Hello my name is Abdul Love and here is my 18 year long journey
ARDC COMPLAINT
ARDC Request for Investigation Submitted by
Diana Paserba,
1000 Summit Dr.,
Deerfield, IL 6001S
~tel. 847-212-6831
Case: People v. Abdul Love Case# OS CF 3811 Lake County Circuit Court
Subject: Attorney Scott Hoffert
Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office, 18 N. County St., 3rd Floor, Waukegan, IL 6008S;
tel. 847-377-3000
I am an attorney licensed to practice in Illinois, and I work as a staff attorney for the Lake County Circuit Court in Waukegan, Illinois. I have knowledge of ethical violations by attorney Amy Meister-Falbe and by attorney Scott Hoffert during the pendency of the above captioned case, involving the knowing presentation of false testimony, knowing misrepresentations to the court, failure to correct false testimony and false statements, and failure to produce requested evidence in discovery. The specific rules violated may include Rule 3.3(a)(l) and (3) and Rule 3.4(a), (b), (c) and (d) and possibly (f). All ofmy factual assertions are based on my firm belief that they are true. I called the ARDC on June 24, 2020, and asked (anonymously and hypothetically) about my obligations under the Illlinois Rules of Professional Responsibility regarding this matter. I was told that I am obligated under Rule 8.4 and the ruling in In re Himmel, 12S Ill. 2d 531 (1988), to report the misconduct described below. The misconduct occurred between 2005 and 2009, and was hidden for many years. I learned of it in late 2016 when I reviewed the court file after defendant Abdul Love had filed a petition for leave to file a post conviction petition. During this review, I learned that several police officers lied under oath at Love’s suppression hearing, with the knowledge and encouragement of the Assistant State’s Attorney (“ASA”), Amy Meister-Falbe. Another ASA, Scott Hoffert, took over the case shortly after that hearing and for several years hid the fact that the police officers had . falsified testimony; made false statements to the court himself which were based on the false testimony; failed to advise the court that it had become clear from materials produced in the case that the officers had lied; and failed to produce items that were requested in~ iscovery and which he knew were relevant to the defendant’s claim that the officers had lied. This Request for Investigation relates to Attorney Scott Hoffert, and the accompanying Request for Investigation relates to Attorney Amy Meister-Falbe. I believe their misconduct is . intertwined, and is part of a pattern of conduct at the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office. My hope is that you will investigate the entire circumstances of-this matter and its companion case involving Mr. Love’s passenger at the time of the arrest, Mr. Nelson. This document is written from my notes taken several years ago. l do not have copies of the documents I refer to, but they are available in the court file. I reported these facts to the judge on tbe case, Mark Levitt, in 20) 7, and believed that I had fulfilled my duty to bring this situation to 1 light. When I checked on the status recently, I learned that these issues had not been addressed in the ensuing years. The post conviction petition has not moved forward, the same ASAs are prosecuting cases in Lake County courtrooms, and the same police officers are presumably testifying in their cases. This is why I felt I needed to seek the advice of the ARDC a11d, on that advice, to make this report. I would also like to add that I recently received from this body the “Illinois ARDC Statement on Racism” dated June 29, 2020. The Statement contains this language: ‘”The ARDC also commits to use its regulatory authority to engage and educate members of the legal profession on addressing and eschewing racism, including implicit bias. Further, the ARDC commits to holding all in the legal profession accountable for protecting the rule of law and making the justice system available to and equitable for all members of our communities.” The rule of law has not been protected in this case. In addition, I fear that implicit bias may have played a role in the case. The defendant was a young black man, and every other person involved in the prosecution of the case was white. I do not have copies of the documents that contain evidence of these violations; they are all part of the court file, including the appellate file. I do have excerpts of the officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing, which are attached at the end of this document. The transcript of the suppression hearing of July 9, 2007, contains the complete testimony. Also, there are documents that would be relevant to this investigation that would only be accessible through the State’s · Attorney’s office or from the police file or DEA. I should also note that there was a companion case that I believe involved the same two ASAs but I am not sure. It involved Mr. Love’s passenger at the time of the arrest, Mr. Nelson. It is an “06 CF” case. The same untrue police testimony was used in that case, as well, and is a separate violation of the code of ethics. UNDERLYING FACTS On October 5, 2005, Defendant Abdul Love was driven to Waukegan from Champaign by a man named Silas Pepple, to sell cocaine. Pepple was secretly acting as an informant, who had agreed to cooperate with DEA and “set up a guy” for a drug charge. 1 DEA partnered with the Waukegan Police Department Narcotics Unit for this operation, which played out over a five month period. 2 : :ee Carbondale pollce report In court file; Love’s successive post conviction petition of 2016 ee court file, Love’s 2016 post conviction petition, with redacted DEA file 2 When they knew that Love and Pepple were in the area for the drug deal, eight police officers from the Waukegan narcotics unit, together with a DEA agent, drove to the area in unmarked cars. The DEA agent was in contact with Pepple throughout the trip and the transfer of the drugs to Love. Pepple told them that Love was in a silver Ford Taurus, the route he was traveling to a certain BP gas station, and that he had 2 “bricks” of cocaine in a sealed box in the back seat of the car. Love pulled into the gas station at approximately 1 :30 a.m., and was immediately surrounded by at least five unmarked police cars, several of which were already there at the pumps when he pulled in. They immediately ripped open a sealed box in the back seat, found the cocaine, and arrested him.3 One of the officers, Sgt. Chastain, called the state’s attorney’s office and told them “all of the details about what happened.” He was told, by the ASA who answered the phone for felony review, to write it up as a routine traffic stop only.4 The identity of that ASA is unknown to me. That attorney appears to have violated their ethical duties, as well. Other ASAs periodically made appearances in the case, and I also do not know if they were aware of these deceptions, or if they may have violated their duty to report them. Love filed a motion to suppress, and the hearing on the motion occurred on July 9, 2007. Attorney Amy Meister-Falbe presented several police officers as witnesses to the arrest. They testified that: – five unmarked cars ‘just happened” to be patrolling in this area at 1 :30 a.m. – this was a routine traffic stop (though they gave varying reasons for the stop) – there had been no “tip” or other prior knowledge about this vehicle -they were no(wafohiiig fo-r ·a silver Fcird taunis 3 for facts of the sting operation, see Pepple affidavit, In court file and/or appellate file 4 See Chastain memo In court flle 3 – they _did not know who was driving the silver Ford Taurus before they stopped it – they did not know there were drugs in the car before the stop – the cocaine was in plain sight on the back seat – there was no other agency involved – there was no one from any other agency at the arrest. All of these statements by the police officers were false when made. An affidavit of Pepple propounded by the State two years later, and the. redacted DEA file that defendant obtained on his own, establish that the course of events was as I have set out above — these were narcotics officers working with DEA, a DEA agent was present with them at the arrest, they knew the exact car they were after and that Love was driving it, and that there was cocaine in the box in the back seat. Some excerpts from the officers’ testimony are attached hereto. The rest of the testimony can be found in the transcript of the suppression hearing of July 9, 2007. Although ASA Scott Hoffert was not present at the suppression hearing, he took over responsibility for the case shortly thereafter, and appeared at hearings over fifty times, up to and including the trial. Hoffert surely knew the true facts of the case from reviewing the file, which would have included the police file and the DEA file. And, even ifhe was unaware initially, he was immediately put on notice of the lies by defense counsel. Attorney Hoffert never corrected the misstatements of the officers but, rather, adopted their false statements and repeated in court the false naJTative of this being a routine traffic stop numerous times. Later in the case, attorney Hoffert knew beyond doubt that the police statements were not true, because Hoffert was involved in proffering the affidavit of the informant, Pepple, admitting to the entire scheme. He never revealed that fact to the court or the defense, nor did he ever correct the officers’ testimony. There was much relevant evidence that he never provided to the defense, including the DEA file and the DEA agent’s identity (or even the fact of their existence). 4 This affidavit of Pepple was filed under seal, meaning that neither the defendant nor his ‘ counsel was permitted to know what Pepple had just testified to. They were not able to point out to the judge that the officers’ testimony was contradicted by the affidavit. Although the affidavit directly contradicted the police officers’ testimony about the circumstances of the arrest, Hoffert did not advise the court that false testimony had been introduced. Throughout the case, Mr. Hoffert often misled the court by referring to the case as a “routine traffic stop.” He even continued to do so after the affidavit had been filed admitting that was not the case. Hoffert went to great lengths to hide the actual facts from the defense and from the court. For example, the defense sought information about the whereabouts of the infonnant Pepple in discovery. At a discovery hearing, Attorney Hoffert was asked point blank by the court who Silas Pepple was, and responded, “I have no idea.” He later called Silas Pepple “this informant that they imagine exists.” The transcripts demonstrate that Hoffert repeated the false statements of the officers, to avoid telling the truth about other aspects of the case. The defense asked for a printout of LEADS checks5 conducted by the police the night of the arrest, and Hoffert insisted that they were irrelevant in this traffic stop case. When the defense requested the officers’ phone records, in order to show that they had been in contact throughout the evening before the arrest, the judge agreed the recordings should be produced. Hoffert told the judge there was no communication, saying it was already established that this was a traffic stop. In addition, Hoffert said in open court on March 23, 2009, pp. 13-15: THE COURT: Mr. Hoffert, do you have any response as far as the discovery I mean? : ~w Enforcement Agencies Data System: available to law enforcement only, contains criminal history a nd 0th er n ormatlon an officer can access about suspects In preparation for Interacting with them 5 MR. HOFFERT: I object to it, Judge, in its entirety. It’s either not something to which the defendant is entitled or – THE COURT: What specifically? MR. HOFFERT: Well, paragraph two is that !hey are trying to locate a witness that they think may be, will be helpful to their case. He’s not one of our witnesses. He’s not one of our contacts. It’s somebody who is mentioned in the discovery because the defendant told the police about him and said, “This is the guy that initiated this high-level cocaine deal.” [The witness referred to is Silas Pepple, who was undisputably the informant in the case] . ••• MR. HOFFERT: Number three is the defendant is guessing that this same person maybe is a confidential informant and that that led to the traffic stop. The trqffic stop has been discussed in open court through the testimony of police officers on different occasions, including on motion lo suppress hearing, and.also during the trial on the 06 CF case. And the officers testified in those hearings that this was a robbery detail; the defendant’s car was stopped on trafflc violations. ” (Emphasis added.) He also stated: MR. HOFFERT: Again it would appear,just based on the way that the motion is structured, that maybe this has to do with that confidential informant that they imagine exists. (Emphasis added,) 6 Defense counsel explained that they believed the police had lied in the hearing and prior trial, and that the State had an obligation to give them Pepple’s contact infonnation so that they could locate him as a possible witness. Attorney Hoffert persisted in his insistence that Pepple was not an infonnant. judge: P. 18 (Defense counsel) MR. KASPER: Our theory of the case is and always has been that somebody was cooperating with the police, that’s the reason Mr. Love got pulled over, that’s the reason the car was searched, that the drugs were not in plain sight but were found based on a tip or some confidential infonnant. We’re not sure of the relationship between the police and that infonnant. Again, in response to a direct question, attorney Hoffert was untruthful with the P.22 THE COURT: Do you know who Mr. Pepple is? MR. HOFFERT: / have no idea, Judge . (Emphasis added). The misconduct in this case does not seem to be an isolated occurrence, given the strong resemblance it bears to another case wherein this same State’s Attorney’s office withheld infonnation about an infonnant and the agreement he had with the police. The Second District Appellate Court, in People v. Collins, 333 Ill. App. 3d 20 (2d Dist. 2002), found that a different ASA from this same office, Amy Meister-Falbe (also involved herein), had made false and misleading statements to the trial court regarding a confidential informant. The court stated that 7 she “stood before the court on several occasions and stated that there were no contracts or agreements between Spencer and the police regarding the execution of the search warrant at defendant’s home and said that there was no information to tender.” The court also noted that she presented testimony of the informant wherein he adamantly denied being an informant. The court found that she engaged in “evasions, obfuscations, and outright lies.” See People v. Collins, 333 Ill. App. 3d 20 (2d Dist. 2002). Excerpts from the court’s holding are set out below: Throughout the pretrial proceedings, the State constantly fought defendant’s attempts to learn of this relationship between Spencer and the police. On June 13, the State was ordered to tum over information on Spencer’s prior convictions and “anything that goes to his bias or his credibility.” The State presented Spencer’s testimony at the hearing to revoke defendant’s bond, in which Spencer adamantly denied being a confidential informant or having any deal with the North Chicago police department. The State stood before the court on several occasions and stated that there were no contracts or agreements between Spencer and the police regarding the execution of the search warrant at defendant’s home and said that there was no information to tender. On August 28, defendant discovered, on his own investigation, that Spencer had never been criminally charged after the search of his home, even though felony charges had been approved. Even in the face of this revelation and the court’s order that the State investigate the existence of any di~cussions with Spencer regarding his charges and cooperation with the police, the State again stood before the court on September 28 and stated that there was “no information that needs to be tendered …. This series of evasions, obfuscations, and outright lies clearly denied defendant a fair trial and caMot be condoned. People v. Collins, 333 lll. App. 3d 20, 26-28 (2d Dist. 2002). Mr. Hoffert, in this case, also “constantly fought defendant’s attempts to learn of this relationship” [of Pepple to the police]. On May 12, 2009, the Court agreed with defense counsel that a review of the LEADS checks was relevant to see if the police had been looking up Mr. Love before this arrest. P. 5: THE COURT: He may be entitled to it if the police officers in Waukegan indicated under oath that they did not run the LEADS or they did not 8 I have any contact. The reason for the arrest was the traffic stop. / suspect that would be relevant to cross examination of the officers. P. 5-6: Court: … So I would order that the State check with the Waukegan police officers. Then if they indicated that no one ran LEADS or they could not remember if they ran leads, if the Statfwere to then run a LEADS check-was there any other agencies involved in this besides Waukegan? MR. HOFFERT: No. (Emphasis added. The statement is false – DEA was involved and a DEA agent was present at the arrest). (DEA file attached to pending Love Petition). Hoffert also stated ••There is no mention in the police reports to a confidential informant. There was no search warrant or controlled buy involved in the case at bar; there was a traffic stop based on probable cause, an arrest, the recovery of a large amount of cocaine and then admissions by the defendant.” Of course, the reason there was no mention of the informant in the police report was that the state’s attorney’s office had told the officers to omit that information. As noted above, Sgt. Chastain admitted later in a memo that was hidden from the defense, that he called the state’s attorney’s office and was told to write the report as if it had been a routine traffic stop. The story was coordinated immediately after the arrest and everyone stuck to that story for the four years the case was pending. In early July 2009, Hoffert used an affidavit of Pepple to quash a subpoena the defense had issued for him to testify at trial. That affidavit, as noted above, admitted that Pepple was an informant and that this w~ not a routine traffic stop. The defense had no idea that Pepple had adm’tt 1 e d t o b emg · th em · ti ormant. ‘ On July 15, 2009, defendant agreed to a stipulated bench trial 9 on the possession charge. The parties stipulated to essentially the same evidence that had been admitted at the hearings on the motions to quash arrest and to suppress confession. In other words, rather than admit to the defense that the officers had lied about the “routine traffic stop,” it appears Hoffert allowed the false testimony given at the suppression hearing to stand as the testimony at the stipulated bench trial. Love was found guilty based on that testimony. Again, because the defense had never been pennitted to see the affidavit, which remained under seal, they could not point out to the judge that that prior testimony had now been proven to be false. In summary, to the best of my knowledge and belief, Attorney Scott Hoffert, from 2007 to 2009 in the above captioned case, relied on testimony that he knew to be false, failed to correct false testimony that had been given under oath, made false statements in open court in order to perpetuate the story told by the officers who testified falsely, and withheld (and denied the existence of) relevant evidence that had been requested and that, under the minois Rules of Prof essi.onal Responsibilty, should have been provided. There arc other examples of the behavior I have set out here contained in the record of the case. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Diana Paserba 10 Portions of testimony from Suppression Hearing July 9. 2007 Sgt. Chastain, p. 238-p. 240 Defense Counsel MR. SPIT ALLI: Q. Had you received any phone calls or tips regarding the Ford Taurus? MS. MEISTER-F ALBE: Objection. THE COURT: I didn’t hear what you said. BY MR. SPITALLI: Q. Had you received any phone calls or tips regarding the Ford Taurus? MS. MEISTER-F ALBE: Objection. THE COURT: Relevancy? MS. MEISTER-FALBE: Yes. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. So at the time of the traffic stop, you didn’t know he had an active warrant? A. Not prior to the traffic stop. We didn’t know who it was. THE WITNESS: Again, we were working just burglary complaints in general, all the gas stations. And we happened to be in the area of that gas station, so that’s where our focus was at that time. Q. Well, did you have a complaint about a burglary at Belvidere and Green Bay, a BP gas station located on that comer? A. We didn’t have a complaint of a burglary there, no. Q. Who were you working with on October 5th? A. It was myself, Sergeant Cappelluti, Detective Tapia, Detective Reed, Detective Flores, and I believe Detective Navarro. I might have missed somebody. I would have to refer to the report. Q. So are those – Tapia, Ulloa, Flores, Reed, Agalianos and Navarro, are they all detectives? A: Yes. Q. Okay. Well, if there was no specific burglary at the BP on the comer of Belvidere and Green Bay, what other tasks were you working? MS. MEISTER-F ALBE: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. I think you have established that they were working in that area. These are all cwnulative questions. Move on. BY MR. SPITALLI: Q. Were the other detectives in the same area as you? Let me rephrase that. Did you have any visual of those other detectives? A. Yes. Q. How far were they, if you know? A. At that time we were all together. Q. Were you looking for that particular vehicle? A. No, absolutely not. P. 245 Q. Okay. And at the time you say you observed my client, you didn’t know who was driving that vehicle? A. Correct. P.251 Q. Had you received any phone calls or tips or anything in relation to narcotics trafficking with regard to a Ford Taurus? Objection. The Court: Relevancy? Yes. Court: Sustained. Same question asked again, objection sustained. P. 252 Reed initiated a traffic stop, and myself and Tapia were behind him, and along with the rest of the officers. Page 93 Detective Reed Q. Had you received any specific complaint about a drug deal on October 5th of 1 05? A. Myself? No, sir. Sgt. Cappelluti: Q. Is there anything — strike that. Okay. Once you had a visual of the Taurus traveling at a high rate of speed, what did you do next? A. I contacted — we started talking with Sergeant Chastain and the other detectives on our Nextel Talk Group, and I advised them there’s a silver Taurus that pulled off of 7th Street, it’s got tinted windows. And Sergeant Chastain replied, yeah, I have it; I have it going northbound, and it just switched lanes without signaling. So we all started turning around to go northbound on Green Bay. Q. And when you did, there were no lights and sirens; there’s nothing to differentiate your car from any other vehicle on the road at that point? A. Correct. Q. Okay. ‘. A. Which is the point that we were trying to make. [With this last answer, he came close to admitting this was a sting, because unmarked cars without lights would not be wanted for a traffic stop. It is not clear how the driver would know to stop if there were no police lights. They clearly were trying not to “spook” him.]
