In its April 4 editorial “Clean house of torture claims,” the Tribune calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations by several convicted criminals of physical coercion at Area 2 police headquarters during the 1980s.
It has been our position that any possible criminal charges based on these allegations are barred by the statute of limitations. This may sound technical, but it is a basic and longstanding principal of law that bars prosecutors from filing charges whenever they please, regardless of the passage of time.
The Tribune would have its readers believe that no review of these claims has ever occurred. In reality, these cases have been under a legal microscope in various city, state and federal venues for more than a decade. There are currently post-conviction petitions pending on behalf of several defendants. Allegations of physical coercion are at the core of these petitions. If credible evidence of police torture turns up in these cases as they proceed through the post-conviction hearings, any allegations not barred by the statute of limitations will be evaluated for prosecution.
As is our standard practice, if there is a conflict of interest, we will ask the Illinois attorney general’s office to handle the matter.
It should be noted that no fewer than three state’s attorneys and nine U.S. attorneys have served since these allegations first surfaced. None of them has found sufficient evidence to bring charges against any police officers at Area 2.
The justice system has provided an extensive public record, including thousands of hours of sworn testimony, of the allegations the Tribune would like to see examined. No doubt there will be more sworn testimony as at least some of these cases go to hearing.
As a result, even if the statute of limitations does bar criminal prosecutions, there is and will be a substantial public record for the media, government officials and others to examine. With this information, all interested parties can evaluate what happened in these cases and what remedial steps they believe should be taken for the future.
It has been our position that the statute of limitations bars criminal prosecutions of any violations from so long ago. But that issue will not be decided by us; it will be up to the judiciary to resolve that issue, and we will respect and abide by whatever decision is made.
If the goal is to fully and publicly air the facts related to claims of systematic police coercion, administrative or legislative bodies that have the power to make findings and recommendations are a viable option when the statute of limitations bars criminal prosecutions.
