Truth Squad calls flagrant foul on terrorism charge in court campaign

MICHIGAN TRUTH SQUAD ANALYSIS: "Kid Gloves", "Justice Denied" and "How Could You?"

Who: Michigan Republican Party, Judicial Crisis Network

What: TV/Internet ads

Truth Squad call: Flagrant foul

Although nominally nonpartisan, the Michigan Supreme Court races can be as nasty as any other, as these three ads place Democratic-nominated candidates Shelia Johnson and Bridget Mary McCormack square in the crosshairs.

Two of these three ads take aim at University of Michigan law professor McCormack in the context of murder and terrorism.

Questionable statement: "My son Joe was taken from me, killed when his unit was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan. My son selflessly gave his life for this country, so when I heard Bridget McCormack volunteered to represent and help free suspected terrorists, I couldn’t believe it. My son’s a hero and fought to protect us. Bridget McCormack volunteered to help free a terrorist."

Teri Johnson is the mother of Spc. Joseph D. Johnson, 24, who died in June 2010, when his unit was attacked with an improvised explosive device in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Her claim that McCormack "volunteered to help free a terrorist" is based on McCormack’s work with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a "nonprofit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change," according to its website. It was through that group that McCormack came to represent Wahldof Abdul Mokit, a Tajikistan native released from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2007.

Or at least, she represented him in some fashion. According to the Michigan Daily, McCormack never actually met with her client in Cuba, because the security clearance process took nearly a year, and he was freed by the Bush administration before it was finished. He was repatriated to Tajikistan, where he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for belonging to the banned Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

The U.S. Department of State does list the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as a foreign terrorist group.

Given that Mokit wasn’t even tried by the U.S. government calls into question whether he can automatically be called a terrorist.

The second ad brings up the case of Thomas Cress, who was convicted in the 1983 murder and rape of 17-year-old Patricia Rosansky in Battle Creek.

Questionable statement: "Thomas Cress was sentenced to life in prison for her murder, until Democrat Supreme Court candidate Bridget McCormack successfully fought for the release of this convicted killer. While Patty’s family continues to grieve, Bridget McCormack was ‘elated’ and ‘thrilled’ that the man convicted of her murder walked free."

Cress’ case was one accepted by the U of M Innocence Clinic, in which students and professors work on behalf of prisoners where new evidence suggests wrongful conviction. Co-founded by McCormack and her colleague David Moran, the project differs from similar organizations in that it concentrates on cases where there is no biologic evidence exonerating the prisoner.

Cress’ case qualified on those grounds -- after his conviction, potentially exonerating physical evidence was destroyed, and appealing lawyers had to rely on testimony from investigators and others. A Detroit Free Press story from 2010 lays out the case and its problems: With no physical evidence, the case was made on claims by others that they heard Cress, who has diminished mental capacity, admitting to the crime. And some years later, a Michigan man being held for a similar rape/murder in Arkansas was confessing to killing Rosansky.

The Calhoun County prosecutor, as well as Rosansky’s family, continues to believe in Cress’ guilt, and opposed all efforts to free him.

Years of court battles left Cress’ appeals in legal limbo. A Parole and Commutation Board hearing in 2010 ended with a recommendation that Gov. Jennifer Granholm commute Cress' sentence to time served, according to an Associated Press story. She did so in the final days of her term, releasing him from prison but not issuing a pardon. (A commuted sentence doesn’t change the status of a convict’s legal case, only changes the sentence.)

It is difficult to find sources for one-word quotes, but a spokeswoman for McCormack said the "elated" and "thrilled" comments were most likely in reaction to the sentence commutation. Because Cress’ conviction was never overturned, he is still a convicted killer. However, the ad doesn’t acknowledge the significant doubt on his guilt raised by, among others, two former officers who investigated the case, nor the parole board’s recommendation that his sentence be commuted.

Questionable statements: "When a five-time boxing champion unleashed his fury on his 13-year-old son, Shelia Johnson gave him a slap on the wrist. Johnson refused to give the boxer a single day in jail for the assault. In spite of the boy’s injuries, the Democrat Supreme Court candidate released the celebrity on probation so he could fight again."

Johnson was a judge in Oakland County when one of its more notable residents appeared in her court in January 2006 – boxer Thomas Hearns, charged with misdemeanor assault of his 13-year-old son in a domestic argument earlier in the month. According to an AP account of the sentencing, Hearns pleaded no contest to the charge. Police said they were called to his home on New Year’s Day by Hearns’ wife, and further said that Hearns told them he had pushed the boy and struck him with "an open-handed slap," giving him a small cut and bruise on his face. Hearns was arrested without incident, and moved out of the home after he was ordered to have no contact with his son.

Johnson elected to give Hearns – who had no criminal record – nine months probation, $515 in fees and fines, two days of community service, and ordered him to undergo parenting and anger management classes, as well as family counseling. There are no sentencing guidelines for this offense, and under state law, Johnson had the discretion to give Hearns probation, jail time or a combination of the two, according to Paul Walton, chief assistant prosecutor in Oakland County. The defense asked for probation under a plea agreement that attached conditions, which if Hearns had not met them, would have led to his incarceration.

Walton said the victim's mother did not object to the agreement, and it was approved by David Gorcyka, the county prosecutor at the time.

Johnson elected to give Hearns – who had no criminal record – nine months of probation, $515 in fees and fines, two days of community service, and ordered him to undergo parenting and anger management classes, as well as family counseling.

Hearns did indeed "fight again" – a few days later, when, at age 47, he battled Shannon Landberg to a TKO at the Palace of Auburn Hills.

Overall impression: All three ads are designed to make voters suspect that Johnson and McCormack will not protect law-abiding citizens as members of the state’s highest court. As is typical in court elections, the nuances of the U.S. legal process are quickly lost in short TV ads. The terrorism ad, in particular, is a cynical manipulation of individually correct facts to create the most unflattering image of a candidate.

Foul or no foul: Flagrant foul.The terrorism ad highlights a basic tension between America’s political and legal systems. In our legal system, innocence is presumed until guilt is established. Yet, to many voters, an arrest or accusation seems to suffice to apply a label and a conclusion. And exactly how does this relate to any part of the job of a Supreme Court justice? The tone of the ad says far more about the people who funded and crafted it than it does about the candidate it tries to attack.

The murder ad accurately describes Cress’ legal circumstance.

The boxer ad implies that Johnson acted to assist Hearns’ boxing career, without providing evidence. Hearns did receive probation, but these types of plea agreements are common, Oakland County's Walton said.

The Center for Michigan (the parent company of Bridge Magazine and the Michigan Truth Squad) has been financially supported by a wide range of corporate and foundation supporters. We are grateful to all funders for helping us create and grow a new nonprofit journalism service for Michigan citizens. Those funders have absolutely no role in the editorial decisions of the Michigan Truth Squad or Bridge Magazine.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Mon, 11/05/2012 - 6:47am
I think it is worth noting that Mokit's conviction in Tajikistan is meaningless. Although the USA has complained that too few other nations are stepping forward to take former Guantanamo captives, there have always been secret negotiations where the USA has insisted on draconian security restrictions. At the same time the USA was negotiating with Tajikistan, to take back Mokit, under these security restrictions, negotiations were underway between the USA and the UK, over nine individuals who weren't UK citizens, but had legal residency status there, when they were captured. The UK public was upset over one of these individuals, Bisher al Rawi, who had agreed to work undercover to help MI-5. He had agreed to help them track Abu Qatada, a suspect who UK security officials wanted to think he had successfully gone underground. Al Rawi told Abu Qatada he had found him a discreet new apartment, when, in fact, MI-5 picked the apartment, and filled it full of bugs, so they could track all Abu Qatada's contacts. How did Bisher al Rawi end up in Guantanamo? MI-5 and the CIA wanted al Rawi to undertake a more dangerous mission. Al Rawi, a family man, declined. Security officials thought he could be blackmailed into greater cooperation if he was held in a US torture camp. So UK security officials collaborated with the CIA to kidnap him when he took a business trip to Gambia. There was strong pressure on the UK government to take back al Rawi. Negotiations between the US and the UK dragged on for years. About nine months before he was eventually repatriated UK negotiators leaked the reason for the delay. The US was insisting the UK first agree to accept all the other individuals who weren't citizens, but had legal residency status; the US also insisted that the UK either imprison these individuals -- or that they tap their phones and subject them to round-the-clock surviellance. The UK is a country that honors the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. Individuals can't be imprisoned there, simply because an ally says they should be imprisoned. There has to be evidence sufficient to justify a criminal charge. Similarly, indefinite surviellance requires evidence to justify its necessity -- not present for these innocent men. Finally, indefinite round-the-clock surveillance is extremely expensive. Even merely tapping someone's phone is expensive, as someone has to listen to those conversations, produce transcripts, and translations. For impoverished countries, that don't honor the rule of law, it is a lot cheaper to simply imprison the individuals, possibly after a show trial. I suggest this is what happened with Mokit. Prior to 2007, when Mokit was repatriated, Afghan captives were generally just set free. In 2007 the USA and the Afghan government agreed that when Afghans were repatratiated, they would be confined in a new, American supervised wing of the infamous Pul-e-Charkhi prison. The USA built this wing, hired and supervised its guards. It was built with a court-room, to try these men. Observers who witnesses some of these trials said the only "evidence" against these individuals were the flimsy allegations drafted for the captive's Guantanamo annual reviews. Of course those allegations were based on confessions squeezed from captives through coercive interrogation techniques, and were completely worthless. The DoD insisted on these draconian security promises even for captives who had been officially cleared of al suspicions -- which is why it took almost two years before the USA was able to place the five Uyghurs who were cleared in Albania.