Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Which programs are the most vulnerable?
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
The Emanuel administration agreed to pay $4.5 million to the family of a woman killed in 2012 by an off-duty Chicago cop even though city lawyers didn’t interview the officer or other witnesses under oath — an unusual move in such wrongful death cases.
Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office, meanwhile, waited months to gather key evidence in the shooting, including the ownership history of the officer’s unregistered gun and blood tests on a cell phone and knife found at the scene, records show.
Those details — revealed in emails released by Alvarez’s office after a public-records request by the Chicago Sun-Times — raise new questions about how city lawyers and county prosecutors handle controversial police shootings like Detective Dante Servin’s killing of 22-year-old Rekia Boyd.
* Which leads us to this development…
Civil rights attorneys are seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor to take over the case of Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke, charged in the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, alleging that Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez is too conflicted to handle it.
A petition, filed in Cook County court Tuesday morning, also calls for the special prosecutor to investigate any possible police cover-up of the shooting.
Attorneys want a judge to rule that Alvarez is disqualified from prosecuting the case “because she is so aligned with the Fraternal Order of Police,” said Sheila Bedi, a clinical associate law professor at Northwestern University Law School and an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center. Bedi contended that Alvarez is part of the code of silence among police officers and can’t handle the case fairly.
* Response…
But Alvarez disagreed, saying in a statement that it was “more than a little coincidental” that the petition was brought so close to the election by supporters of her opponent.
Alvarez denied she has any conflict of interest and said her office has been working hand in hand with federal authorities for more than a year to build a “meticulous case” against Van Dyke.
She also defended her record on charging police, saying she has brought charges against 96 law enforcement officers in her seven years in office.
“This case is no different — Jason Van Dyke should be prosecuted by experienced Cook County state’s attorneys using the resources gathered during the thorough joint investigation with federal authorities, Alvarez said. “It is clear that there is no legal conflict in this case, and prosecution will proceed to hold Jason Van Dyke accountable for the murder of Laquan McDonald.”
* The Question: Should the Laquan McDonald case be handed over to a special prosecutor? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:41 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Which programs are the most vulnerable?
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes - and since Ms. Alvarez is in the fight of her life, she seems so tone deaf about the whole issue that it makes sense for the panel of judges to discard her inane statements and appoint a special prosecutor.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:48 pm
–The Emanuel administration agreed to pay $4.5 million to the family of a woman killed in 2012 by an off-duty Chicago cop even though city lawyers didn’t interview the officer or other witnesses under oath — an unusual move in such wrongful death cases.
Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s office, meanwhile, waited months to gather key evidence in the shooting, including the ownership history of the officer’s unregistered gun and blood tests on a cell phone and knife found at the scene, records show.–
The officer was acquitted.
Given the above, and the facts we know to date on the McDonald case, it’s an obvious “yes.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:49 pm
I just realized that I fragmented and combined my two statements. I meant to say that:
1. Ms. Alvarez is in the fight of her life and should realize that not fighting the appointment would be a smart decision on her part.
2. The judges who consider the appointment should consider how tone deaf Ms. Alvarez seems and appoint the special prosecutor.
Whoops. My apologies.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:53 pm
Absolutely!!
The Cook County States Attorneys office is so rife with conflicts of interest, that it is absolutely imperative for a party (hopefully from outside of Illinois with no political ties) be assigned to prosecute.
Comment by train111 Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:53 pm
I voted yes, if the case she build on Van Dyke was so meticulous, why was he never disciplined and allowed to work the street?
Comment by Cable Line Beer Gardener Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:55 pm
Too many questions and too many failures to support local prosecution by Alvarez.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:56 pm
I voted no, and in my opinion the Judge in the Servin case should be blamed as that ruling was a complete joke Also, it now does look like they are using the death of the child for political gain.
Comment by special Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Yes. I think the citizens of Chicago deserve a prosecution that will not be able to be questioned, especially should they find the accused innocent as it would add legitimacy to either outcome.
Something I find fascinating is that if I were an attorney that was attempting to discredit the testimony of of a Chicago Police Officer, at this point I would simply request all of the maintenance records for their dash cams/mics, and review several hours of their footage to determine whether or not the audio was present, and then ask them about it on the stand.
If you’re actively seeking to destroy the public attempts to monitor you, I think it would damage a jury’s opinion of you.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 1:59 pm
Yes - Rahm needs to stay out of it.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:01 pm
“Should the Laquan McDonald case be handed over to a special prosecutor?”
Yes.
The public interest demands an investigation into 1) whether there was a police cover-up of the shooting, and 2) whether the Cook County State’s Attorney knew of, or was party to, a police cover-up.
Anita Alvarez’s conflicts of interest with regard to such an investigation are self-evident.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:04 pm
The current City officials have no credibility on these issues, so while they are in office, these events need to be shunted off to others.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:04 pm
Yes, of course. At this point it would be more shocking if there WASN’T a cover up.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:12 pm
Prosecution of police officers should always go to a special prosecutor, because the State’s Attorney always has a working relationship with officers.
Comment by jake Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:18 pm
Yes.
The prosecution is so tied up in politics (Alvarez as well as others) that it should be given to someone else, in order to increase public confidence in the integrity of the process.
Comment by orzo Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:26 pm
I voted “yes”, although frankly I don’t see any legal conflict of interest (political, maybe, but that’s not the standard). However, appointment of a special prosecutor might help insulate any verdict from serious criticism
I must say that some of the comments here suggest that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role that a special prosecutor would play. It would NOT be that person’s function to investigate Alvarez, or the Chicago Police Department. Her sole function would be to prosecute Van Dyke.
I further note that the Mayor and other “City officials” are not involved in the prosecution. The State’s Attorney is a COUNTY office, not a city one.
In appointing a special prosecutor, the judge would first look to the AG’s office, the Office of the State Appellate Prosecutor, and other State’s Attorney’s Offices in the state. If none could serve, only then would a private attorney be appointed.
The statue providing for such appointment is here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=005500050K3-9008
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:32 pm
===It would NOT be that person’s function to investigate Alvarez, or the Chicago Police Department===
Wrong. Read the excerpts from above.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:36 pm
It’d be a positive step forward if there were an independent prosecutor for all cases involving police misconduct. Police and SA’s work too closely together to avoid a conflict when one is investigating/prosecuting the other.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 2:59 pm
apart from not trusting much of anything that Flint and Locke touch, I recall that prosecutions of police are handled by the Special Pros division in the SAO. that keeps them out of the day to day relationships. it’s fashionable to think that the SAs and the CPD are all buddy buddy, but day to day that is simply not the case. from a turned down felony to witness procedures that police don’t like, there was always a steady stream of moaning that the SAO “doesn’t treat the police like men.”
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:19 pm
Voted yes more because I think we need a special prosecutor to uncover how this was handled and connect it to the systemic issues that must change. Not sure if a special prosecutor can do this, but it seems like there needs to be some form of forced transparency for any significant change to happen.
Comment by Distant Viewer Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:33 pm
Alvarez has made too many missteps in other police investigations to be trusted any longer. Yes, appoint a special prosecutor. If she wants to blame this request on election politics, then it further highlights her lack of objectivity.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 3:38 pm
I have to agree with chi. There should always be a special prosecutor for police misconduct cases.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:03 pm
“Your Honor, we would like to stipulate for the record that it is no coincidence that this petition is being filed so close to the election by those who support Ms. Alverez’s opponent.
This plea for justice is being entered 400 days closer to the Election than it could have been if not for the negligence of the office under Ms. Alvarez’s authority, who delayed justice for more than a year.
We are supporting her opponent precisely because we believe that justice delayed is justice denied, and the people of Cook County regardless of the color of their skin deserve better. In the meantime, we plead for your relief.”
Y.D. Democrat, Esq.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:12 pm
The perception of corruption is high. A Special Prosecutor creates the possibility of an in depth investigation without fear or favor.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 5:21 pm
I voted Yes. It looks bad and smells bad. She should step back just to let the process go ahead.
Comment by Geek Marine Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 6:13 pm
The world knows or should know by now how Anita Alvarez handles police related shootings. Handling it over to a special prosecutor is a no brainer. This was a simple one.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 6:40 pm
The awful reality of so many apparently calculated responses to incidents makes such an appointment a necessity. The big question to me is how is a nonpartisan, qualified professional to be found. Such an individual must be selected by someone or some group. Therein lies the problem.
Comment by Bill Menendez Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 7:10 pm
Yes just to calm everyone’s collective nerves. On the other hand if you want to make money now is the s=time to be shot by a cop[.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 7:14 pm
I like the idea of a special prosecutor as along as that person is “truly” independent.
Is that possible?
Comment by cannon649 Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:31 pm
I voted no.
I don’t think she’s shown bias as much as she’s shown incompetence.
While I agree we need a new State’s Attorney, it should be for all cases. I don’t believe we should start singling out cases to take from her office.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:20 pm
Thirty days to election. Of course there were no backers of Alvarez’s opponents on hand. The opponents want a special prosecutor since neither of them is qualified to try this case which will probably be a bench trial in front of a good veteran judge close to retirement who will more than likely find the policeman guilty of second degree murder.
Comment by Roscoe Tom Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:30 pm