Monday, Sep. 06, 1971

The Hanrahan Indictment

The fusillade of police bullets that killed Chicago Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in 1969 created a controversy that has never abated. Last week the complex series of legal battles that ensued from their deaths finally suppurated with damaging political implications for the Democratic machine of Mayor Richard Daley.

A grand-jury presentment, suppressed since April, was at last made public. It charged that Daley's heir apparent, Cook County State's Attorney Edward Hanrahan, had conspired to obstruct justice by covering up for the police and interfering with the defense of seven surviving Panthers accused of attempted murder. Indicted on the same charges were Hanrahan's assistant, who planned the raid, the eight policemen who entered the Panther pad and four other cops who subsequently became involved in the investigation. Police Superintendent James Conlisk was named as a coconspirator, but was not indicted.

Response to Pressure. From the beginning, the case has been shrouded in obloquy and obfuscation. An initial county grand jury charged only the seven Panthers. Then a federal grand jury, investigating whether the civil rights of Hampton and Clark had been violated by police, declined to indict anyone, but did report that--contrary to police claims--there was evidence that only one bullet had been fired by the Panthers compared with at least 82 by police. Shortly before the federal grand-jury report, Prosecutor Hanrahan's office had abruptly reversed itself and decided to drop the Panther indictments because of "faulty" evidence. In the midst of all this confusion and in response to press and public pressure, a special county grand jury was convened last year to look into the whole affair.

Because of a possible conflict of interest for regular prosecutors, Chief Criminal Courts Judge Joseph Power appointed a special prosecutor for the case: Barnabas Sears, a widely respected lawyer with a large private practice in arguing appeals. Sears, a past president of the American College of Trial Lawyers and former chairman of the American Bar Association's house of delegates, had once before served as a special prosecutor in a 1961 Chicago police scandal, winning eight convictions. He proved no less tenacious this time. The grand jury listened in closed sessions for five months as he presented mounds of evidence and 47 witnesses.

Escalating Spectacle. Four months ago, the jury was finally ready to present its conclusions. Amid rumors of high-level indictments, there was a blitz of legal maneuvering by Hanrahan and lawyers for some of the police. Their goal: to disband Sears' jury or at least to head off public announcement of its charges. For his part, Judge Power ordered the grand jury to hear more witnesses. Sears refused to comply, saying that the judge had no authority to make the jury do so. Enraged, Power then cited Sears for contempt and fined him $50 an hour round the clock until such time as he agreed to subpoena additional witnesses. While the dispute went up to the Illinois Supreme Court, Hanrahan, who had previously ignored an invitation to testify before the jury, decided to appear after all. He talked for ten days.

The supreme court eventually overturned Sears' contempt citation, but it also said that Judge Power had authority to review the grand jury's proceedings. Since one of the policemen's suits had alleged that Sears used "excessive" methods to persuade the grand jury to indict, the judge ultimately appointed a special investigator to investigate his special prosecutor. The ever-escalating spectacle had Chicagoans buzzing. Though Power had originally chosen Sears, many now could not help remembering that Power is a neighbor, friend and former law associate of the mayor. Columnist Mike Royko, Daley's recent biographer, observed: "The impact of the stories was that the fix was in."

Severe Damage. Sears again went to the supreme court. This time the court voided the appointment of an investigator and ordered the judge to open the still-sealed indictments. Within hours, Power did so. In backing its charges of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, the grand jury alleged, among other things, that: 1) Hanrahan had misrepresented the facts of the raid to reporters and presented false information to get the indictments against the Panthers; 2) police had gone through a misleading re-enactment of the events for television cameras and had lied in various earlier proceedings; 3) police technicians had failed to examine weapons properly for fingerprints and had falsely identified two bullets as having come from Panther guns; and 4) a subsequent internal police-department probe of the events had been rigged.

Obviously, the battle is far from over. The indictments could still be quashed by the judge, and of course if he gets to trial, Prosecutor Sears must still prove the allegations. But whatever the outcome, it seems clear that Hanrahan's political future has been severely damaged. He professed last week not to know it. He charged that "Mr. Sears was determined to come out with an indictment--any indictment--and Mr. Sears unduly and illegally prejudiced the judgment of the jurors to obtain such an indictment, regardless of the charge." Nonetheless, Hanrahan insisted that he welcomed the chance for an open hearing into all the facts of this "extraordinary" case.

Despite his bravado, Hanrahan, often called "Fast Eddie," was being slowed down to a defensive pace. The traditionally staid Chicago Bar Association found itself agreeing with the more activist Chicago Council of Lawyers in calling for the state's attorney to take a leave until the case was decided (he refused), and for Judge Power to withdraw from the proceeding. Even the conservative, police-boosting Chicago Tribune applauded the fact that "justice is back on the track," chiding Hanrahan for being "as responsible as anyone for the stalling." It had been the Trib, to its later dismay, that served as a sounding board for the police version of the raid.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.