Opinion ID: 799364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Granting of a New Trial

Text: On August 20, 2009, Galvan moved for judgment as a matter of law and alternatively for a new trial. Defendants were not given an opportunity to provide a written response to this motion. On September 2, 2009, Judge Shadur held a hearing and indicated that he would probably want to hear from defense counsel. Judge Shadur did not ultimately give either party the opportunity to respond before he denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted the motion for a new trial. He focused on the impeachment of Lucas, Norberg, and Porebski, and the fact that the case report did not contain many of the details that the officers later testified to: I almost without exception rely on the ability of jurors to get things right. I am sorry to say that what I saw and heard in this case represented the most distressing falsehoods coming from the mouths of some members of the Chicago Police Department, a force for which I have always had respect and I have always sought to credit, because I believe so strongly in law enforcement. Allen [sic] Lucas' testimony was I believe patently false and indeed perjurious. His account of the so-called anonymous tip was nothing more as I heard it than a total arrest fabrication. And the rest of his story spring boarded [from] that basic lie. Just as distressing I will say, was also the closing of ranks by other members of the Chicago Police Department in an effort to buttress that fabrication on his part. ... Just look at the Lucas story. If it's to be believed there was someone out there familiar with gang lingo and familiar with drugs from the way that he spoke, [and] he knew that a pickup truck of a particularly distinctive appearancethe shiny, clean, tricked up or tricked out[,] special paint, black, all of these particulars, was going to be driving in a specific direction north to south on Pulaski Road in that afternoon, occupied by two males, sometimes described as just two males, sometimes as Hispanic males, depending on when Lucas testified at his[] deposition or during the trial. And that truck was going to be carrying a large quantity of marijuana. Look what happened: A miracle happened. A miracle happened.... Now why do I say a miracle? Just exactly that kind of truck fitting that particularize[d] description to a tee ... and occupied by two males was driving down that very street in that very direction during the specified time frame. And that second truck was carrying a large quantity of hay. Mirabile dictu. You know, to say that crediting such a patently bogus after the fact horror story is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence is frankly a major understatement. It's sad to say that. But Lucas I think demonstrated himself to have no respect for the truth.... As for the story of the two bags of user marijuana, if that stood alone it might be said that a fact-finding body, a jury, might reasonably buy either side's argument about credibility. But you see it doesn't stand alone. It has to be looked at in light of the fake description that Lucas gave. And regrettably that was ... coupled with the big, big lie about the purported justification for the stop. Where officers are so demonstrably untrustworthy on the big picture, the strong inference is that the two bags of marijuana would also be a cover story, if I can make a bad pun a plant to sanitize the officer's grossly illegal, indeed unconstitutional conduct. At the end of the hearing, Judge Shadur recused himself.