Despite raising questions about the testimony of prosecution witnesses earlier in the trial, Cook County Circuit Judge Ronald Himel on Tuesday refused to dismiss the case against three sheriff’s officers accused of killing a jail inmate who was in their care.
Himel, whose conduct has sometimes overshadowed the trial as he sparred with prosecutors and interrogated their witnesses, said the state’s evidence was sufficient for the trial to continue.
The judge’s ruling came after the state rested its case. Prosecutors had called more than a dozen witnesses during the nine-day bench trial.
Defense lawyers for Sgt. Patricia Pultz and deputies Lawrence Koscianski and William Spatz requested that the case be thrown out, saying the state hadn’t come close to meeting the standard of proof that the three were guilty of murder. The three defendants are accused of beating Louis Schmude on May 5, 2000; Schmude died two days later from a ruptured spleen.
After reviewing the evidence, Himel said that according to testimony, there were “70 to 100 blows that were placed on the deceased in this case, that virtually, he was covered from head to toe with bruises.
“Of those bruises, four, and especially two … could have caused the death of Louis Schmude,” he said.
At the time of the alleged attack, Schmude was in a holding cell at the Bridgeview courthouse awaiting a bond hearing on charges that he threw bricks through the window of his estranged wife’s home.
Although Himel refused to end the proceedings, he also declined to allow prosecutors to allow into evidence the grand jury testimony of a witness who has since died.
Typically, a witness’ testimony elicited before his death is considered hearsay and is barred from being introduced. The legal reasoning for the exclusion is that opposing attorneys would be deprived their right to cross-examine.
Although there are exceptions to the general principle, Himel said the testimony of the grand jury witness, George Jamicich, lacked credibility to meet such an exception.
Jamicich told the grand jury that he saw the defendants beat and stomp on Schmude and that he saw Schmude being dragged to the elevator where he was screaming for help, according to a transcript of the testimony.
Himel said Jamicich’s testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of two other state witnesses.
Before issuing his ruling, Himel laid down the legal framework that the law requires him to consider: the trustworthiness of the witness and of his testimony; how and if the testimony bolsters other evidence already presented; and whether it reveals a new fact.
“[The grand jury testimony of Jamicich] doesn’t clearly show to me the time or location of what he sees,” Himel said.
“Most of the questions [by an assistant state’s attorney] that I read in the grand jury as to time, place and location are leading and suggestive.”
Before issuing his ruling, [Judge Ronald] Himel laid down the legal framework that the law requires him to consider.
