* Tribune…
In a stunning decision, a Cook County judge on Thursday acquitted three Chicago police officers of all charges alleging they lied in police reports and conspired to cover up the controversial 2014 police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
The case has been seen as a referendum on a so-called code of silence within the Chicago Police Department designed to protect fellow officers from accountability for wrongdoing.
In her hourlong ruling, Associate Judge Domenica Stephenson blasted the evidence presented by prosecutors as weak, speculative and totally lacking proof of any crime.
Stephenson ripped several key prosecution witnesses — including Officer Dora Fontaine and witness Jose Torres — as unreliable and inconsistent in their testimony.
She said the now-infamous police dashboard camera video showed a completely different perspective than the officers at the scene and that comparing what could be seen on the video with statements and conclusions made in police reports would “disregard the totality of the evidence” in the case.
Um, OK.
* Sun-Times…
As she delivered her findings, it became more and more clear that Stephenson found nothing persuasive in the prosecution’s case.
Stephenson called into question the credibility of a key prosecution witness, Officer Dora Fontaine, noting she “tried to minimize” McDonald’s behavior before he was shot in 2014 but later admitted she told the FBI, the state’s attorney and the inspector general that McDonald was moving closer to police, waving or “swaying” the knife, and making “attacking movements.”
A critical dispute between the prosecution and defense was whether McDonald was a dangerous teen who presented a real threat to police or in the end, a victim.
Stephenson made it clear where she landed, saying it was “undisputed and undeniable” that McDonald was an armed offender who continued to walk toward more populous areas the night he was shot.
This case wasn’t supposed to be about McDonald, it was supposed to be about why the cops’ statements didn’t match up to what the videos showed and what else they did afterward.
* I waited to post on this because I wanted to see what mayoral candidate Garry McCarthy had to say, since he was police superintendent at the time…
The judge in this case has spoken. I respect the system and the verdict. From the very beginning I thought this was going to be a very difficult case for prosecutors to prove conspiracy.
* Lori Lightfoot…
“This not guilty verdict is a disappointment and a tragic reminder of the need for accountability and change,” said Lightfoot. “What those officers did was a disgrace. They should be ashamed of what they did to facilitate a false narrative about the murder of Laquan McDonald. But more than the actions of a few bad actors, their behavior is indicative of the continued need for substantial cultural change within the Chicago Police Department. This verdict does nothing to legitimize officers in the eyes of the public. As mayor, I will take on this challenge and work to build a Chicago Police Department that will be best in class in the nation.
“I call on Superintendent Johnson to move to terminate any of the three officers who remain on the job. The Police Board must move the pending disciplinary cases along as quickly as possible. I urge the U.S. Attorney’s Office to review the case for possible criminal charges.”
* Susana Mendoza…
“While today’s verdicts are disappointing and heartbreaking, they’re not surprising. This is something we’ve seen happen time and again throughout our country. It’s another tragic reminder of the broken culture within the police department and the work we have to do to fix it,” Susana Mendoza said. “To keep our neighborhoods safe, we must end the code of silence that for too long has allowed police officers to escape accountability, no matter the evidence at hand. To truly rebuild the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, we must make clear that nobody is above the law. While today’s verdict is a major setback, I am committed to working with every community throughout Chicago to move our city forward from Laquan McDonald’s senseless murder and build a true system of justice that works for all of our families.”
* ACLU…
Today’s acquittals are a painful reminder of the complete lack of structural accountability for police officers in Chicago. The judge’s findings will allow these three officers to escape criminal consequences for their part in covering up the murder of Laquan McDonald. The court’s decision does nothing to exonerate a police department so rotten that a teenager can be murdered—on video—by one of its officers and no one in the chain-in-command lifted a finger to do anything about it.
Until we change the structures that govern Chicago police officers, they will feel they have nothing to lose by lying and everything to lose if they tell the truth. The City of Chicago must follow through with the reforms laid out in the proposed consent decree to make real and lasting systemic changes and end the culture of cover-up within the Chicago Police Department. The ACLU of Illinois is committed to working with our clients and partners to ensure the ‘code of silence’ stops shielding officers from accountability.
* Toni Preckwinkle…
Today’s verdict is a devastating step backward. Laquan’s murder has become a part of the fabric of our city. The verdict today does not serve justice in wake of the senseless loss of a young life. We cannot improve the safety of our communities if our police force is not held accountable for its actions and the very real culture of the code of silence goes unpunished.
Laquan’s death and the resulting trials have forever changed the city of Chicago. Today’s verdict is a brutal reminder that considerable work remains in piecing together the shattered trust between the police and Chicago’s Black and Brown communities. I remain committed to working with all stakeholders including the young community activists who continue to fight for justice.
…Adding… Mayor Emanuel and Superintendent Johnson…
“While the court process in this case is over, our work to ensure the systemic reform underway at the Chicago Police Department continues. CPD is on the road to reform with no off-ramps. Unlike past reforms, these will stand the test of time. We have entered into an enforceable consent decree with the Illinois Attorney General, equipped all patrol officers with body worn cameras, revised use of force policies, adopted the recommendations of the Community Policing Advisory Panel, and ensured every officer has the best training throughout their careers. We will continue to take concrete steps to restore trust with communities across Chicago, because trust is the best public safety tool we have.”
…Adding… Bill Daley…
“We cannot allow this verdict to divide us. We must learn from this situation. It’s time to work together to repair the relationship between the police and the community it serves. We can only do this as a united city.”
- don the legend - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:36 pm:
Is Judge Stephenson incompetent or worse? That’s what Lightfoot, Mendoza, and Preckwinkle are asserting. Do these three have jurisprudence experience greater than the Judge?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:44 pm:
== Others have raised eyebrows at the fact that Stephenson’s friend and former colleague in the state’s attorney’s office, James McKay, is defending March.–
Stephenson was appointed after the special prosecutor got the original judge removed.
Evans couldn’t find a judge who wasn’t a pal of one of the defense attorneys?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-laquan-mcdonald-shooting-police-coverup-judge-20181113-story.html
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:45 pm:
I wonder if any of them read the Order or could even tell you what the exact charges were.
- Keyrock - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:47 pm:
Don the legend — Possibly worse. Her opinion seems to have come down to “don’t believe your lying eyes.”
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:49 pm:
Not totally surprised. I thought the shooting was within department guidelines. Also thought firing 16 times showed a lack of training.
- lakeside - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:50 pm:
—This case wasn’t supposed to be about McDonald—
When a young black person is killed by a cop or member of the “volunteer neighborhood watch,” it is always the victim on trial. See also: rape cases.
What a depressing ruling.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:51 pm:
Either you believe in the system or you do not. I never think it fair to criticize a jury or a judge unless you say in the courtroom from beginning to end. And even then much goes on in chambers. And if you don’t believe in system what is the solution. And finally all these candidates for mayor are part of an organization that chides judges
- Sanity - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:51 pm:
This is a good day for sanity. When you have a judge look at what is right, this is the correct answer.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:52 pm:
Chooses judges
- Fav human - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:54 pm:
Bet somebody is wishing he’d gone with a judge….
- Left Leaner - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 4:55 pm:
Just when some faith in our criminal justice system is beginning to build, along comes Judge Stephenson and…whack!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:07 pm:
Once again, politicians choose the the court of public opinion as opposed to the court of law. The police officers were found to be not guilty. There is no code of silence. There is a system of accusing police officers of wrong doing and a court of law found there wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Roman - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:16 pm:
Surprising, but then again maybe it shouldn’t be. Don’t forget that the feds investigated the cover-up aspect of this case and despite having evidentiary and procedural advantages in federal court that the local special prosecutor didn’t have, decided not to bring a case. That was a sign that proving up criminal charges was going to be tough.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:25 pm:
The conduct of everyone in this incident….including the man who died….is appropriate for the case. it’s evidence. as are the various views of the action. She’s known as being a pretty good judge. she’s also found a man not guilty of hurting police officers. let’s look at her whole record.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:25 pm:
DuPage Saint - I never think it fair to criticize a jury or a judge unless you say in the courtroom from beginning to end.
Amen. Judge Stephenson has a reputation for being fair. I was not at the trial, I did not hear the evidence so I will not seek to substitute my opinion for her’s.
- Shevek - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:33 pm:
Assuming that a judge is terrible or doesn’t know how to do the job or is corrupt because you believe the judgment was wrong is incredibly arrogant and ignorant. There are rules of evidence that determine what evidence can be considered by the court. These rules may exclude information that you think clearly prove guilt. Additionally, the judge must make credibility determinations of witnesses in an unbiased manner, without reference to thousands of hours of reporting that may have come out in the course of the investigation prior to trial (or even during trial). A judge is obligated to only consider documents, exhibits, and testimony admitted into evidence. Unless you were sitting in court every day of the trial, understood the evidentiary rulings and what documents, exhibits, and testimony was admitted into evidence, there is no way you have any idea whether the judge’s rulings and judgment were good or bad. It could very well be that the prosecutors completely screwed up the case. If prosecutors cannot get sufficient evidence submitted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crimes for which they were charged, then the judge has no choice but to acquit. This is true even if the judge knows in her heart that the defendants are guilty of a crime.
Criminal law is complex and unruly. Deciding that you know better than the judge when you aren’t an attorney who participated in the trial makes no sense.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:33 pm:
DuPage Saint: to answer your question “what is the solution?” Two things we could try is 1- merit selection with single, long terms, which would hopefully reduce political interest, which 2- would also end the ability of lawyers to donate to campaigns of the judges they appear before.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:42 pm:
@Roman, that’s a really good point about the lack of action on this from the Feds. If the Feds don’t bring action, you know they don’t think they can get a guilty. they are way less brave than local prosecutors when it comes to bringing cases and they have far more resources at their disposal to do their work with much lower case loads.
- TominChicago - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:46 pm:
Last Bull Moose. If that shooting was within department guidelines, there is something really wrong with department guidelines.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:47 pm:
“Stephenson ripped several key prosecution witnesses — including Officer Dora Fontaine and witness Jose Torres — as unreliable and inconsistent in their testimony.”
Yet, she found nothing unreliable or inconsistent with the accused officers’ accounts.
- TominChicago - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:50 pm:
Fav. There was no way that Gaughan would have aquitted Van Dyke. That is why he took a shot with a jury.
- Perrid - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 5:51 pm:
Oh this makes me mad. The video wasn’t convincing because it was from a different perspective? Bull hockey. Utter and complete horse manure. These cops lied through their teeth to cover up a murder. Period. Full stop. This judge decided the kid had it coming, and that it was fine for the cops to lie to make the kid seem like he had it coming to protect their friend, who is now in jail for murder. Disgusting.
To everyone who is saying we can’t make a decision because we weren’t in a courtroom, I am impressed by your mental gymnastics. It must be hard bending over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt, long after they prove they don’t deserve it. Please spare me.
- Keyrock - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 6:02 pm:
We don’t know why the Feds didn’t take this case. But the official misconduct charge the special prosecutors used is a state charge that isn’t available to the feds. It’s usually easier to prove than a federal civil rights conspiracy.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 6:04 pm:
–The conduct of everyone in this incident….including the man who died….is appropriate for the case.–
The man who “died” in this “incident” really couldn’t have conducted himself any other way once the 16 shots were pumped into him.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 6:27 pm:
–There is no code of silence.–
You don’t know any cops.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 6:30 pm:
–There is no code of silence.–
You don’t know any cops. -
Or you’re a lying cop.
- TR - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 6:33 pm:
Don’t like it, but I’m hesitant to be too critical of the judge having not paid close attention to the evidence and testimony.
I do know it’s really hard to prove a conspiracy of silence — that’s what was at play here. And that is almost always the case when police officers cover up the misconduct of their peers.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 7:00 pm:
@ wordslinger, with respect, the victim had a knife in his hand, interacting around other people, which is why the police were called. that’s what I’m writing about.
- West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 7:32 pm:
In every criminal case, the State/Government has to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The State has the burden of proving its case by admissible evidence, not by what the court of public opinion is. Unless people speaking about Judge Stephenson’s ruling, whether they are commenters here, politicians with their finger in the wind or community activists, heard all the evidence that she heard, then their right to have an opinion is fine, but based on an incomplete record. Additionally, comments about the Feds not bringing charges are spot on. The Feds really hate to lose, and don’t bring charges unless they’re pretty sure of a conviction. They knew this was a tough case to prosecute - especially any conspiracy counts - and didn’t bring any charges. And, yes, it is the job of a judge to hold the State to it’s burden and apply doubt to the evidence.
- Winderweezle - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 9:01 pm:
Courtrooms are strange places where the truth gets bent around rules of evidence, limited information and agendas.
You can never be surprised at the findings made by a judge or a jury. Never.
I have sat on the stand as a witness for the prosecution many, many times. Sometimes the court finds against you in a case you never thought you could “lose”. Sometimes the case that you wish the prosecution would dismiss, that you think there is no way you can “win” you get the finding you wanted but didn’t expect.
Most trials and hearings aren’t “won or lost” on the strength of the evidence. They turn on the quality of the testimony. That includes the jvd jury trial and this bench trial.
- Glenn - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 9:12 pm:
The written reports of the defendants were found to be inconsistent with the recorded video.
The defendants were found not guilty, and the camera was found to have lied.
This is not the first camera to be found guilty of making factual misrepresentations.
- ISP Retired - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 10:51 pm:
What makes it a stunning decision? The Judge read for over an hour covering facts , not opinions. One element that an officer wrote the Officer as victim , or that subject of case was Ag Asslt not murder, what, that shows some kind of cover up.When Officers reports are exactly the same , that’s when you should question a cover up. What if he had gotten into a business and started stabbing people. Police can’t form a round table and discuss what they should do, seconds count. Yes 16 shots , way over kill. My guess , a 20 year sentence in the morning.
- Perrid - Thursday, Jan 17, 19 @ 11:09 pm:
@west side’s comment about her reading “facts not opinions”. Please. She decided that the video wasn’t convincing enough and another officers testimony wasn’t convincing enough. When you have video evidence that the kid was NOT approaching the officer, and 3 officers say he was, you are beyond giving the benefit of the doubt to the 3 officers when you choose to believe them. I don’t care what other bs she came up with, she chose to believe the officers self serving story over her own eyes. That not logical or defensible. And I’m being kind and assuming she actually thinks there is reasonable doubt.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 6:52 am:
I listened to the Judge’s decision. She substantiated her reasons for acquittal. Cook County States Attorney Kim Fox and her team failed to present their case.
- NoGifts - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 7:20 am:
In any case, a minimum standard to be a police office should be the ability to accurately complete a police report. Police who can’t meet this standard should be terminated.
- Winderweezle - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 8:13 am:
Part of why the judicial system is is choked, clogged, plodding is the fact that so many cases are reduced to frame by frame analysis of and testimony about video evidence.
To say that perception of what you are seeing varies from person to person is an understatement.
To say that a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional event will answer all the questions isn’t what happens in reality.
The judicial system is going to have to add capacity. Courtroom lawyering is going to become more and more about presentation of video evidence.
Every incident is going to involve hours and hours of in-car and bodycam video. You have no idea how time consuming it is to “know the material” until you have to prepare for a case with this much information.
And a trial can not consist only of video. Testimony has to support it. Otherwise we would just try cases on YouTube.
- Perrid - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 8:21 am:
@Winderweezle, you make good points in general, but in this specific case, we had video of McDonald walking away from the cops at an angle, with a knife at his side, opposite of the cops, and several cops said he was attacking, lunging, and waving his knife at the cops. That did not happen. There is no possible way that that is what the cops actually saw, or even what they think they saw. It is a lie.
- @misterjayem - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 8:26 am:
If 1) eye-witness testimony, coupled with 2) a police officer’s testimony, supported by 3) video evidence refuting the defendant officers’ written reports are insufficient to convict these defendants for conspiring to cover up police wrongdoing, what evidence could possibly be sufficient?
The standards that Stephenson has applied to this case would render un-prosecutable the crime of police officers conspiring to hide police misconduct.
– MrJM
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 9:02 am:
This makes me less likely to dial 911 and I’m a white woman.
- Leave a light on George - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 9:03 am:
This in a way reminds me a little of the Rodney King case. Prosecution had a video tape that they relied on for everything and seemed perhaps a little under prepared for the doubts/questions defense lawyers would raise.
Surely no one could look at that video and come to a different conclusion than a coverup took place? Well guess what they did.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 9:21 am:
Anonymous, it was not Kim foxx or her team, it was a highly respected former fed prosecutor(and state judge) and her handpicked team. This case proves 1) this judge is corrupt or 2) beyond a reasonable doubt is indeed a very high standard. IMO it is the former. For all the critics here, remember this the next time a victims family expresses outrage when a jury acquits a defendant. To many critics today, they chalk up that outrage to “victims just want vengeance”. Remember this the next time you criticize a plea agreement that provides certain consequences instead of rolling the dice on an uncertain process. Remember this when the next time a prosecutor says “ we believe the victim but the evidence does not rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember this the next time someone says “better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted”.
- Soooo.... - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 9:22 am:
@ Lori lightfoot.
How does this differ from the CPD officers you defended who also gains an acquittal?
Remember? It was on tape. Your clients waived off on duty police. You got them an acquittal.
I’d love your answer. Thanks.
- brickle - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 10:03 am:
People died, cops lied
Sun rises, sun sets.
Disappointing ruling but not shocking.
- brickle - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 10:04 am:
–The standards that Stephenson has applied to this case would render un-prosecutable the crime of police officers conspiring to hide police misconduct.–
If we held every trial to the standards we hold police trials to, there would be far fewer people in prison
(this would be a good thing)
- Winderweezle - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:05 am:
Less people in prison isn’t working out so great for California
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 18, 19 @ 11:12 am:
===isn’t working out so great for California===
lol
You just like to make stuff up, don’t you?