Legal Commentary

Prisoners Freed From Sentences Based on Torture-Induced Confession

By TChris

Torture extorts false confessions, a fact that was apparently irrelevant to interrogators who tortured detainees suspected of terrorism. The unreliability of torture-induced confessions was equally irrelevant to former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge. In a series of posts dating back to 2003, TalkLeft followed the developing evidence of Burge's aggressive interrogation practices to this conclusion:

Burge and the detectives under his command found unchecked power to torture suspects, primarily black, on the south side of Chicago.

After the evidence of Burge's reliance on torture became too overwhelming to ignore, more than twenty cases that hinged on confessions given to Burge or his detectives were reviewed by the state attorney general's office. Yesterday, as a result of that review, Ronald Kitchen and Marvin Reeves were freed from prison after serving 21 years for multiple murders. The strongest evidence against them was Kitchen's torture-induced confession. [more ...]

Kitchen says Burge's detectives coerced a false confession by hitting him in the head with a telephone, punching him in the face, kicking him, and striking him in the groin. In addition to Kitchen's confession, prosecutors (one of whom is now a judge) based their case on the testimony of an inmate witness who was given a sentence reduction in exchange for his testimony -- an exculpatory fact that they withheld from the defense. The witness claimed that Kitchen confessed to him during two telephone calls, but the attorney general's review of the evidence found that no such calls were made.

Acknowledging that they had no reliable evidence of guilt, prosecutors yesterday reopened the cases against Kitchen and Reeves and dismissed the charges. Meanwhile, Burge awaits trial on federal charges that he lied under oath in a lawsuit concerning his abuse of suspects.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 08, 2009 (boomark / email).