A furious Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer castigated lawyers for the City of Chicago Friday morning, after revelations of still more missing evidence in a police shooting trial is set to begin in less than two weeks.
Lawyers for shooting victim Jaquise Evans said they had just learned that the officer who shot him, Chicago Police Sergeant Richard Salvador, had a false arrest lawsuit and settlement in his past which had never been revealed. Salvador testified in a sworn deposition that he had no such lawsuits. And his attorney for the current case, who was with him in that deposition, also represented him in the previous action, known as Young vs. Salvador.
“That right there is perjury,” Evans’ attorney Michael Oppenheimer told the judge.
“It defies words that I cannot say in this courtroom!”
City attorney Scott Cohen’s defense in a motion filed Thursday night, was that he was unaware he was the lawyer on the Young case, and that Sergeant Salvador likely did not know he had been sued.
On hearing that, Pallmeyer hit the judicial ceiling.
“What law firm, what city allows you to say that?” she asked. “I’m sorry, as a matter of professional responsibility, you don’t know who your client is?”
Local
The city lawyers suggested in the back and forth of the suit Cohen had not actually been involved.
“You’re representing him and you don’t know that?” Pallmeyer pressed. “Who, as a matter of professional ethics does this?”
Cohen tried to explain.
“I never interacted with Sgt. Salvador even once on Young,” he said.
But the judge wasn’t buying.
“Do you ever enter an appearance and not know who you’re representing?” she asked. “How does it happen that a person is sued and nobody from the city bothers to tell him? He’s entitled to know he’s been sued! Who dropped the ball?”
Pallmeyer made clear she wasn’t buying the city’s argument.
“He had to have been served personally,” she said.
When city attorney Liza Franklin offered that she believed he had indeed been served, that sparked more anger from the judge, noting that Salvador indicated under oath that he had no such suits in his past.
“So now you’re telling me your client did commit perjury!” Pallmeyer said.
When Franklin suggested Salvador may not have understood that he had been sued, the judge cut her off.
“I would say the vast majority of people who have been sued know it, it’s not a pleasant thing,” she said. “Does that mean he’s sued so often it’s meaningless to him?”
The more the city lawyers attempted to explain themselves, the more incredulous the normally polite and pleasant Judge Pallmeyer became.
“This is kind of 101---there’s nothing complicated about this,” she said. “How could you not know that you’re representing this man?”
Defense attorneys in the case had already cited repeated examples of untendered evidence in a case which is set to go to trial in ten days. Pallmeyer suggested she also was fed up with what appeared to be unreasonable lapses, and was prepared to impose penalties on the city.
“It’s time for someone to step up,” she said. “I expect it’s going to be necessary for me to deliver a sanction in this case!”
In a statement, the City Law Department said it takes the issues raised in the case seriously.
“We are reviewing the handling of discovery in this lawsuit,” the statement said. “In addition, we are examining our discovery policies and procedures to identify improvements and will be adjusting training to ensure that any mistakes are not repeated.”
After court, Oppenheimer suggested the scenario he had just witnessed was unprecedented, raising the possibility that the city lawyers might be in need of legal representation themselves.
“We’re supposed to go to trial in ten days---who knows what surprises we’ll get next week,” he said. “Maybe they should bring in their own lawyers!”
