Vol. 75/No. 42      November 21, 2011

Geiger had been summoned as a witness in a murder case. This is by far the longest sentence ever imposed in the state for refusing to testify in a trial, according to Fletcher Hamill, Geiger’s court-appointed attorney.

“We’ve filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court asking them to review the decision,” Hamill told the Militant. “I hope they decide to take it.”

“It’s an outrageous case,” DePaul University Professor Len Cavise told the Chicago Tribune. “He got a punishment that is four times what he could have gotten for perjury and the same as the minimum punishment for the murder itself.”

Geiger was targeted by the prosecutors and the black-robed arbiters of class “justice” for his refusal to take the stand and “snitch” on others.

When he was called by the state to testify, the prosecutor told the court that they “expected him” to take the Fifth Amendment, and asked the judge to threaten him with sanctions. The prosecutor said that if he refused to testify he should be sentenced to six months in prison for contempt.

Judge Clark Erickson said that he could do that or give him a longer sentence of “a period of years.”

The prosecution then filed a petition with the court asking for a contempt order. Only at this point did the court appoint an attorney for Geiger.

After Judge Erickson pressed Geiger to testify, he said he still wanted to decline. The judge ruled he was in contempt, adding that he “seemed defiant” and that he “saw pure scorn for the judicial system in the defendant’s face.” He ruled in favor of the prosecutor’s petition and sentenced Geiger to 20 years.

While it said that “reasonable people could conclude that defendant’s sentence is excessive,” the Appeals Court said the trial judge had “broad discretionary powers” and ruled the 20-year prison term would stand.

“Direct criminal contempt is a unique crime that does not have a statutory maximum sentence,” the court said. In fact, if Geiger had just lied under oath, he could not have been sentenced to any more than five years.

The Appeals Court was divided—two judges for the 20-year sentence and one arguing it should be thrown out. “I would find it arbitrary, oppressive and unjust,” Judge William Holdridge wrote.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home