MovieChat Forums > Chicago 10 (2007) Discussion > Why not called Chicago 8?

Why not called Chicago 8?

posted 15 years ago by chdach
2 replies | jump to latest

Isn't the group usually known as the Chicago 8, or the Chicago 7 after Seale was tried separately? Is it 10 to include Kunstler and someone else? This might make me seem ignorant but I couldn't keep track of all the different defendants, and don't know much about any of these guys. Also, at the end when information is given about the sentences each recieved, why did Kunstler serve so much time compared to Hoffman and the others? Did he serve all that time for contempt charges? The judge really seemed to have it in for him in particular.

I only know one party, and that is Freedom . . . I am a patriot.

[–] theyidkid 15 years ago

The defendants were numbered 8 (Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Dave Dellinger, John Froines, Rennie Davis, Lee Weiner & Bobby Seale) and became 7 when Judge Julius Hoffman removed Seale from the trial. The reason the film is called Chicago 10 is because the filmmakers chose to include all original 8 defendants AND their lawyers of record William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, hence 10. Kunstler, like the other defendants, often defied and stood up to the court's admonishments. Since Kunstler was chief counsel, Judge Hoffman held him responsible for the goings-on in court more than anybody else. He viewed him as some sort of ringleader. I've read extensively about the trial and to my knowledge NONE of the defendants or lawyers served having appealed all charges right down the line. Hope that answers your questions. By the way, curiosity is never ignorance. The lack of curiosity is.

[–] dblobaum 15 years ago

The trial, the verdicts, and the contempt charges were all complicated. None of the defendants were found guilty of conspiracy. Five of the defendants [Dellinger, Hayden, Davis, Hoffman, and Rubin] were found guilty of individually crossing state lines with intent to incite riot. Those convictions were reversed on appeal, due to judicial error, and a new trial ordered, but the government chose not to retry the case.

The lengthy sentences that the judge handed down for contempt of court were unprecedented. The contempt sentences were also appealed and the appeals court decided that such lengthy sentences, handed down after the trial for conduct during the trial, could not be simply imposed by a judge, but had to be the subject of a trial presided over by a different judge. So that trial was held in October 1973. Rubin, Hoffman, and Kunstler were found guilty of two contempts each. Dellinger was found guilty of seven contempts. However in consideration of "judicial error, judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial or prosecutorial provocation" no sentence was imposed. The "prosecutorial misconduct" included the fact that the FBI had planted a listening device in the office used by the defendants.

Reference: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1553/c68chron.html