Infamous civil rights lawyer

February 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger:

A documentary film about the life and civil rights cases of William Kunstler by his daughters was well attended at the Indianapolis Museum of Art Thursday night, and I’m happy I was able to be a part of it.

If you’re unfamiliar with the name Kunstler, you might have heard of some of the people he represented: revolutionaries who protested at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago; inmates who started an infamous riot at Attica prison in New York in 1971; the American Indian Movement members who demonstrated at Wounded Knee, S.D., in 1973; a man convicted of and later exonerated for allegedly beating and raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989; a house cat named Tyrone who was held for crimes against humanity in a mock trial on TV in 1989; and those accused of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

Maybe you didn’t know about Tyrone, but the facts of the other situations continue to resonate among those who follow civil rights issues.

The film was made by his two daughters, both born in the late 1970s. They revered him growing up, but ultimately disagreed with some of the clients he chose to represent.

Following the film, civil rights attorneys JauNae Hanger and Richard Waples of Waples and Hanger in Indianapolis answered questions moderated by Fran Quigley, former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Quigley only asked the first question – what would Kunstler do if he was a civil rights attorney in Indianapolis in February 2010?

Hanger and Waples suggested he’d likely still work with prisoners, and would probably be a criminal defense attorney who would make sure all people would have their day in court.

Hanger also discussed her work with juvenile justice issues, including the recent Senate approval of House Bill 1193, which will create a study group to look at best practices for how schools and police handle situations involving students.

For this reporter, born around the same time as Kunstler’s daughters, I was somewhat ashamed for not knowing more about the cases he worked on, which may be why the film seemed so powerful to me. Then again, there seemed to be some details the daughters mentioned that news reports of the time didn’t, and as a reporter, that might have also riled me up because those other reporters either weren’t given the right information or they chose to report things in a way that put Kunstler’s clients in the worst light possible.

The film is not in wide release at this time and Indianapolis was one of the first cities to show it, thanks to sponsorship from the Indianapolis International Film Festival, the law firm, and the IMA, but attorneys with an interest in this area should make a point to rent it or see if it ever is in a theater nearby.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I wished I would have known about this program as I would have attended. Was a recording made of the discussion afterwords and can one buy (if reasonably priced) a copy of the film for home viewing?

    Thanks.

    Glenn
  • If you go to http://www.disturbingtheuniverse.com/ you can get more information on the movie and pre-ordering a DVD. Looks like a DVD will cost you $25-$35, depending on which one you want.
  • I\'m not aware of a recording of the discussion, but the organization hosting it, the Indianapolis International Film Festival, has a newsletter of films and discussions similar to this one. You can go to their Web site, http://indyfilmfest.org/, and sign up. It\'s how I heard about this event.

    Thanks for reading!
    Rebecca
  • Sorry -- just noticed the Web link didn\'t work for me. Here it is again:
    http://indyfilmfest.org/

    Thanks!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT