For the past year and a half, something has been allowed to go really wrong in the office of Racine County District Attorney Michael Nieskes (pictured above). Unfortunately, the people who allowed that "something" to go so very wrong will most likely be able to completely avoid any accountabilty - and that, in and of itself, is a miscarriage of justice.
Jessica Kachur is/was a math teacher at Case High School in Racine. According to her, on April 27, 2006 Ms. Kachur was standing outside her classroom between periods thinking about something or the other. At that time, a student came up to her and (for whatever reason) stuck his face into hers. In a distracted fashion, Kachur reflexively swatted at the student striking him on the cheek.
There was no injury to the student as a result of this incidental contact. There was no allegation that she punched him or even wound up and gave him a "real" slap. Instead, she instinctively swatted at him when he suddenly stuck his face into hers. To me, this has always sounded like the equivalent of walking down the hall at work thinking about your next meeting and accidentally bumping into a co-worker.
In a sane world, nothing would have come of this incident. Incidental contact, no harm, no intent to injure and no injury. In other words, no big deal. Unfortunately, as events later make clear, we do not live in a sane world.
The student, apparently after being teased by friends who observed the incident, decided to complain to school officials. After an investigation, the school saw this incident for what it was - an inadvertent act. Nevertheless, the decided to reprimand Ms. Kachur and caution her about making contact with students.
Again, in a sane world, this would have certainly ended the matter. Except, there seems to be nothing sane about the way the Racine District Attorney's Office operates.
Several weeks after the incident, The Racine District Attorney's Office issued a disorderly conduct citation against Kachur. This non-criminal citation carried with it a fine. Rather than plead "no contest" and pay the fine, Kachur hired an attorney to contest the citation. According to Kachur, after the DA's Office learned that she was not simply going to plead guilty, they dismissed the municipal citation on August 18, 2006. Not content to let this matter rest however, on October 2, 2006, they charged her with a crime - misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
I recognize that this sort of heavy handed stuff goes on all the time - but, in my opinion, if it's not unethical, it should be. If the DA's Office felt that Kachur committed a crime, they should have charged her with one in the first place. Instead it appears that only after she refused to plead to the ordinance violation did this become something that the DA's Office decided was severe enough to try to take her liberty and livlihood away. Talk about being petty and vindictive.
The misdemeanor case was scheduled for trial on December 14, 2006. On December 13, the day before trial, the State filed a motion seeking to add new witnesses. Keep in mind that the incident occurred in April and that the charges (in one form or another) had been around since May. Yet, on the literal eve of trial, the DA's Office for the first time apparently found a bunch of new witnesses? Not surprisingly, the judge was having none of this and refused to allow the DA's Office to add witnesses.
At this point, the saga gets even more interesting. When told that they could not add witnesses, the DA's Office responded that they would have no choice but to dismiss the case and reissue it at a later time because without the new witnesses, there "was not enough evidence to convict Kachur".
Let me stop here! Not enough evidence to convict Kachur unless they were able to call the newly discovered witnesses? What is that all about?
If they didn't have enough evidence to convict Kachur without the newly discovered witnesses, on what basis were charges brought in the first place? I understand that sometimes a DA charges a case hoping the evidence will get better before trial. I don't think however that I've ever heard of charging a case knowing that there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction at the time you charge it. To do so would seem to be a gross abuse of process - and yet it seems like this is precisely what happened here.
Regardless, the trial judge (recognizing this prosecution for the cluster-you-know-what that it was) dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning that it could not be reissued). The DA's Office (throwing good taxpayer money after bad) appealed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the judge and sent the matter back for trial.
Meanwhile, Jessica Kachur continued to rack up legal fees and have her life put on hold.
In any event, the matter went to trial last Thursday. The DA's Office called all it's witnesses and after about a half hour of deliberations (barely enough time to get coffeee and use the restroom), the jury (in a decision that would have come as no surprise to any first year law student) found Kachur "not gulty".
The surprise of course is not that she was acquitted. This prosecution was ill-conceived from the start. Rather, the surprise is that the case got this far. It is nothing short of stunning that nobody in the Racine DA's Office had the comon sense at any time during these proceedings to realize that this case should never have been brought - but once brought, should never have been continued.
Jessica Kachur was found "not guilty" but her life has been a living hell for a year and a half because of arrogance, ignorance and, in my opinion, some ethically questionable choices by prosecutors who really should have behaved better. I frankly don't know where she goes to get her reputation (or her legal fees back).
Hopefully the Kachur case is not typical of the way the Racine District Attorney's Office does business nowadays. If it is, all I can say is "what a trainwreck and "welcome to the banana republic of Racine"! Beyond this however, the next time the Racine DA says that he needs more money from the taxpayers, remember that one reason could be that he's choosing to use the taxpayer money he has chasing cases like this one!
If you'd like to hear Jessica Kachur tell her story first hand, click here.
0 COMMENTS
ADD A COMMENT