December 24th, McHenry County Blog ran the first part of the December 15, 2010, transcript of a Rockford hearing before Magistrate P. Michael Mahoney.
This is Part 7.
As we ended yesterday’s portion of the transcript, Judge Mahoney was asking, “Well, what else is there?”
MR. HORWITZ: There’s a Monell theory.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HORWITZ: There’s code of silence. There’s retaliation. For example, there are seven officers, Judge, who have come forward to testify, five in deposition, that there’s a code of silence at the department. There’s retaliation for coming forward. If you exercise your First Amendment — if you speak out against the department — five cops have testified.
These are guys that are working at the department, except for one.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HORWITZ: I can give you their names if you want, but you got from 18 years on the department to less than a year. We have two officers who have not yet testified who I’ve disclosed to defense counsel are coming forward, as well, to say exactly the same things, one who is actually willing to be a 26(a)(2)(b) witness as to racial profiling, how these tickets are generated, the training the officers receive, and whatnot.
His name is Timothy Madison.
THE COURT: Is that the 26(a)(2) witness you talk about sometimes?
MR. HORWITZ: Yes. The need for him recently came forward based upon the 140 tickets.
THE COURT: What’s your 26(a)(2) witness going to say?
MR. HORWITZ: He will say — he will describe
- how it is that racial profiling
- how it is that the officers were trained at the department
- how it is that Bruketta was trained at the department.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. HORWITZ: How it is that tickets are generated.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HORWITZ: And how it is officers establish –
THE COURT: How is that opinion testimony so far?
MR. HORWITZ: Judge, if it isn’t 26(a)(2)(b) testimony, you ought to rule on that.
THE COURT: No. I’m just asking how it was. All you’ve done is tell me I saw this, I saw this, I saw this. How is that 26(a)(2)?
MR. HORWITZ: The reason why I believe it’s 26(a)(2) testimony is because the jury may not understand the training that occurred, how you can take all the training and match it with the correct way to –
THE COURT: All right. So, there comes a point in time where he’s going to offer opinions.
MR. HORWITZ: Yeah. Like you said to counsel, you know, what happens, that sort of thing.
THE COURT: Now, counsel, tell me again. What do you want to do besides what we’ve talked about so I can get this case to trial? What has to be done in your opinion?
MR. HORWITZ: All right. Going on, Dr. Meyer is a doctor that the defendants indicated they would facilitate in setting up his deposition. His deposition needs to be completed. Dr. Meyer.
MR. SOTOS: He testified, as well, but that one wasn’t finished, either.
THE COURT: Well, it was on May 24th, 2010. He testified for four hours.
MR. SOTOS: Right. On May 24th, Judge.
THE COURT: How many more hours do you need?
MR. HORWITZ: I probably need about an hour and a half.
THE COURT: What do you think?
MR. SOTOS: Honestly what I think, Judge, is I do not understand why there’s never been any need for him to explain why you would take somebody’s deposition in May, go through several different discovery closing deadlines that are coming, and then say six months later, “I want to finish his dep.” I mean, that’s not how — this case has been conducted in two separate discovery periods.
THE COURT: All right. Slow down. Slow down.
MR. SOTOS: You’re right.
THE COURT: All right. Now, number one, you still have the right to do any discovery that you want. Number two, things have popped up in this case. That’s why I’ve tried to talk to you before. Who is Dr. Meyer and in your opinion how does he fit into this case?
MR. SOTOS: Dr. Meyer is a doctor who examined plaintiff after he was in a shooting incident.
THE COURT: Psychologist?
MR. SOTOS: He shot somebody, and then he was –
THE COURT: Ph.D. doctor or medical?
MR. SOTOS: Yes.
THE COURT: Ph.D. doctor.
MR. SOTOS: Psychologist.
THE COURT: All right. So, did he counsel him or just examine him on behalf of the department?
MR. SOTOS: He examined him, I believe, first on behalf of the department and concluded that he shouldn’t be on the SWAT team because of the stress, things of that nature. I think that was primarily what he did. He said that because of what he was involved in –
THE COURT: All right. Why wasn’t four hours enough with this guy? Why aren’t you done?
MR. HORWITZ: Because the defendants took his deposition for about three and a half hours, and I was entitled — I was then — considering the four-hour time period you set and considering the four hours he had available for himself scheduling wise, I was only –
THE COURT: So, you only had 30 minutes with this guy?
MR. HORWITZ: Maybe half an — maybe 45 minutes, Judge. I don’t want to say on the record as an officer of the court exactly.
THE COURT: Does that sound right?
MR. SOTOS: I wasn’t there. I don’t remember. I just don’t know why it never came up in a half a year.
MR. HORWITZ: Judge, if you want me to respond to that, his associate –
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. HORWITZ: His associate said, “I will give you the dates for Dr. Meyer’s deposition.” The reason why –
THE COURT: Is Dr. Meyer under their control?
MR. HORWITZ: The reason why he is under their control is he considers himself somebody that works for the department. He’s received –
THE COURT: Still?
MR. HORWITZ: I don’t know about still. I’m telling you the conversation between his associate and me. First of all, he is a friend of Sheriff –
THE COURT: How much time do you want with Dr. Meyer?
MR. HORWITZ: Hour and a half.
THE COURT: I’ll give you an hour. What else do you need?
MR. HORWITZ: Do I need to say more next time?
THE COURT: No.
MR. HORWITZ: All right.