With seven Hobos scheduled to go to trial in September, prosecutors alleged for the first time this week that the gang was responsible for nine killings as well as countless shootings, robberies and home invasions. No gang has been charged in a federal indictment with that level of violence since the El Rukns two decades ago. Chicago Tribune June 16, 2016In today's Chicago Sun Times, Jacob Wittich tells us that 'several' Hobos will be in Judge Tharp's courtroom and Judge Tharp does not want them unduly prejudiced by being shackled. Foot loose!
The Hoboes, not the bindlestiffs of yore, nor Lords of Boxcars, a super group coalition ( Gangster Disciples/Disciples & etc.) of gang thugs are about to be tried in Dirksen Federal Court.
They are wildly dangerous.
Their Hobo associates, who will pack the court, just might be more than mildly dangerous.
The United States Marshall Service asked for permission to shackle the 'several members' ( I am unclear of how many persons constitute a 'several' - more than two, but less than many, I guess) of Hobo coalition, due to manpower shortages, and the danger to the public this gang and their associates pose to everyone.
Well, truth be told, there are Seven Hobos - a Magnificent Seven - being tried in Dirksen Court. That is seven dangerous persons with seven circles of family and associates. Sounds like the seven circles of Hell having its day in court. What could possibly go wrong? Mark Kirk?
Senator Mark Kirk ( R, Durbin) recommended, President Obama nominated and the U.S. Senate confirmed by a vote of 86-1 Judge John "Jay" Tharp to the United States District Court for the Northern District. republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah was the only Senator to vote against Jay Tharp.
I would love to speak with Senator Mike Lee.
Mark Kirk has made a national jackass of himself in the United States Senate and he will be soundly defeated by a very weak ( hack) candidate on November 8th.
We have Judge Tharp.
The Hobos will be unshackled. Gee, what could go wrong?
But U.S. District Judge John Tharp denied those requests during a Friday status hearing, claiming the shackles could sway the jurors’ perceptions of the defendants.
“The charges in this case are obviously quite serious, and the concern that the marshals have raised is quite appropriate,” Tharp said. “That said, there’s obvious prejudice that [shackling] inures, and I have to try to balance the rights of the defendants against the legitimate needs of security.”
“What reinforces this is the fact that should the defendants not comport themselves perfectly appropriately at the trial, the prejudice that will float to them from that sort of misconduct will far outweigh the prejudice of shackles,” he continued.
Tharp said it was a “difficult” decision that he will not hesitate to revisit during the trial if necessary.
Tharp also addressed concerns that a guilty plea by one of the defendants could adversely affect the other defendants.
Ask any County Court ( brawlers, drunks, non-political grifters, thieves) veteran about their appearances in the local County Court shackled to other accused after a long night in County. Yep, shackled for safety reasons - their own and the public.
Shackles like nooses remind us of Roots, Twelve Years a Slave, Ben Hur and Flash Gordon. We are always reminded that "We are better than that" and "those are not American Values." No, they are constraints. Progressives love their prose purple and their metaphors mixed and Judge Tharp delivers, " . . . there’s obvious prejudice that [shackling] inures, and I have to try to balance the rights of the defendants against the legitimate needs of security. What reinforces this is the fact that should the defendants not comport themselves perfectly appropriately at the trial, the prejudice that will float to them from that sort of misconduct will far outweigh the prejudice of shackles,”
Ah, yes! They will rue the day they acted out in Judge Tharp's court!
Judges have great credentials. Some judges even have common sense.
The United States Marshall Service are ignored by Judge Tharp. What could possibly go wrong?