Daily Journal reports George "Homer" Ryan has started a letter-writing campaign among to convince President Bush to grant his father, former Gov. George Ryan (R) either a pardon or commutation. Homer says he wants to "appeal to the good nature of the most powerful man in the world" because his father does not "deserve this." The letters will become part of the family's petition to the Office of the Pardon Attorney. See story here.

Watch List: Conrad Black. Prison. The Plan.

The National Post (Canada) reports Conrad Black (see our Pardon Watch List) is teaching weekly seminars on American history at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex. The former press baron turned prison librarian is also reported to be appearing before a "full house" each week, as he serves out his 6½ year prison sentence.

But the Post also reports that a "grassroots" attempt to organize a pardon campaign for Lord Black "appears to have been stonewalled." Here is a great snippet:

"The attorneys in his camp are reticent. Nobody has made any effort or given any thought to doing this," said a Chicago-based official who met with Lord Black's legal team two months ago.

The plan was to present a dossier of information to John Dennis Hastert, Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1987 to 2007, the longest-serving Republican Speaker in U.S. history. The package was to include Lord Black's books on former presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, transcripts of the December, 2007, sentencing hearing, as well as 100 letters written in support of the convicted businessman. The letters were filed with trial Judge Amy St. Eve.

According to the Chicago-based official who asked not to be named, contact with Mr. Hastert would be facilitated through business associates, including the Goeken Group Corp., a Naperville, Ill.-based lighting technology and health care information company where Mr. Hastert was hired in March as a strategic advisor.

Ultimately, the goal was to convince Mr. Hastert, who has close ties to U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, to personally deliver the package to the White House and make a plea on behalf of Lord Black. By that time, an official pardon application should have been filed with the Pardon Attorney's office at the Department of Justice by Lord Black's lawyers.

However, a source in Lord Black's camp said, "nothing would be done before the appeal," which is scheduled to be heard June 5 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. "There are a lot of people in positions that could help. I don't think there's going to be a pardon Conrad Black committee," said the insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I think if anything happens, it's going to be very quiet."

Interesting stuff, indeed! Why even file the application with the Office of the Pardon Attorney? It isn't like Black qualifies for clemency under the Department of Justice's "guidelines." Of course, if no application is filed, then some presidential "spokesperson," somewhere down the line, can stand behind a podium and calmly say, "There is a formal process for clemency and Lord Black has not even filed an application." Other than the elimination of that classic executive branch rhetorical chess move, it all has a kind of Marc Rich feel to it! The Post then quotes an expert on presidential pardons (pay attention Chicago media!)

"This President has been very principled and sparing in his pardons," explained Margaret Colgate-Love, a former Department of Justice Pardon Attorney, responsible for recommending presidential pardons to the White House. "He has no track record that would lead anybody to expect that [Bush] would do something like that for Lord Black," she said.

See National Post story here.

Watch List: Why George Ryan Will/Will Not Be Pardoned

With an eye toward weighing relevant factors and perhaps being a little amusing as well, here are the reasons, as I see them, that former Illinois Governor George Ryan will / or will not be pardoned by President Bush. Readers are invited to do the calculation on their own. And witty suggestions will certainly be welcomed (and added).

Why He Will Be Pardoned

* He is 74-years old
* He has health problems (Crohn's disease and diabetes)
* "The man has gone from being the governor of the state of Illinois to being a prisoner in the federal penitentiary. His career is gone. His reputation is gone. His pension for the moment is gone. . . . I think everybody's interests have been served" - James Thompson
* Ryan was quite generous with pardons himself
* A clemency petition will be supported by notables
* President Bush is also a Republican
* President Bush is a not-so-popular Republican who can relate to the plights of other not-so-popular Republicans
* There is an upward trend in the number of pardons and commutations across Bush's administration
* It is the fourth year of the President's term (when most presidents have granted their highest number of pardons)
* "Controversy" could be easily neutralized by pardoning some convicted Democratic governor as well (and there are plenty of them out there)
* Because any "controversy" that follows will largely be the narrow uphill effort of partisan critics trying to fulfill their own prophesies about the potential harm of "controversy" they will attempt to create
* Dan Rostenkowski, Mel Reynolds and Dorothy Rivers (yesterday's lettuce, no one cares, all of them were from Illinois and clemency on their behalf had zero impact)
* Chandra Gill and Sharon Latiker (current news, the here and the now)
* Linking corruption to the State of Illinois might not be the best PR in the world for one presidential candidate (details schmetails!)
* The Office of the Pardon Attorney has a huge backlog and could stand to do some application dumping
* Bush will not allow his clemency legacy to be summarized by mere reference to Scooter Libby
* Because George Ryan was identified on the Pardon Watch List way back in November of 2007 as a "could be" (see List here)

Why He Will Not Be Pardoned

* Charles Manson is also 74-years old
* Manson does not appear to be in the best of health either (just not the same since the failed Monkees audition)
* Because President Bush wants to preserve his spotless, criticism-free legacy in the White House
* It is an election year and Bush would not want to shock millions of Americans by alerting them, for the very first time, to the possibility that corruption might somehow be associated with politics in the State of Illinois
* Richard Leche, Warren McCray and Marvin Mandel are currently unable to roll over in their graves
* Because Bush is a Republican (they tend to pardon less)
* Because Bush is a former governor (they tend to pardon less)
* Because Bush followed Clinton's pardon disasters
* The Office of the Pardon Attorney has a huge backlog and getting around to a Ryan application might take years
* By January of 2009, Ryan will have only served 15 months of his 78-month sentence

Watch List: To Boldy Go Where No Reporter Has Gone ...

The Chicago Sun Times appears to now be in competition with the cross-town rival Tribune for asking non-clemency experts their opinion about federal executive clemency. David Yellen, the dean at the Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, who has a bang-up resume on sentencing and juvenile justice, says (of a possible pardon or commutation of sentence for former Illinois Governor George Ryan):

"It's good timing for Gov. Ryan to be asking for something like this now. Presidents tend to use those powers more when they're on their way out."

Or maybe another way to think of it is everyone in Chicago is an expert on clemency! See story here.

Watch List: Tribune Actually Finds Real Clemency Expert!

Hats off to Mary Owen, who has written a story on a possible presidential pardon (or commutation of sentence) for former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R). Owen, writing for the Chicago Tribune, notes Ryan has served almost 7 months of his 6 1/2 -year prison sentence. She also reports that his chief defense attorney, former Illinois Gov. James Thompson (R), has revealed that the clemency request that will be sent to President Bush "will emphasize Ryan's age, years of public service and health" (Ryan suffers from Crohn's disease and diabetes). Thompson says it is his belief that "any president of the United States—whether it's President Bush or President Obama or President Clinton—would look at this petition and say, 'I think justice would be served by letting him go,' "

Owen then instantly turns her piece into the very best of this news cycle by referencing an real, true "expert" on federal executive clemency:

Some experts said a clemency petition might be a tough sell for President George Bush.Bush not only has a reputation for being stingy with his clemency powers but also may be concerned with his legacy as he prepares to leave office, they said. However, President Bill Clinton ended the finals hours of his second term with controversial presidential pardons."President Bush has shown almost no interest in the clemency power," said Daniel Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, and an expert in clemency. "I think he would be a pretty tough audience unless you had some kind of connection to him like [Lewis] 'Scooter' Libby."

In July, Bush commuted the 30-month prison sentence of Libby, a former White House aide who was convicted of perjury and obstruction in the leak of a CIA operative's identity. U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, whose office investigated Ryan, was the special counsel who led the Libby probe. "A federal commutation is as rare as hen's teeth," Kobil said. "It just doesn't happen very often. That's why the Libby commutation was so striking."

How about that! See Owen's complete article here.

Comment: Land of Lincoln Not High on Ryan Pardon

John Kass has graced the Chicago Tribune with an editorial that is hard to beat for sheer over- the-top hyperbole. He writes that former Governor George Ryan "got more than a fair trial," indeed he got a trial that was "more fair than any defendant" Kass has ever seen (no sample size is reported). Kass also complains that Ryan deserved more that the six and a half year prison sentence that he got - which, the cynic might note, seems to suggest some aspect of the case wasn't so fair after all. Says Kass:

So if Bush pardons Ryan, Illinois taxpayers can ask only that the former governor's arms be sewn shut, in a circle, draped over Bush's neck and fixed there, the hulk and weight of Ryan's bulk to hang against the president for years.

Not likely, Mr. Kass. Political memory will die just as fast as it always has. You can bet on it. Why, Ryan was a rosey cheeked choir boy compared to Richard Leche. But who has every heard of Richard Leche? Need we even ask who pardoned him? Of course not. Marvin Mandel. Who? J. Fife Symington? Zzzzz. No need to get too upset about all of this.

Kass notes President Bush "commuted the sentence" (meaning "commuted the prison sentence") of Scooter Libby who was convicted during the investigation of the outing of a CIA officer (meaning "an investigation which resulted in no one being charged, much less convicted, for having committed an underlying crime") for political reasons by the Bush White House" (meaning "outed by Richard Armitage, a critic of the War in Iraq"). In Kass' view, "To do the same for Ryan would not only be amazingly cynical and coercive, but it would destroy what little remains of the Illinois GOP."

I am guessing - given the very odd construction of the Scooter Libby case - preserving what little remains of the Illinois GOP is not a very high priority for Kass. But the notion that pardoning Ryan would have a significant impact on Illinois politics is fanciful and clearly wishful thinking. The State GOP has been in terrific disarray for some time now and the candidacy of Barack Obama overshadows anything and everything related to George Ryan. A Ryan pardon (or commutation) will be in and out of the pages of the Tribune in a matter of days, maybe even less than a week. The pardon of Dan Rostenkowski - Oh yeah, remember him? And what was he charged with? - hardly put a dent in the pages of the newspapers of Illinois.

In addition, Kass' ultimate dream neglects the fact that the current Governor (Blagojevich, a Democrat) is his own can of worms. The citizens of Illinois are not discussing recall because the Democrats are standing on the corpse of the Republicans. When all is said and done, Blagojevich's pardons might very well get as much attention as a George Ryan pardon. And Blagojevich's non-use of the pardon power has already gotten (and will continue to get) attention from the federal court system.

Buying into the melodrama, former state Sen. Steven Rauschenberger (R) says an act of clemency on behalf of George Ryan would "remind everybody about the drawn-out trial, the whole process to rid Illinois of that kind of pay-to-play politics." For that reason, he also says:

"I would ask that President Bush not consider a pardon or commutation of sentence for Gov. Ryan. As a state, we've been through enough. As a party, we've been through enough."

One wonders how Abraham Lincoln might have responded to such commentary. No pardon for Ryan because the State Party has been through enough. Wow. Now that is a compelling justification. See the Kass editorial here.

Watch List: Ryan's Appeal Rejected

The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, has turned down the appeal of former Illinois Governor George Ryan, who is serving a 6 1/2-year sentence for fraud, racketeering and corruption conviction. Lead prosecutor Patrick Collins says, "The long legal saga of this case is over" - which is, of course, silly. Collins must not be familiar with our Pardon Watch List (where Ryan's name has appeared for many months now). In a moment of greater clarity, Collins editorialized that a presidential pardon would be a disappointment" because it would "send a terrible message to the public about the consequences of public corruption." The former Governor, who maintains his innocence, is 74-years old and suffers from Crohn's disease and diabetes. As a result, the public may be open to more than one "message." See Tribune story here.

Meanwhile, Mike Robinson (an AP "legal affairs" writer) come perilously close to fumbling the ball at mid-field by writing:

His (Ryan's) best hope of getting out before then would be if President Bush would commute his sentence - something the president already has done for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff ... Presidents traditionally issue a few pardons and commute some sentences just before they leave office and a successor is inaugurated.

Ah, no need to be so shy. Robinson should have written, "Most presidents grant their highest number of pardons in the last year of their term and "last-minute" spikes are quite common as well. With a fellow Republican in office and the fairly impressive historical record of governors seeking clemency, George Ryan's chances are probably better than most."

Robinson's piece quotes an "expert," Loyola University political scientist Alan R. Gitelson, as saying the chances of a commutation for Ryan are 50-50. Gitelson also guesses that Bush's "message" would be framed as a "humanitarian act," based on Ryan's age and health. Professor Gitelson is an outstanding scholar in the areas of political parties, interest groups and elections. His journal articles certainly made my grad school experience challenging enough! But I can't say that I am aware that he has ever researched or written a single sentence on presidential pardons. Robinson must be located in Chicago and defines "expert" in terms of local campus phone numbers and a little bit of luck in getting an answer during the summer! Nonetheless, it does appear that the Professor is more in tune with the landscape on this story than prosecutor Collins. See Robinson's write-up here.

A few hours ago, Ryan's chief defense attorney, former Illinois Gov. James Thompson, said he will indeed seek a commutation of sentence from President Bush. The Daily Journal asked Timothy O'Neill, a professor at The John Marshall Law School (Chicago), what he thought about the situation, Said O'Neil:

"In my mind that is the last ditch effort. I'm sure his lawyers are already working on that. Ryan is fortunate that in six months or so the president is leaving office. I wouldn't be at all surprised. You'd be crazy not to think that's a possibility."

With all due respect to John Marshall (I have recommended students there and know several grads), O'Neill is also quite notable for being completely invisible in the research and literature on presidential pardons. Indeed, one can see his non-clemency related publications listed here. See Journal story here.

Illinois: Some National Press for the Problem

This story in today's Washington Post relates the circumstance of Tabitha Pollock , whose conviction has been overturned by the Illinois State Supreme Court:

With a felony record, she cannot become a teacher, as she wants. She cannot collect damages from the Illinois government. On a trip to Australia, where customs officials questioned her when she arrived, she learned that the murder conviction always follows her. To fully clear her name, Pollock -- as well as a dozen or so other former Illinois inmates who have been exonerated -- needs an official pardon, which only the governor can give. She applied in 2002 but has received no word.

A spokesperson for the Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) explains that he is currently flooded with petitions and just doesn't have the time to focus on Pollock's case. Makes sense. That is what happens when you let things go as long as Blagojevich has. Of course, this is also why a federal district court has recently ruled that Illinois is violating the rights of clemency petitioners by doing nothing with their applications for extended periods of time (see summary of the federal ruling here).

The Post article also offers some interesting data on how states compensate exonerated prisoners. Alabama, for example, pays them $50,000 for each year of incarceration. New Jersey pays $40,000 or twice the inmate's previous annual income. Louisiana offers only $15,000, but provides counseling, medical care and job training. In Illinois:

... to regain a certifiably clean record and collect compensation -- a lump payment of $60,150 for five years or less in prison, or $120,300 for six to 14 years -- an exonerated inmate must obtain a "pardon based on innocence" from the governor. A 15-member state review board interviews the petitioners and makes a recommendation, but the governor is not obligated to make a decision.

Of course, the key word in all of that is pardon, at least in a state where your application may sit for 6-7 years, or longer, without any response whatsoever, and you cannot reapply, or update your application along the way (see commentary by Tamara Holder here). Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering legislation which would provide cleared inmates with "certificates" declaring their "innocence" and having the same legal effect as a pardon.

Illinois: Alton Logan is Free

The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

[Alton] Logan walked out of Cook County Jail on Friday after a judge vacated his conviction in the murder of a security guard during a January 1982 robbery of a South Side McDonald's. The judge ordered a new trial, citing new evidence, including the words of two attorneys who testified in court this year that their client committed the murder.

See story in the Chicago-Sun Times here. See previous PardonPower posts on his case here:
* Governor Ignores Alton Logan 3/12/08
* The Governor's Next Pardon? 3/10/08

Insights: Tamara Holder on Pardons, Illinois, the Governor

Tamara N. Holder interned with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office (Chicago) and Miramax Films (Los Angeles) before graduating from The John Marshall Law School. As principal of The Law Firm of Tamara N. Holder, LLC, her practice focuses on criminal defense, expungement, racial discrimination, police brutality, public policy, and pro bono work. Holder founded The Rainbow PUSH Expungement Clinic, where she meets regularly with individuals to review criminal records and provide advice on expungements and other legal issues. She exposed improper employment practices in the railroad industry regarding those with criminal records and spearheaded a Congressional inquiry and a hearing before the Congressional Committee of Homeland Security in February of 2007. In July of 2007, Holder testified as an expert witness before the Congressional Committee of Transportation, Sub-Committee of Maritime and Infrastructure. In the past, she has met privately with Governor Rod Blagojevich on the issue of pardons and Attorney General Lisa Madigan on criminal sentencing and expungement laws. Last month, she organized a "We Need Pardons" rally at the Thompson Center in Chicago. PardonPower had these questions for Ms. Holder:

PardonPower: First, how would you explain the difference between pardon and expungement and their relationship to each other in the State of Illinois?

Holder: There are actually three ways you can have your Illinois criminal record cleared: 1) expungement, 2) sealing, and 3) governor's pardon. Illinois law defines what State crimes can/cannot be expunged or sealed. The first step in determining one’s eligibility for expungement, sealing or pardon is to look at the record as a whole. All arrests, even those that did not result in conviction are on an individual's “record.” So, the “record” refers to all cases for which a person has ever been arrested.

Expungement is an option when an applicant has no convictions (misdemeanor or felony) on his/her record. Even if they are eligible, the decision is entirely a matter of judicial discretion. (For example, a judge may not grant a petition to expunge for a person arrested 10 times for battery, even if none resulted in conviction.) In most cases, however, such petitions are granted. The judge of the county where the arrest took place orders original records of all arrests, original fingerprints and mug shots, to be returned to the applicant. Any internal computer records must be destroyed and removed from any public access system. The courthouse seals the file(s) so the public can't gain access. If there were arrests in multiple counties, petitions must be filed with each county courthouse.

Sealing is an option for those with a conviction on their record. There are two ways to seal a record: partial sealing and complete sealing. Partial sealing is for someone with a non-sealable offense on their record plus other sealable offenses. (For example, the person has a felony conviction for burglary on their record - which is not sealable - and 3 arrests for misdemeanors that were thrown out - which are sealable. The 3 arrests are sealed, but the burglary remains on record.) Total sealing is for someone with nothing but sealable offenses on their record. (For example, the person has a misdemeanor conviction for theft and 3 arrests for misdemeanors that were thrown out. We seal the 3 arrests and the conviction.) No felony conviction is sealable and no misdemeanor violent crime conviction is sealable. However, most misdemeanor convictions are sealable. Unlike expungement, the record is not destroyed; instead, the arresting agency (for example, Chicago Police), the Illinois State Police and the Clerk's Office will seal the record and remove the applicant's name from the electronic index. Government agencies can still access the file but only a judicial order can allow public view of the record.

If someone does not qualify for expungement or sealing, they must seek a pardon from the governor. Pardons are not just for people who've done time in prison! Anyone who has a conviction needs a pardon! However, the governor has the power to both pardon an offender and issue an executive order to expunge the conviction. In the case of Sharon Latiker, former Governor Ryan granted a pardon but did not order an expungement. Gov. Blagojevich, on the other hand, does not grant pardons without a following order for expungement - which is a good practice! Who wants a pardon when the crime is still visible to the public?!? Pardons are also a matter of discretion, and they are handled on a case-by-case basis. There is no requirement for the governor to address a pardon application within any period of time. However, he must make a decision on all petitions before he leaves office. It is not uncommon for a governor to wait until the end of the final term to make such decisions and avoid potential political backlash. (Witness what Gov. Blagojevich is going through now!)

PardonPower: How would you generally describe/assess Governor Blagojevich in terms of his use of the clemency power?

Holder: First, it is important to understand that, in the State of Illinois, “clemency” is for the person who is still in prison. A “pardon,” on the other hand, is for the person who has been released - or never entered prison - but seeks to have a conviction removed from his/her record. Currently, thousands of petitioners are waiting for the Governor to make a decision on their pardon petition. They have already submitted the documents and have had a hearing before the Prisoner Review Board. The Board has done its work by hearing the cases and making a recommendation. But the Governor is unfairly sitting on approximately 2000 pardons! He's only granted 67 since he's been in office.

What is the hold-up? What is his reasoning for not granting or denying the petitions? He's been so heavily criticized about pardons he has recently granted that it appears he is in fear of more political backlash. Of course, many people reject the idea of pardon ouright. I think it's because they think pardons are only for serial killers! Not true. The average 18-year-old who was caught with marijuana and given felony probation will also need a pardon. Otherwise, he is a convicted felon for the rest of his life. Does that sound fair? Forget “fair.” Does that even make sense?

PardonPower: So, is it accurate to say the Governor’s "non-use" of clemency powers is a partial reflection of societal attitudes and larger trends in the criminal justice system?

$60 billion a year is spent on incarceration. 700,000 people leave prison every year as convicted felons. And the number is even greater if you include people who are terminated from felony probation. As of December 2007, 7.2 million Americans were incarcerated or on probation. And more than 39,000 adults are released from the 28 Illinois state prisons each year. Again, the number is greater if you include Illinois residents terminated from probation. Regardless, if one was in prison or on probation, the felony conviction remains for life. 30 years in prison or 1 year on probation, both offenders are equally the same. Both are convicted felons for life. The costs to society of keeping convicted felons out of work and without an education are far greater than they would be if we helped them reintegrate: get an education and a job, provide for their family, pay taxes and become a productive member of society.

Section 115 of the federal 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposes a lifetime ban on cash assistance and food stamps for those convicted of a drug offense. This doesn't make sense. Many people are sick. They have the disease of addiction. They need help and treatment, not punishment. The majority of the convicted offenders are parents. If they cannot get a job because of their record and they cannot feed their children, what are their options? Our penal system must begin to focus on rehabilitation, not a revolving door of punishment.

PardonPower: Do you think the process for clemency in Illinois needs to be changed or reformed in any specific way?

Holder: Absolutely. The law only requires the Governor make a decision on all petitions before he leaves office. This means every petition can sit on his desk until just before he walks out the door. As a consequence, there are petitioners from 2003 who are still waiting for a response! The function of the Prisoner Review Board (the body of people who review every petition and send it to the Governor for a final decision) seems pointless. I don't know how much the law can be changed with regard to “forcing” the State’s chief executive officer to make a decision. But we could amend some of our laws to expand both expungement and sealing by statute. For example, first-time offenders of all non-violent crimes should be able to seal their record if they have not had a conviction within x amount of years. Maybe 10 years is too soon but what about 20 years? Should a 40 year old man still be considered a “convicted felon” for selling marijuana his junior year in college? We can make the law as strict as possible, but make the law! 20 years without even a subsequent arrest?I think that is a bit harsh but maybe some conservatives do not. But at least we are allowing certain people to clear their criminal record after a defined period of time, no matter how long, without putting all of the power in the Governor's hands

Another part of the law states that a petitioner cannot re-petition the Governor for a pardon until he has been denied and waits for a period of one year before resubmission. So, if the Governor does not make a decision for years, the petitioner cannot make amend his/her petition for re-submission. I have a client who submitted 3 years ago and is waiting for a decision. In the past 3 years, he has gotten an MBA, built a homeless shelter and moved his sick mother into his home to care for her full-time. I think re-submission each year should be allowed, even if the Governor hasn't made a decision. This allows the Governor to see how petitioners have progressed as productive members of society. Under current law, the petitioner who waited for a response since 2003 must simply continue to wait. That person should be able to knock on the Governor's door every 365 days.

Finally, I do believe in the confidential process of the pardon. The governor should not have to publicly share his decisions. It's ludicrous that Blagojevich has been asked to share all records of all pardons granted. He is entitled to a certain level of confidentiality and secrecy.

PardonPower: What do you think of the recent court ruling that applicants have a "right" to a decision on clemency applications within a "reasonable" amount of time? Will this ruling blossom or die a quick death on appeal?

Holder: As much as I like the “reasonableness” requirement because too many people are awaiting a response, I do not believe it will hold up. Traditionally, governors (and even presidents) have granted pardons with their last authoritative stroke of the pen so as to avoid political backlash. I think it will be very difficult to impose the “reasonableness” requirement on the Governor as it pertains to his decision to grant a pardon, particularly because decisions are on a case-by-case basis. Instead of choosing “reasonableness” as the standard, the law could clearly define a maximum amount of time that can lapse from the time the Prisoner Review Board sends it to the Governor to the time he makes a decision.

PardonPower: Are the Chandra Gill and Sharaon Latiker pardons much to do about nothing, or are legitimate concerns being expressed? What is your take on all the attention they are getting?

Holder: The Gill and Latiker decisions are just another way for the media and the Governor's adversaries to attack him. Ms. Latiker was granted the pardon by Governor Ryan. Governor Blagojevich simply ordered the expungement (see explanation above). What's the big deal? Governor Ryan already forgave Ms. Latiker. Gov. Blagojevich was simply clearing her record as allowed by the law. Ms. Gill did have a lot of political support, not only from Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., but also from State Rep. Connie Howard. Ms. Gill is well-known by these political figures and their testimony was not based on political motive but based on personal knowledge of Ms. Gill. Did her witnesses give her more of an edge than the average Joe? Of course. But, that doesn't make her pardon a “political pardon.” Take away her witnesses and she was still deserving of a pardon. She is college educated, had no criminal background before the unfortunate incident (where she was convicted by an all-white jury for “aggravated battery” to a police officer during a basketball game where she was mentoring our youth), and she is an active member of society, etc. I really doubt the Governor granted these pardons as political favors. Political favors come in much bigger packages…..(Clinton’s Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali pardons look more like “political favors” than Latiker and Gill! I mean, come on!)

PardonPower: What can be done, if anything, to make governors in the states less hesitant to use clemency?

Holder: The pardon process must become more sacred and confidential. Governors should not be given the entire burden to make a decision on the pardon and then all of the criticism for granting the pardon. Further, as explained above, if the laws were more expansive and allowed for more judicial expungements, governors would not be burdened with so many petitions. Legislators in the states must find ways to conceal records of some felonies. Not all, but some. (For example, the kid who sold pot at 18 and who is now 40, who was given felony probation and has not been arrested since.) The burdens on the typical governor to pardon any person with a felony conviction - ever in their lifetime - is too great. Legislators need to step up.

The Law Firm of Tamara N. Holder, LLC19 South La Salle Street, Suite 1500Chicago, IL 60603312.981.1414 (telephone)312.787.1667 (facsimile) http://www.xpunged.com/

Insights: New Post Category

PardonPower will soon feature a new category of posts entitled: INSIGHTS. For these posts, I will have lawyers, judges, scholars and media persons respond to a series of questions regarding some issues(s) addressed in PardonPower posts. The questions will aim to draw out opinion and insight and wide latitude will be given to those who are kind enough to respond. While I will certainly welcome responses from readers, I will not be commenting (agreeing or disagreeing) with these posts. Another goal, of course, will be to provide timely information. For that reason, we could probably not have a more outstanding beginning.

The PardonPower INSIGHTS posts will begin with responses from Tamara N. Holder, a prominent attorney in the Chicagoland area, who will share insights regarding clemency processes in Illinois and recent events (e.g., the pardons of Chandra Gill and Sharon Latiker) which have drawn attention to the governor's pardon power. You will not want to miss it. So, stay tuned.

Illinois: Latiker, the Papers and Some Questions

According to a March 7, 2008, article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Sharon Latiker was convicted of "deceptive practice and conspiracy" for allegedly stealing $17,250 from the city treasurer's office while she worked in the corporation counsel office - from March 1990 to October 1990. Latiker was then sentenced to two years' probation for theft, but "violated her probation, leaving a felony on her record."

Latiker received a pardon in 1999 before the current Governor, Rod Blagojevich (D) took office.

Three years later, on February 12, 2002, the Sun Times featured an article on Latiker that was rather sympathetic. It began, for example, by stating that she had acknowledged that she "made a huge mistake," that she has "gotten down on her knees and asked for forgiveness," made "restitution" and "gladly suffered the humiliation" for her crime. But, said the article, her past still controlled her future "like a traffic cop." The article went on to say, without many specifics at all, that Latiker was "one of three women" who were "swept up in a check-writing scam." In addition to describing her as having been passively "swept up," the article noted that she performed 1,000 hours of community service, she had fulfilled "all" of the requirements of her probation and worked for a "large, successful" campaign and that she had earned a Master's degree and was working on a doctorate.

So, maybe it seemed reasonable that, in August 2005, when Governor Blagojevich went a step further and formally expunging the offense from Latiker's record, the Sun-Times did not seem to even notice, even though, at the time, she had been an employee with the State since 2003. Indeed, it was three years after Blagojevich's expungement (March 14, 2008) when a Sun-Times editorial described the Governor's decision in this manner:

... Blagojevich had expunged the record of a woman, Sharon Latiker, who was gearing up to run against House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie. Blagojevich and House Speaker Michael Madigan are bitter enemies, so the expungement was seen by some as helping Latiker's campaign against Madigan's majority leader.

Likewise, it was not until 2008 that a representative from the Better Government Association observed Ms. Latiker "ripped off the public" and complained, "It's one thing to give people who had a run-in with the law a second chance. But it's another when someone is accused of stealing from the public."

Regardless, a 2006 Sun-Times editorial recommended Currie, the 27-year incumbent in the 25th district, for the State House over Latiker. The Sun-Times argued Latiker did not "seem to have a keen handle on the issues facing the state." No reference was made to either the pardon or the expungement. The Chicago Tribune, on the other hand, "strongly preferred" Currie over Latiker and described Latiker as:

... a former city Law Department administrator who was convicted for writing bad checks. Latiker later won a pardon and expungement. She has few specific ideas for the state or her district.

The same recommendation was made by the Sun-Times in 2008. The Chicago Tribune, again, "strongly endorsed" Currie over Latiker. But no mention was made of either the pardon or the expungement by either paper.

So, the question comes to this: How does the Sun-Times find the nerve to describe the Latiker pardon and expungement as being something like a recent "disclosure" in March of 2008? The Tribune knew about - and wrote about - both of the decisions in 2006. The Sun-Times has also recently reported that Blagojevich's administration has "allowed access to most of what was contained in executive clemency files at the Prisoner Review Board" since 2003. So, what has prevented the Sun-Times from "disclosing" this story for three years? Perhaps the Sun-Times should get a subscription to the Tribune?

Illinois: New Policy of Pardon Secrecy

Today's Chicago Sun-Times reports that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) will not "open the books" on many pardons he has granted. The Sun-Times reports executive clemency files maintained by the Prisoner Review Board "typically show police reports, court records and letters of recommendation -- all accessible from the agency in the past." But Blagojevich's administration is now denying access to documents regarding the dozens of pardons he has granted by rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request from the Chicago Sun-Times. In 2003, Blagojevich's administration allowed access to most executive clemency files, but a Blagojevich spokeswoman refused to answer questions about the policy shift.

The governor has received criticism for pardoning Chandra Gill from a felony battery conviction and for granting a pardon that expunged the felony of a former employee in his office, Sharon Latiker who, as an employee, stole $17,000 from the city treasurer's office. The Sun-Times notes the pardon "came shortly before [Latiker] launched unsuccessful bids to unseat House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a top lieutenant to Blagojevich's chief legislative nemesis, House Speaker Michael Madigan." See story here.

Illinois: Guilty. No, Innocent! Denied. No, Wait Some More!

Gordan Steidl was sentenced to death in 1987 for murder of Karen and Dyke Rhoads, but fought to prove his innocence. He was granted a new sentencing hearing in 1999 and had his conviction overturned in 2003. After consideration of DNA and other evidence, he was freed in 2004. Since winning his freedom, Steidl has applied for a pardon from Gov. Rod Blogojevich (D). But, on February 14, 2008, a letter arrived saying the request for clemency had been denied. Steidl has since learned the denial letter was mailed as a result of a "clerical error." The Governor has not actuality acted on the request. The incident is just the latest in an increasingly bizarre year for the pardon power in the State of Illinois. First, there was the breaking news of the Chandra Gill pardon. Then there was a fascinating federal court ruling which rebuked the State's failure to process clemency applications and asserted that clemency applicants had a "right" to timely consideration of their requests by the Governor. Meanwhile, PardonPower wonders why the Governor allows Alton Logan to remain in prison. See full story on the Steidl blunder here.

Illinois: Commentary, Report

In this editorial, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune discusses recent issues related to the pardon power in the State of Illinois. The piece suggests the "system" worked for Chandra Gill who attacked an off-duty police officer working security at a high school basketball. Gill applied for a pardon in August of 2006 and scored in January of 2007. Zorn provides several interesting details related to the pardon and considers the decision of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) in the case to be "scandalous—yet another example of his brazen and capricious use of power." Among other things, Zorn also notes the Prisoner Review Board currently has a backlog of 1,571 applications. To date, Blagojevich has granted 67 pardons and denied 1,160 requests.

For additional information on the Chandra Gill pardon, see:
* 3/4 Illinois: A Grant. A Pardon. An Investigation.
* 3/6 Illinois: Investigation (Update)
* 3/7 Illinois: Report
* 3/10 Illinois: The Governor's Next Pardon?
* 3/12 Illinois: Governor Ignores Alton Logan
* 3/22 Illinois: Judiciary Demands Action from Governor

Illinois: Judiciary Demands Action from Governor

The pardon power has received a little more attention than usual in the state of Illinois given the fact that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) has yet to act on the case of Alton Logan and is being scrutinzed for the pardon of Chandra Gill. Now federal Judge Joan Gotschall has informed Blagojevich that he cannot sit indefinitely on pardon applications. The decision - which can be downloaded as a .pdf file here - was issued in response to a case brought by ten felons who are seeking executive clemency. Seven of them have already had applications denied. Judge Gotschall interprets the Illinois constitution to require the governor to make decisions on pardon applications "within a reasonable period of time." Margaret Love, the Justice Department's chief pardon attorney from 1990-1997, says she hopes Blagoojevich will take the court's ruling as an "opportunity" given the fact that it is "an important part of his job."

Here are some edited highlights of the decision. Emphases (in red) are my own:

The Illinois Constitution of 1970 invests the Governor with the power to “grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses on such terms as he thinks proper.” [Moreover], “the manner of applying [for clemency] may be regulated by law.”

... The process of applying for executive clemency under the Illinois Constitution is controlled by 730 ILCS § 5/3-3-13 (“§ 5/3-3-13”) and Section 1610.180 of the Illinois Administrative Code (“§ 1610.180”).

... However, none of the administrative procedures enacted by the legislature “shall be construed to limit the power of the Governor under the constitution to grant a reprieve, commutation of sentence, or pardon.” 730 ILCS § 5/3-3-13(e) (2007). Thus, whether a governor decides to pardon or deny clemency is entirely discretionary, regardless of the recommendation of the PRB.

The plaintiffs assert that they do not seek a necessarily favorable clemency decision, but seek rather to compel the Governor to make timely decisions on their outstanding clemency petitions. Specifically, plaintiffs cite § 5/3-3-13(d) which states: “The Governor shall decide each application and communicate his decision to the Board which shall notify the petitioner.” 730 ILCS § 5/3-3-13(d) (emphasis added). The plaintiffs argue that the mandatory language of the statute (characterized by the use of the imperative verb “shall”) creates a liberty interest in a clemency decision being made (either positive or negative) within a reasonable period of time subsequent to the PRB’s recommendation.

... In this case, the Illinois legislature has placed no restrictions on the Governor’s
discretion whether to grant or deny an individual’s application for clemency. But it has placed, in § 5/3-3-13, an unambiguous restriction on the Governor’s putative discretion whether to make any decision at all. The mandatory language of § 5/3-3-13 does not leave the Governor with “vague standards that leave the decisionmaker with unfettered discretion ...

... On the contrary, the statutory language is unequivocal: the Governor “shall decide each application and communicate his decision to the Board which shall notify the petitioner.” 730 ILCS § 5/3-3-13(d). The court finds, therefore, that the Illinois legislature has thus created a procedural due process liberty interest in the procedures governing when and how a clemency position is made once the PRB has submitted its report to the Governor.

... the statutory language of § 5/3-3-13 does not create guidelines by which the Governor’s ultimate discretionary clemency decision itself is regulated. The discretionary power to grant or deny a clemency petition remains untouched by the statutory language. Nevertheless, the statute explicitly and unequivocally requires that some decision shall be made, and it is therein that the state has created a liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause.

Moreover, although § 5/3-3-13 does not specify a time period in which the Governor must make a decision on clemency petitions following submission of the PRB’s recommendation, the necessary implication of the statute’s imperative language is that the decision be made within a reasonable period of time.

... Otherwise, the Governor could delay making decisions indefinitely. Such indefinite delays were evidently not contemplated by the drafters of the statute, who also created a protectable liberty interest of petitioners to reapply for clemency, after a year’s passage, following a denial of their petition. 730 ILCS § 5/3-3-13(a-5). To permit the Governor to delay clemency decisions indefinitely effectively also infringes this protected right and effectively thwarts the legislature’s constitutional right to regulate the process by which pardons are regulated by law. Ill. Const. Art V, § 12 Section 5/3-3-13 creates specific guidelines and criteria that direct the manner in which the Governor exercises his discretion to grant clemency petitions.

The Governor’s power to grant clemency under the Illinois Constitution remains entirely discretionary and explicitly unfettered by the statute. However, the unequivocal and mandatory language of § 5/3-3-13 requires that the Governor make some decision within a reasonable period of time. Under § 5/3-3-13 the Illinois legislature has created a statutory, specific procedure (and thus a colorable right) to petition for clemency; by necessary implication, therefore, there exists a similar right to a decision on that petition.

... The Governor’s argument that the plaintiffs seek to impede the Governor’s constitutional discretion to grant or deny clemency is without merit.

Additional information on this story here.

Illinois: Chandra Gill Pardon (Recap)

3/13 - Illinois: Further Objection to Gill Pardon
3/10 - Illinois: The Governor's Next Pardon?
3/7 - Illinois: Report
3/6 - Illinois: Investigation (Update)
3/4 - Illinois: A Grant. A Pardon. An Investigation.

Illinois: Further Objection to Gill Pardon

The Champaign News-Gazette reports that one of the officers involved in the arrest of Chanda Gill is not at all pleased to learn that Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) has pardoned Gill. DeAnn Winn-Maurer says she would have objected to the pardon in advance, had she had the opportunity. Winn-Maurer says she feared for her own safety during the 2002 fight between Gill and Latasha Cain and the disruption put an end to a 13-year career. The Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. says, however, that Gill's conviction was "insane" as it did not involve "raucous behavior or stealing." Winn-Mauer respectfully disagrees and has four hand surgeries as evidence to the contrary. To this day, she suffers from a dull ache and painful involuntary spasms in the hand. See complete story here. See also: Illinois: A Grant. A Pardon. An Investigation and Illinois: Investigation (Update).

Illinois: Governor Ignores Alton Logan

In a recent post, here, PardonPower related the story of a man, Alton Logan, who has been in prison half of his life while an actual murderer went free. Two attorneys were aware of the wrongful conviction but felt compelled to keep the information secret because of the attorney-client privilege. The client in question is now dead. In this 60 Minutes segment, Logan and the two attorneys speak out. An attempt is being made to get a new trial, but Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) could right the wrong instantly, with the stroke of his pen. Such an indisputably appropriate use of the clemency power might ease the sting that the Governor is currently experiencing as a result of his pardon of Chandra Gill. Meanwhile, Logan says the State of Illinois is "quick to convict, but they are slow to correct their mistakes." When he is freed, he plans to leave Illinois on the "quickest thing" that will take him away. See also: Illinois: A Grant. A Pardon. An Investigation and Illinois: Investigation (Update).

Illinois: The Governor's Next Pardon?

The Atlantic features an editorial which discusses the dilemma of two public defenders who have announced that a deceased client killed a man nearly thirty years ago. All the while, a wrongfully convicted suspect, Alton Logan, has been in prison - a pretty gloomy consequence of the attorney-client privilege. The editorial notes former Illinois Governor George Ryan (R) commuted 156 death sentences out of concern that just one of the sentenced might be innocent and submits: "Surely Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) can grant a single speedy pardon for one irrevocably wronged man?"

Editor: Indeed, Blagojevich's awkward pardon of Chandra Gill - see posts Illinois: A Grant. A Pardon. An Investigation