Richard’s Case
Foreword: This section, has been reconstructed piecemeal by volunteers. We work when we can, try to interpret what we can, and post as quickly as possible given limited resources and access. The reader should understand that if chronology or content is out of order, it is because of our limitations, not because of a want or need to state the inaccurate. All of us volunteers seek to do the right thing. If you have a question or dispute on something that is said here you are encouraged to write us at RichardWanke.com or make a comment.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
There are plenty of public claims, confusion, rumors, and innuendo to the effect that Richard Wanke is a dangerous, violent, and hardened criminal who deserves the 14 year IDOC sentence given to him in August 2008. We at RichardWanke.com know all such claims to be unfounded and untrue.
We invite you, the reader, to inquire for yourselves: has Richard’s experience with the judicial system in Rockford, Illinois, Winnebago County, been a travesty in justice? His case was well-publicized. some “facts” were picked over repeatedly, others were neglected and almost ignored by the media and the public. Many would say that he has been socially ostracized for a long time in our community.
We invite you to find out exactly what he had to deal with during the 17 years he fought for justice in our community. Posted here are the court transcripts of his 2006 Burglary case, verbatim.
Almost all of Richard’s copies of his past legal records were seized by the Rockford police in February 2008, and have not been returned to him by the authorities nor even acknowledged through receipt. He has asked the State and the police repeatedly for their return. The police continue to fail to acknowledge that they have them, so he may never receive them back. RichardWanke.com will attempt to post all the information we can scrap together regarding the allegations against Richard Wanke, periodically, as we find it.
You are welcome to comment on posted information, but we ask that you refrain from comments until you have read the entire information, and are able to support your assertions with facts.
Richard Wanke’s 2006 Burglary Case*****
An incident occurred at Rockford College on January 17, 2006. That same day, Rockford police determined that Richard Wanke might be the prime suspect, yet neither the Rockford police or anyone from the Winnebago County State’s Attorney’s office ever bothered to question or contact Richard Wanke or his landlord concerning the incident. Richard Wanke was arrested six weeks later, and the Rockford Police claim there was no additional investigation conducted between the interval. No stakeouts, no forensic testing, no fingerprint examination, no review of witness testimony, or further witness questioning; no photographs of the “get away” vehicle, no search warrants or inquiries or any kind. The actions of the Rockford Police during the period from January 17, 2006, to Richard’s subsequent arrest six weeks later is lost to any scrutiny; the Rockford Police claim the 911 tapes regarding the incident are lost and no police evidence or discovery of this time period was ever later turned over to Richard’s defense counsel. Couple this questionable inaction with the inability of the victim in the crime to identify his attacker despite a lengthy so-called close encounter, and you have the makings for lots of error.
Richard Wanke, at this time, had appeared dutifully for years in Winnebago County Court in connection with a previously overturned criminal case. He was convicted of one count of burglary in that case, but had successfully appealed the case to the Illinois Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed his conviction and remanded the case back to Winnebago County for a new trial in 2000. Richard came periodically to court for six years awaiting retrial. The police knew his whereabouts every year, Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall, because he was prohibited from moving away due to case status calls and his bond. The case was a low-priority case to the State, and was probably the longest pending, active case (17 years) in Winnebago County. Delays were frequent and continuances were often asked for by the state and granted. Later, the State would claim that Richard caused these delays. Richard Wanke became a familiar fixture in the Winnebago County Court system as the case continued to be delayed. The case status kept Richard out on bond and prevented him from moving out of the state of Illinois. The state finally wound up dismissing the case on August 21, 2008, but first used it’s version of the facts of the case as part of it’s presentation testimony at Richard’s August 6, 2008, sentencing hearing urging the judge to give Richard a long and extended term prison sentence.
At the bottom of this page is the transcript of Richard’s arrest and first court appearance in the 2006 burglary case. You can view this PDF in it’s entirety. You can also view the rest of the official court transcripts of the remainder of his burglary trial and sentencing hearing by returning to the previous page (Richard’s cases) and clicking on each link at the page bottom in order. There are a few things to note along the way. A complete reading of the transcripts shows that:
1. The 2006 burglary case was a low-priority case to the State. It was such a low-priority case that the State’s Attorneys Office initially assigned a prosecutor to the case who did not handle adult criminal cases, but was, in fact, assigned to juvenile court. She was permitted, at one point, to even delay the case for a trip to Morocco.
2. While much has been made of alleged antagonism between attorney Greg Clark and defendant Richard Wanke; as Greg Clark attested to in court, their relationship was cordial prior to the start of the case trial; always cordial outside of court, and while Richard Wanke may have argued strategy during trial and sentencing prep, he was not disruptive throughout the entire trial and hearings (moreover, there is at least one court official who was directly advised by Greg Clark near the conclusion of the court trial, that his “client” was “happy” with him!). Greg Clark and Richard Wanke worked civilly together for six years pending retrial, until Clark was reappointed to continue to represent Richard in 2006.
It was only after Richard’s detention, sentencing and subsequent IDOC incarceration that Richard (and us) got the chance to receive and read the huge pile of his trial transcripts to get some sense of what transpired during the preparation for his trial and at his trial and sentencing hearings.
3. The transcripts mention that Richard Wanke was represented previously by many other attorneys at various times. He was, by over a dozen other attorneys, and all of these other attorneys who came to know Richard during the course of the past 17 years are still alive.
4. The prosecution, wrongly characterizes Richard as a violent offender, when there is no factual support for that assertion. There is no violence in his alleged past criminal history. In all the months Richard spent first in the Winnebago County jail, the years imprisoned in IDOC facilities, and in each of the many other up close encounters between Richard and the individual police which the State related at his sentencing hearing, from 1991 to the present; Richard never behaved violently before or during 1991 – 2008. The police were unable to relate even one instance of physical action by Richard; not even one instance of a verbal threat made by him or any intimidating gesture to the police or anyone else! Furthermore, Richard has no history of physical assaults, violence, threatened violence, or physical abuse during childhood or at any other time in his life or while living in any community.
The only violence the police can even attempt to assert is the alleged 2006 tug-of-war struggle between a suspect and the victim over a laptop. Despite a conviction (based upon circumstantial evidence only), Richard disputes his involvement in the incidents. If the victim had encountered a violent individual on January 17, 2006, that person would have easily had the chance to seriously harm him, or, at a minimum, bash him with the laptop during the extended encounter. That the victim was not up against a violent individual is clear and further shown by his surprise that even when the suspect ultimately had possession of the laptop, he, “gently” set it down upon the ground and gave it up to the victim!
The police attempt to connect Richard Wanke to the violence associated with the shooting death of Greg Clark is just speculation they wish to hype, since they do not have evidence to show that Richard is more to that event than a “name” of a “usual suspect” pulled out of a hat to accommodate their assumptions. They have not even fitted him to any particular role in the murder.
5. Many wonder about the alleged seeds of discord between Richard and Greg Clark. Was there reason for it? Richard repeatedly asked Clark to discuss the dismissal of his retrial case with the prosecution during the six years of his representation. Clark periodically assured him each time that he had spoken with the prosecution and that they were unwilling (for some unknown reason) to dismiss his case. The last time Clark met with the State was in November 2005, just months before the alleged burglary took place. Yet, on March 17, 2007, Clark finally admits to the court that the case previously was a not only a low-priority to the state but “certainly” also to Clark. This, and Clark’s continual urging to plead the case rather than discuss trial, ultimately caused Richard to question Clark’s good-faith efforts on his behalf. It did not cause outright animosity between the two, but it led Richard to begin to examine closely and question Clark’s motivations for case strategy.
Their relationship may also have soured further when more than a year later Clark’s only defense strategy for Richard was to pressure him into presenting an insanity defense. Richard early on presented Clark with his alibi defense and witness information, but Clark, failed to contact or prepare any of Richard’s witnesses until a mid-March 2007 meeting when Richard marched them over to Clark’s office. Again, Richard had faced this situation before; one of working with attorneys who failed to prepare his defense until the last minute, or sometimes even not at all. He could read the writing on the wall and wished to avoid making the same mistake. Clark failed to prepare Richard’s case in any meaningful way until forced to do so by the court in March 2007. Instead, he spent his time advocating that Richard “plead” to the offense, while at the same time advising Richard that he would be eligible for probation if he did so. The transcripts show that although Greg Clark represented Richard Wanke for 5 years, Clark failed in his responsibility to fully acquaint himself with the dates of Richard’s prior convictions. This would ultimately have a huge detrimental effect upon Richard.
The prosecution offered Clark a deal for Richard ranging from probation to a three-year sentence. Clark urged Richard to accept the deal, but he had made the mistake of so over-stressing the availability of probation as an option to Richard that Richard firmly believed that he was eligible for probation. By the time Clark, just before trial, came to realize that Richard might instead be eligible for extended term sentencing, the damage was done. Clark failed up to the time of trial to expend the effort required to get the actual paperwork proof of Richard’s past conviction date to convince Richard that he was not trying to trick Richard into accepting a plea when he did not have to do so.
Clark, himself, before the court on May 2, 2007, acknowledged the importance of Richard’s conviction date and his mistake in having falsely advised his client regarding his eligibility for probation. By this time, Richard was fully convinced that since he had an actual alibi and defense to present and that he stood a good chance to either win at trial or stand a chance at probation. Clark could have, on this date, protected his client by getting the judge to understand the basis for Richard’s misunderstanding regarding taking no deal. He could have pushed past his pique with Richard’s (mostly accurate) statements to the court regarding him in order to get the judge to extend the time allowed for Richard to consider the deal with fresh knowlege; but instead, Clark signed off on Richard as a client and allowed him to close off all possibility of any settlement.
Clark further, ultimately dropped pursuit of a ruling in favor of Richard with regard to the extended term issue. He allows the judge to leave it open despite the judge’s own judicial notice on May 17, 2007, that a defendant cannot file an appeal on a case such as Richard did right after the December 13, 1995 jury verdict unless there has first been a formal conviction. The extended term statute may be broad, but an argument exists that Richard acted lawfully and timely in filing that appeal, and that he should not be penalized for any subsequent bureaucratic court delay or error that occurred by DeKalb county failing to follow protocol simply as to the form of the filing of that conviction.
The judge left the issue unresolved and subsequently recused himself from hearing Richard’s sentencing. When a second judge took over the case subsequently the issue was put aside and the court proceeded with the assumption that the state was correct in it’s assertion that Richard was eligible for extended term. Richard was then accordingly given the maximum of 14 years sentence.
6. Richard’s suppression hearing on February 14, 2007, reads like a text-book example of witness misidentification (see articles under the “Eyewitness Testimony” heading of this blog). Given the completely circumstantial nature of the prosecution’s case, the attempt to paint the main witness’s delay in his identification of Richard as the suspect of the photo line-up as him simply taking extra time to be certain of the identification, is misguided. While brought up later in trial through Richard’s testimony, Clark’s failure at the suppression hearing to question this witness in detail concerning the many noticeable defects he failed to see and report at the time and later in the appearance of the getaway van which Richard was supposedly driving is striking and could have been pivotal in suppressing the evidence which was crucial to the state’s case.
7. A reading of the transcripts leaves an open question? Just why did the jury rule in favor of the state? The totality shows sufficient basis for reasonable doubt.
8. The 2006 trial testimony clarified the nature of the recent relationship between Richard Wanke and his landlord. What motivated the police later on to rely on outdated information taken from a 1991 court record in their attempt to connect both individuals to each other and the Greg Clark murder, when the police easily had available to them from their two State prosecutors of their 2006 case, the actual, current, and contrary information indicating otherwise?
9. Greg Clark’s murder occurred 2/6/08. Richard Wanke’s bond was instantly revoked, not because the police had proof that he shot Greg Clark, but merely upon their immediate assumption that he had something to do with it. He was jailed and for the next six months effectively prevented from assisting in any meaningful way in the preparation for his sentencing hearing. His attorney also failed during this entire period to request a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure his release and directly examine the basis for his detention.
10. There is only one thing to say about that sentencing hearing: it was over the top….
11. Last, it is interesting to note from the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing, just how many police officials became familiar with Richard Wanke during his 1991 – 1992 cases, particularly Greg Lindmark (who was also a high-school acquaintance). A review of his 1991 – 1992 court record would show a list of other individuals who wound up together as initial responders to Greg Clark’s murder scene. Maybe that explains why Richard Wanke’s name was came to be bandied about so quickly as a suspect in Greg Clark’s murder when apparently little else supports that assumption. To the present, the Rockford police have not charged anyone with the murder of Greg Clark. The police refuse to acknowledge that after 17 years of dealing with the Winnebago County judicial system, they know, as we do, that Richard Wanke was smart enough to know that murdering his attorney would only increase, not reduce his sentence.
To begin a review of the 2006 burglary case and read all of the entire trial and sentencing hearing transcripts, please click on link below and follow it to it’s end.
http://richardwanke.com/richards-case/2006-burglary-1st-court-appearance/
http://richardwanke.com/richards-cases/march-8-2006-transcript/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/march-13-2006-25-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/april-12-2006-8-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-10-2006-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-24-2006-3-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/july-12-2006-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-28-2006-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/november-15-2006-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/november-30-2006-13-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/december-21-2006-9-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/january-31-2007-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-14-1007-74-pages-suppression-hearing/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/march-14-2007-16-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/march-28-2007-8-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/april-19-2007-5-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-3-2007-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/mary-4-2007-12-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-7-2007-34-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-17-2007-15-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/june-27-2007-3-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/july-19-2007-12-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/july-26-2007-14-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-6-2007-4-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-17-2007-21-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-17-2007-197-pages-jury-selection/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-18-2007-313-pages-trial-start/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-19-2007-124-pages-trial/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/september-19-2007-99-pages-trial/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/november-5-2007-31-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/december-12-2007-1-page/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-8-2008-12-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-13-2008-7-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-15-2008-24-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-19-2008-10-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-21-2008-7-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-22-2008-11-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-25-2008-7-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/february-29-2008-14-pages-2/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/april-3-2008-8-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-2-2008-7-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/may-23-2008-8-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/june-2-2008-24-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/june-11-2008-29-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/july-7-2008-9-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/july-24-2008-8-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/august-6-2008-212-pages-sentencing-hearing/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/august-7-2008-65-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/august-21-2008-5-pages/
richardwanke.com/richards-cases/october-21-2008-31-pages/
Supporting documents:
http://richardwanke.com/richards-cases/copy-of-may-17-2007-letter-to-clark-from-richards-landlord/
