◆ SpookStack

28 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 irregular nature of the proceeding might be attributed to the involvement of the State’s Attorney’s Office. Ac- cording to Mulchrone, “[the] purpose of the investigation was not to in any way serve to later destroy [the police officers’] testimony before a criminal trial” which the IID knew was going to take place in Cook County Cir- cuit Court. Additional state investigations during the post-raid period included a January 1970 Cook County Special Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths of Hampton and Clark. Testimony was taken from the raiders and Crime Laboratory personnel. The survivors refused to testify at ~ the inquest. A finding of justifiable homicide was made by the Coroner’s office. Plaintiffs challenged this finding at trial with evidence that Groth made several statements at the inquest which he later contradicted, including testimony in which he denied being aware prior to the raid of the interior design of the apartment.. Also, during the month of January, a Cook County grand jury returned an indictment for attempted murder and aggravated battery against the seven sur- vivors of the raid. Hanrahan was responsible for the presentation to the grand jury of evidence consisting mainly of the police officers’ testimony and the Sadunas report. A federal grand jury had been convened in December 1969 to investigate whether the occupants’ civil rights had been violated. Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division, was assigned by the Department of Justice to present evidence to the grand jury, and Leonard Treviranus served as case agent for the grand jury on behalf of the FBI.%7 Johnson instructed Treviranus that all requests for evidence from the grand jury and Leonard were to be channelled through Johnson. Additionally, Johnson and 7 Plaintiffs poe to join Leonard as a coconspirator- defendant in December 1975 after receiving certain discovery materials. The court denied the motion and plaintiffs have not raised the ruling on appeal. The record fails to reveal whether a Lega was intended to be named as a defendant in the motion.