Chicago Cop Dismissed of Manslaughter Due to Legal Semantics
Officer Dante Servin’s manslaughter charges were dropped due to actions being deemed “not merely reckless” by Judge in bench ruling.
*Edited April 21st, 3:15pm
The first officer-involved-murder-charge case in nearly two decades in Chicago ended today with all charges being dismissed by the Honorable Judge Dennis Porter in a bench trial ruling granting the Defense’s motion for a directed verdict.
Officer Dante Servin was indicted in November of 2013 of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, reckless discharge of a weapon and reckless conduct for his involvement of the shooting death of Rekia Boyd, 22, in March of 2012 that drew national attention.
To recap those events:
So, Cross was the “intended target” (though intended is rough to define when you fire five rounds, blindly, over your shoulder… But I digress —
Dante Servin’s trial began on April 9th and was a bench trial, not the more typical jury trial. I’ve yet to find if Savin requested the bench trial or if it was required. (Bench trial is required if a judge states they will not impose any jail or prison time.)
Bench trials are different in that, the judge alone — no jury — decides guilty or not guilty. Pretty common with bench trials is that that after the State or prosecution presents it’s case, the defense will usually submit a “Motion for Directed Verdict.” Which is essentially the defense arguing that they don’t need to present their case because the prosecution has failed to make their case.
It is usually not granted and forces the defense to present their case and the judge then making a decision.
But today, after the State closed its arguments against Servin, the defense issued the motion for a directed verdict — not surprising — but, Judge Porter granted it and issued a seven page ruling on the motion and his dismissal of the charges.
Judge Porter opens in your typical ruling format of explaining the motion, background info of the case and then moves on to the legal definitions of the charges brought against the defendant.
First he describes the legal requirements of of a First Degree Murder charge, then a Second Degree Murder charge, and lastly a Manslaughter charge. This is where it gets important.
Illinois’s Manslaughter definition is:
The key part here is the last line: performs them recklessly.
Judge Porter argues in his ruling that:
So to sum that up: Manslaughter requires an act of recklessness. The judge is arguing that firing a gun into a crowd is not “reckless” but so insane, it is calculated and conscious, so to speak.
The judge goes further:
Basically, the judge is hinting pretty hard here that this should have been a 1st or 2nd degree murder charge and not manslaughter. He says it would be highly unusual for him to charge Servin for a crime he was not charged with (i.e. a 1st or 2nd degree murder charge.)
Servin now cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections.
So the judge argues that this is not a manslaughter charge being is lacks “recklessness” — I’m no law expert (like at all…) but I find it highly unlikely that Servin would have been found guilty by a judge or jury if the state had indeed charged him with murder. Even though no weapon was recovered at the scene, anytime a cop utters those magic words of “I thought I saw a weapon” no jury will put blame on them.
That doesn’t mean I think state’s attorney Anita Alvarez didn’t blow this — she has had a pretty great tenure of coincidently screwing up these kind of things. But, this ruling is pretty unexspected by the judge and I don’t think it was somemething Alvarez was secretly banking on to avoid an ugly fight of ”going hard” on police. (But I’m open to changing that view if I find out how a bench trial came to be…)
This ruling comes at a time when, nationally, and certainly in Chicago, relation between police and members of the black community are broken with recent cases all over the country of police misconduct and killings.
Making matters worse, when Servin left the courtroom — after a heated exchange between members of Boyd’s family and protesters — he was flanked and escorted by a number of off-duty police officers. Now, I get it, his buddy cops don’t want to see him jailed and they came for support.
But, many will probably see it as a representation of the larger issue of cops not speaking up/coming forward when their fellow buddy cops break the law and hide behind the badge.
You can agree or disagree or whatever about the problem of police blackouts, but it is wholly inappropriate for him to escorted by off-duty police. Chicago had no shortage of police in that courthouse that could have seen Servin out safe. This was a political move that is just going to further ignite tension. The protesters in the courtroom were ushered out when things got heated but these off-duty cops were being given unfair privileges.
Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and police superintendent Gary McCarthy have yet to release a statement on the dismissal (or really the case in general.)
*Correction: The Chicago Sun Times reported Monday evening that police superintendent McCarthy issued the following response after Servin was cleared of all charges:
“She should never have indicted police officer Dante Servin in the first place. “It was wrong. The judge did the right thing by issuing a directed verdict,” he added.”
“Servin still faces the results of an Independent Police Review Authority.
President of the union representing Chicago police officers, Dean Angelo, said he would immediately begin the process to return Servin to active duty. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
Again, I’m no law expert, but when police continue to not face any consequences for the action they commit while hiding behind the badge, it is time to stop accepting the excuse from judges and lawyers that “my hands are tied, I have to follow the law…” Maybe it’s time to change the law. Maybe it’s time to change the system.
These are not “isolated incidents” that are being “sensationalized by the media,” they are an everyday reality for the minorities in this city and this country.
When the killing of a young twenty-two year old woman can be whisked away due to a semantics technicality of how to define “recklessness,” something is very wrong.
