How Much Process is Due Councilman Zach Oyler?

10 August 2019

“We look forward to our day in court and people should not be so quick to rush to judgment,” Councilman Zach Oyler’s attorney, Rob Hanauer said. He declined to comment further. Since the arrest in late-July of the youngest member of Peoria’s City Council for aggravated domestic battery, a great deal has been said regarding the guilt of the councilman. The Facebook comments sections of Oyler articles contains legions of statements urging a suspension of judgments regarding the affair until after a trial has occurred. Several individuals swore they couldn’t believe the allegations because they knew the couple well and had never seen this behavior before. Another woman, Kelly Christine Mammen, who claimed to be in the mental health profession, lobbed foul expletives at me before accusing the survivor of this incident of having mental health problems. Zach Oyler has due process rights and shouldn’t be tried in the court of public opinion was the general theme from Oyler apologists.

But, let us take a brief look at this local case–of a powerful man (almost always a man) under attack from accusations of abuse–to look at due process of law; and, question exactly how much process is due Councilperson Zachary Oyler? Due process is essentially that, how much process is a person due before being punished. Due process of law guarantees a minimum of three things occur before the government can infringe upon a person’s right to life, liberty, & property. According to constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, they are, “One is having some sort of notice of the charges that are being levied against you. The second one is having an opportunity to rebut those charges. And then the third one is having some sort of neutral decision maker to hear the charges and make whatever ruling is appropriate.”¹

But to take a step back, due process of law only applies to the government’s actions towards individuals, not the actions or beliefs of other individuals or society at-large. Due process means the government is supposed to abide by the above set of prescriptions when threatening to limit a person’s freedom: if the person is indigent, the government must provide an attorney at no charge; if the person claims to be mentally unfit, the government must perform tests to determine this; if the person invokes their right to trial by jury, the government must assemble a jury of impartial peers; if the person chooses to remain silent, the government cannot compel them to speak. The stakes in a criminal trial are incredibly high. If Councilman Oyler is found guilty of aggravated domestic battery, he could be imprisoned for up to 7 years. Therefore, it stands to reason that the government must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether Oyler is guilty or not.

However, outside a court room, due process cannot protect one’s reputation. “Due process does not mean you have the right to be believed, just that you have the right to be heard.”² Whether people like it or not, there are no constitutional protections against a bad reputation.

At the same time, we often think of due process in a societal sense, letting the legal definition bleed over into the wider cultural, social, and political institutions. “Don’t rush to judgment.” Oyler apologists may state that these accusations are unjustly making it difficult for him to have a career, make a living or maintain his properties. Is this not an infringement on his rights? But, the process due to Oyler by the customers of his realty business or the Peoria Republican Party is very low. If Realtors or the local Republican party don’t feel comfortable supporting Oyler (it may be detrimental to their own reputation and bottom line to associate with an alleged abuser), it’s because there was a judgment call to be made by these groups, a judgment call that isn’t burdened with high levels of due process.

For Oyler’s constituents the question is should Zach Oyler remain in a position of trust, confidence, and responsibility?³ How much process is due by Peorians before a consensus can coagulate regarding the councilperson’s fitness for office?

First of all, the residents of Peoria do not owe their elected representatives anything; it is vice versa. If Zach Oyler does not intend to resign, then he has a duty to Peorians to publicly state that, and furthermore, provide some concocted defense for these alleged actions. The residents of Peoria deserve a Councilperson who is not a distraction to the duties of local government. Just as the zany quirks and misspeaks of Beth Akeson, and the #Twittergate fiasco,⁴ served as major diversions for accomplishing real things through local government, and just as those instances warranted removal from public office, so do the very serious accusations made against Councilperson Oyler.

Of course, it is best for all of us to maintain open minds, accepting of new facts to the case as they appear. Perhaps Oyler is able to sufficiently prove his survivor’s testimony is false. But Peorians don’t have the sometimes years-long process of trial to determine this, not while Peoria suffers patches of food deserts in our most suffering neighborhoods, not while Black Lives in Peoria are suffering economic and social discrimination, not while Peoria’s poorer neighborhoods are rocked with gunfire and bullet-ridden corpses. Peorians deserve an elected official who can address these issues, not a year from now after a trial. Unless he is able to do this publicly⁵ soon, then Oyler has a duty to his constituents to resign from office.

UPDATE (10/23/2021): On October 16th, 2020, Councilmember Zach Oyler took an Alford plea to disorderly conduct as part of an agreement to have other charges stemming from a July 2019 domestic incident dropped. ~~Oyler & his wife have reconciled.~~

UPDATE 2 (03/27/2024): Zach & Heather Oyler are in divorce proceedings. She has reported new allegations of abuse.

This article was originally published on Strangecornersofthought.com.