Infamous civil rights lawyer

February 19, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT