THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7
The reality of what happened:
In August 1968, several incidents took place during the National Congress of the Democratic Party in Chicago, USA. The basis of the event was the Vietnam War[1]. A group of protesters against the Vietnam War gathered without necessary permissions and clashes with police took place. Unfortunately, many people were injured. Seven people who were held responsible for the incident were tried and these people were named Chicago Seven. [2]The Chicago Seven began to be prosecuted under the Anti-Insurgency Act, a provision of the Civil Rights Act.[3] The trial of the Chicago Seven was opened on September 24, 1969. The judge was Julius Hoffman. These 7 young people who were tried for not wanting war in history and their stories have been the subject of many films. The last one was The Trial of the Chicago, released in 2020, written by Aaron Benjamin Sorkin.
Coming to the details of the movie:
The trial started on September 26, 1969, at 10:00 am in the US Northern Illinois District Court, South district, East section. The judge was Julius Hoffman. There were twelve juries and four substitute juries in the case. These were registered in the minutes at the beginning of the trial. The federal law that was violated was the Rap Brown Law. Clause 2101 of Article 18 of the Rap Brown Act states: The Punishment for crossing state borders for the encouragement of violence is at least ten years. Among those on trial are leaders of Democratic Society Students: Rennie Devis and Tom Hayden and leaders of the International Youth Party: Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, Black Panther Party’s leader Bobby Seale, as well as David Dellinger, Lee Weiner, and John Froines. The politicians of the period (time) thought that these people were unemployed rebels and saw them as a threat to national security. Thereupon, the file with the names of the persons was given to the best prosecutor with the request of sending these people to federal prisons. In other words, it is the politicians who want these people to be judged. The prosecutor said that some of these people did not see each other, that is, the allegations of their politicians were not strong. Also, southern whites at the congress legislated the Rap Brown Law to restrict black activists’ freedom of speech so the Rap Brown Act is a racist law. And the court tries these people for violations of a racist law. The prosecutor does not think that they have gone so far as to be subject to an indictment, although he sees these people as rebellious, opposing, disruptive. Bobby Seale is also on trial accused of murdering just because he is black. In these scenes of the film, we see the big consequences of politicians’ decisions and racism. Politicians’ decisions and racialism, violate the rights of many people.
The prosecutor initiates the case by explaining in this way: There are three groups pf protesters and, although they appear to be independent of each other, they are all radical leftists in different ways. The plan of these three groups is to rebel. Throughout the trial, even though Bobby Seale tried to say he was not guilty, the judge considered it disobedience to the court and silenced him. Lawyer William Kunstler, who opposed this, has been accused of disobedience to the court a lot of times. Throughout the film, Bobby Seale’s speech before the judge without asking for a voice is an act that will disrupt the order of the court. However, later in the film, the judge blocked Bobby Seale’s freedom of expression by tying his mouth, arms, and legs. Whereas, Bobby Seale tried to defend his rights himself since a lawyer was not assigned to him but he was blocked from just because he was black. In other words, there is racism that dominates the film in general. It is legally against the principle of equality to reflect these racist behaviors to the court by a judge.
Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Rubin tell to the administrative officer of the mayor, who is one of the witnesses heard during the court, that they want to hold the International Youth Party in Grant Park during the National Democratic Convention. Thousands of young people will participate in this plan. There will be rock music and sexuality will be accepted as normal in public but the mayor’s administrative officer did not allow it, saying that such disruptive things in the public sphere would be rejected. And what is important here is the statement of Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Rubin that it will be an international youth party, whether you allow it or not. And 10 thousand people will participate in such a plan. Another important thing here is Abbie Hoffman’s proposal that “If you give the administrative officer $ 100,000, I will cancel the party.” However, this offer can be understood as a bribe offer to a government official. As the defense, the lawyer told the mayor’s administrative officer the following words: If you did not understand this offer as a joke, you would complain. This shows that a lawyer has made a defense by considering the issue from very different angles. Later, many people sought official permission for this event, but all were denied. This reminded us of the violation of the Right to Organize Meetings and Demonstrations, which is also in our law while watching the film. While watching this film, it reminded us of the infringement of the Right to Organize Meetings and Demonstrations, which is also in our law.
Besides, when the black panthers threatened the jury numbered six with his family and himself in the film, he was removed from the jury by the judge, considering that it prevented the jury from making a fair decision. The interesting point here is that the counterparty’s lawyer holds the Minister of Justice responsible for sending a threatening letter sent to the jury. After this incident, the judge segregated the jury at his own discretion, but the other party’s lawyer argued that the jury’s being in police custody, that is, by meeting all their needs by law enforcement, could not be objective. This scene is also a beautiful scene that demonstrates the importance of jury impartiality in federal courts and federal district courts and explains the American legal system.
According to the prosecutor’s report and the witness, at 23:00 on August 25, the Chicago police warned that the park would be closed and that they had to leave the park. And it has been said that violators will be charged with infringement of property but nobody paid attention to the police. Tom Hayden, the person who gathered people there that day, was arrested. The group rioting for the arrested Tom Hayden met armed policemen. Although the police said that the demonstration was unauthorized and that the community should leave the park, things got mixed up after someone in the crowd shouted. The incident resulted in a confrontation between police and protesters. Police intervened with tear gas and stick to the protesters; most people were injured in the head and arm. People who took advantage of the turmoil bullied women. Most of the protesters in that park that day suffered severe blows and were hospitalized. This is a reflection of what politicians can do to people because of their thoughts.
One of the impressive scenes of the movie was where the former US Justice Secretary appeared as a witness in the court. However, the prosecutor objected to the witnessing and said that the speeches of the president and the council of ministers should be kept confidential. His objection was approved by the judge because the attorney and client confidentiality is legally important. But the president objected, saying he is not a client of the minister of justice, and the former minister of justice continued his speech as a witness. This scene made the audience wonder if the judge was sided.
The most impressive scene at the end of the movie was this; Tom Hayden said that 4,752 American soldiers have died in Vietnam since the day this case started and read the names of the dead. Many soldiers died in their 18–20 years of age. The entire court stood up and respected the martyrs, including the prosecutor. Even though the judge tried to prevent everyone, it failed. because the martyrs who died in Vietnam while the trial was ongoing were important to all the American people.
At the end of both the case and the movie: Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, and Rennie Davis were found guilty of incitement to riot, and hand down to 5 years each in federal prison. The verdict was reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a new trial was ordered. The U.S. Attorney declined to re-try the case. William Kunstler was charged with disobedience to court 24 times. In a bi-annual survey, 78% of Chicago trial lawyers gave Judge Julius Hoffman a rating of “Unqualified.” Bobby Seale was found to have been falsely accused of the murder of a police officer in Connecticut. Jerry Rubin became a stockbroker. In 1994, he was hit by a car and killed while jaywalking near the campus of UCLA. Abbie Hoffman wrote a best-selling book, though the number of copies in circulation is unknown as the title is “Steal This Book.” He killed himself in 1989. Tom Hayden was elected to the California State Legislature in 1982. He was re-elected 6 more times.
The film was a story of facts carried from 1968 to the present. At the end of the trial, the Supreme Court’s reversal of the court decision was supported by the public and by the audience watching the movie. Because, as the prosecutor said in the first place, Although these people are rebellious, dissenting, and disturbing, In my opinion, they did not go so far as to be the subject of an indictment. Nobody should be judged either because of their race or because of their opinions.
REFERENCES
