- James Willingham and Jeffery Frazier, the real subjects of this story
From the Committee to Defend Diane Bukowski and Freedom of the Press
July 11, 2011
DETROIT — The families of two Black Detroiters, James Willingham and Jeffery Frazier, who died during a high-speed chase by state troopers the same day President Barack Obama was elected, Nov. 4, 2008, continue to grieve for them. Meanwhile, Michigan courts focus instead on the prosecution of reporter Diane Bukowski, who sought to tell their story in the pages of the Michigan Citizen.
Trooper John Hetfield drove the car which pursued Willingham, who had ten children, and caused both his and Frazier's deaths.
That no discipline or charges have been brought against Troopers John Hetfield and James Wojton, who carried out the chase, and that the deaths of Willingham and Frazier have been forgotten by the major media, starkly illustrates the importance of this country’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press.
WHO WILL TELL THE STORIES OF PEOPLE LIKE WILLINGHAM AND FRAZIER, STORIES THAT ARE REPEATED EVERY DAY ACROSS THE POLICE STATE AND PRISON NATION CALLED THE U.S., IF THE PRESS IS PROSECUTED FOR COVERING THEM? SUCH STORIES ARE NOT TOLD TODAY IN THE PAGES OF THE MICHIGAN CITIZEN; THE PAPER FIRED BUKOWSKI IN 2010.
Judge Michael Hathaway
Bukowski’s trial judge Michael Hathaway refused even to permit arguments at her trial in 2009 regarding her constitutional rights as a reporter. She was convicted of two felony counts of “assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, or endangering” troopers, brought by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy. Bukowski had reported on unjustified killings by police and Worthy’s refusal to prosecute them for the previous nine years.
On May 10, 2011, Appeals Court Judges David H. Sawyer, Jane E. Markey, and Karen M. Fort Hood denied her appeal, filed by attorneys John Royal and Sharon McPhail. They denied it on every single ground raised in the appeals brief, a summary of which is available on http://freedianebukowski.org. The appeals court decision is available by clicking on Bukowski COA opinion.)
There are numerous issues addressed in both documents. But most glaring is the fact that the appeals court upheld Hathaway’s refusal to allow arguments on the First Amendment, a matter that should concern every reporter and every freedom-loving person in this country.
“Although this case does not involve a defense based on an illegal arrest, the clarity of the Statute [MCL 750.81d] in terms of its intent and its elements supports a conclusion that defendant may not defend based on her status as a news gatherer,” the Appeals Court said. “The statute does not call upon an officer performing his or her duties to ascertain whether the person obstructing, resisting, opposing, or endangering the officer is a news gatherer, or permit a person that is gathering news to avoid criminal liability for such actions with respect to an individual who is known or should be known to be an officer who is performing his or her duties.”
Never mind that Judge Hathaway precluded First Amendment arguments in a pre-trial motion, while Bukowski was only charged under MCL 750.81d, not convicted. No details of her arrest (during which she was completely passive as shown in a Fox 2 news video) had yet been presented to the jury.
Never mind that Hetfield and Wojton testified at the trial about the chase, although they were long gone by the time Bukowski arrived on the scene. Never mind that Hathaway once again stopped Bukowski from telling the story of Willingham and Frazier’s deaths when he prevented her trial attorney from cross-examining the officers on whether the chase violated vehicle pursuit rules, and then stopped Bukowski from testifying about her findings on the chase during her direct exam.
(Click on http://freedianebukowski.org to read the full history of the Bukowski case, including links to stories of other journalists similarly attacked by police.)
Asst. Prosecutor Tom Trczinski
That Prosecutor Worthy and her Assistant Prosecutor Thomas Trczinski even brought a motion to preclude arguments regarding the First Amendment is an indication of the evil depths into which the “justice” system in Detroit has fallen.
“I at first wanted to let the appeals court decision go,” Bukowski said. “I have witnessed the absolute injustices perpetrated by the court system not only in my case but in numerous other cases I have covered over the years. Many who are currently incarcerated or in the ground are there because of that system, especially those who are Black, Latin, and poor.”
“I was at least fortunate enough not to serve jail time, or to be a young person still seeking employment and housing with felonies on my record. My dedicated and highly skillful appeals attorneys have been paid virtually nothing for their work, and there are no more funds available. But attorney Royal convinced me that it was important to pursue the appeal, and volunteered to do so only for payment of court costs.”
The crimes, the deaths of WIllingham and Frazier, were committed by State Troopers
So, on May 31, Attorney Royal filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the appeals court opinion. The motion addresses numerous other issues raised in Bukowski’s appeal, including the fact that she was convicted for allegedly crossing a crime scene tape, a charge on which she had not been bound over from District Court.
“Contrary to this Court’s opinion,” Royal wrote, “. . . .it was and continues to be improper for the prosecution to try a defendant on a legal theory of the offense which was not submitted at the examination without first making a pretrial motion to amend the information.”
Royal also argued that the Appeals Court was erroneous in ignoring the actions of a trooper who erased photographs from Bukowski’s camera, then testified at her trial that those photographs would have shown that she was inside a prohibited area. Royal said it is legal precedent that photographs are considered material evidence, and that the trooper’s testimony should have been ruled inadmissible as “hearsay.”
During her trial, on cross-exam by Trzcinski, Bukowski characterized the statements of the state troopers who testified against her as “perjury.” Royal and McPhail objected that Trczinski should not have been allowed to question Bukowski on the validity of their statements. The appeals court claimed that Bukowski opened the door by testifying the officers had perjured themselves on direct exam. The motion for reconsideration says that Bukowski never gave such testimony on direct exam.
“If the Appeals Court denies the motion, I will still continue to the State Supreme Court level,” Bukowski said. “Meanwhile, I continue to battle our criminal INJUSTICE system in the pages of the Voice of Detroit, the Final Call, and the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. I have covered miscarriages of justice like the conviction of Jason Gibson in the death of Officer Brian Huff, the appalling police murder of seven-year-old Aiyana Jones, the unjust prosecution of Maryanne Godboldo, and the battle of families whose loved one were convicted based on falsified crime lab evidence. I have not been scared off or silenced by this attack, and I hope that it will not have that effect on other journalists.”
Despite Attorney John Royal’s willingness to pursue her appeals pro bono, Diane Bukowski asks that anyone who wants to contribute to this battle for freedom of the press please send checks made out to “John Royal” to The Voice of Detroit, P.O. Box 32684, Detroit, MI 48232. For further information, call Attorney Royal at 313-962-3739. Diane Bukowski can be reached by emailing diane_bukowski@hotmail.com.
Worthy must not be re-elected. And I applaud your firm stance against injustice.