Posted on 01/03/2009 4:50:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Pro Publica’s Ben Protess does some digging into the past of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, who was chosen to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich was arrested last month for scheming to sell the seat. It seems there is at least one very legitimate reason to oppose Burris’ nomination, other than the fact that he is the disgraced governor’s choice.
The story appears at Politico:
While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Burris refused. He was running for governor.
According to the article, Cruz spent 11 years on death row before being set free in 1995 after being acquitted in a third trial. A prosecutor and a detective resigned in protest of the prosecutorial misconduct they witnessed while working on the case.
Burris’ bid for the Senate seat may have been doomed from the beginning, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Obama have both voiced opposition to the pick, but the Cruz case will likely be another nail in the coffin.
http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231
In 90’s, Burris Sought Death Penalty for Innocent Man
Former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris, embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pick to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, is no stranger to controversy.
Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris' decision to continue to prosecute – despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors – the wrong man for a high-profile murder case.
While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.
But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Burris refused. He was running for governor.
"Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris," Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.
Burris’ role in the Cruz case was "indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency," Warden said. "There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent."
Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed, and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.
Once Burris assigned Kenney to the case in 1991, she became convinced that Cruz was innocent, a victim of what she believed was prosecutorial misconduct. She sent Burris a memo reporting that the jury convicted Cruz without knowing that Brian Dugan, a repeat sex offender and murderer, had confessed to the crime. Burris never met with Kenney to discuss a new trial for Cruz, Kenney told ProPublica.
"This is something the attorney general should have been concerned about," Kenney, now an assistant public guardian in Cook County, said in an interview. "I knew the prosecutor’s job was not merely to secure conviction but to ensure justice was done."
Kenney was not alone in her beliefs. Prior to Cruz’ 1985 trial, the lead detective in the case resigned in protest over prosecutors' handling of the case, according to news reports at the time.
And rather than argue Burris’ case before the state supreme court, Kenney also stepped down.
"What I took away was that [Burris] wasn’t going to do anything to seem soft on crime," Kenney said. "He didn’t have the guts."
In her resignation letter, Kenney claimed Burris had "seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case."
"I cannot sit idly by as this office continues to pursue the unjust prosecution of Rolando Cruz," she wrote. "I realized that I was being asked to help execute an innocent man."
Burris' response at the time: "It is not for me to place my judgment over a jury, regardless of what I think." (We have also left a message for Burris at his office and will post an update if we hear back.)
State prosecutors carried on with the prosecution, even after DNA evidence in 1995 excluded Cruz as the victim's rapist and linked somebody else—sex offender Brian Dugan–to the crime.
Eventually, prosecutors’ case hit a wall. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed Cruz's conviction and granted him a third trial. (The court declared that the trial judge in the case had improperly excluded Dugan’s confession, and thus compromised Cruz's defense.) In the new trial, Cruz was acquitted. The judge in that case concluded, "I'd hope and pray the person or persons - whoever is culpable - is brought to justice."
In late 1995, Cruz finally walked free after serving 11 years on death row for a crime he did not commit.
A grand jury later indicted four sheriff's deputies and three former county prosecutors for their roles in the Cruz case. They were eventually acquitted. Burris was never accused of any wrongdoing or misconduct. Dugan is scheduled to stand trial for the crime next year, 26 years after it was committed.
None of this matters. Its the Gov’s job to appoint a Senator to replace His Majesty.
It does highlight the corrupt IL system that spawned his holiness.
How much did Burris’ friends and supporters pay Blago to get him appointed?
Was it in cash, or did it get wired to a Swiss account?
LOL!
Driftdiver is correct: the only thing that matters is that he was legally appointed, and is legally entitled to be seated.
What matters is how much Blago was PAID for this appointment!
“What matters is how much Blago was PAID for this appointment!”
That matters only to Blago. The appointment will be nearly impossible to stop unless the Democratic controlled Senate votes against a black man.
The new Senator may be impeached after his seated if they can prove he committed a crime.
But I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
I really doubt Blago got anything for this appointment. He’s the center of an investigation and probably doesn’t trust anyone.
How does the author know this? Maybe he refused to drop the case because he had information he honestly believed in that pointed to guilt? It later says Burris was never accused of wrongdoing in this case. This seems like a smear.
In her resignation letter, Kenney ( the lawyer who resigned rather than prosecute the case) claimed Burris had “seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case.”
When the Assistant District Attorney you assigned to look into the case tells you there is no case, overruling her falls nowhere near "honestly believed"
It is to our benefit that that bunch of Leftwingtards get into a big battle with Burris and his cronies. Besides, there was much more going on with the particular criminal act than just one guy raping the victim. It's noteworthy that the guy who made contact had confessed before the first trial, but the judge refused to allow that evidence entered into the case.
This situation is not as clear cut as the Leftwingtard anti-death penalty crowd would have you believe.
Chosed?
by the that time, everybody and their brother knew Cruz & Hernandez had been railroded.
Dugan had already offered to confess, if the the death penalty was taken off the table. ( Prosecutor refused the deal ).
Back then, Burris’ stance was not a big deal. All of a sudden, today, it IS a big deal.
First, I think it’s hilarious that Blago is telling Reid and Obama to stick it.
As for trying to get the guy executed while running for governor, Clinton had a retarded man executed while running for President. Admittedly, the man was retarded after shooting himself after committing murder. But, Clinton went home from campaigning to make sure the guy got executed. If he hadn’t been running the guy would be in an institution today.
One of the biggest problems with all us sheep is that nothing seems to matter any more.
I saw a post earlier where someone said it's time to riot in the streets, and another answered that he would be able to come up with 6 folks willing to go to the trouble.
Welcome to the apathy that the Dims were hoping to instill.
>> Chosed?
People make typo’s. Unfortunately I can’t correct a mistake once made.
Look, you can be a “helper” in these crimes. If there was enough evidence to bring the guy to trial and convict him TWO TIMES it’s certainly not out of line to pursue other angles. Just because his DNA wasn’t found doesn’t mean he wasn’t involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.