Former Joliet Fire Chief Joe Drick and his wife, Cheri, were convicted Monday night of defrauding an elderly woman and were immediately handcuffed and taken into custody pending sentencing.
Will County jurors deliberated about two and a half hours before finding the Dricks, who had been free on bond, guilty of theft by deception, financial exploitation of an elderly person, and conspiracy to commit financial exploitation of an elderly person. They face from probation to 30 years in prison. Sentencing was set for Dec. 12.
The Dricks and Gladys Farrington formed a strong friendship in November 2002 when the couple gave the 82-year-old a ride in their car on a bitterly cold Sunday. In the next three months, Cheri Drick acquired power of attorney over Farrington’s finances and health. Then Farrington approved a new will naming Cheri Drick as executor and beneficiary and allowing her to be co-owner of her checking accounts.
In all, the Dricks took nearly $200,000 from Farrington. She died at age 85 of Alzheimer’s disease.
“It was such a complex case; there were a lot of pieces to put together,” Assistant State’s Atty. Kathleen Patton said after the verdict. “When you’re done, they need to fit.”
Defense attorneys left the courthouse and did not speak to reporters.
Jury foreman Larry Clanton said the evidence supported the verdict.
“Everybody was cognizant of the impact the verdict would have on the Drick family, but you could not overlook the facts and the evidence,” Clanton said.
There was some wrestling with the question of Joe Drick’s involvement with the exploitation of an elderly person, Clanton said, adding that the judge’s instructions resolved the issue.
During closing arguments Monday, Patton linked Joe Drick to Cheri Drick’s initial effort to gain power of attorney over Farrington in 2002. That legal power, Assistant State’s Atty. Chris Koch argued earlier, formed a sort of “umbrella” that covered a series of actions they took in connection with her estate.
Patton argued that Joe Drick’s action — making the initial call to a lawyer about his wife’s power of attorney — put him at the very beginning of the conspiracy to deceive and defraud Farrington.
The prosecutor claimed Drick was trying to allay any suspicions of the attorney, Ford Chester “Chet” June III, a specialist in elder law.
Drick had denied he directly benefited from his wife’s actions.
Koch said Cheri Drick deceived Farrington by simply saying, “I’m only going to do things to help you.”
Farrington’s attorney, Chrystel Gavlin, testified earlier in the trial that her client was unaware of Cheri Drick’s involvement in her finances. Farrington, who was worth an estimated $1.1 million to $1.5 million, had intended to leave her money to St. Raymond Cathedral Parish, Gavlin said, and did not know Drick had named herself as beneficiary.
Defense attorneys argued that the power of attorney document made Cheri Drick’s actions technically legal. They also repeated the claim that a gift clause in the power of attorney document misled Cheri Drick into thinking she could spend Farrington’s money on herself and family.
In his closing argument, Doug DeBoer, representing Joe Drick, attempted to punch holes in the prosecution’s case.
“It’s the state’s job to give you a clear picture of two people engaged in knowing acts of deception,” DeBoer said.
Instead, the state produced a picture “that’s logically inconsistent.”
The Dricks’ involvement in Farrington’s finances came to light when Cheri Drick petitioned a Will County court to be named Farrington’s legal guardian.
“Why is Cheri Drick going for that power of attorney to begin with?” Patton asked. “The fact of the matter is [Gladys Farrington] didn’t need a guardian and she didn’t need a power of attorney.”
