The Watch

News and Information for Chicago FOP members.

FOP: Time for DOJ to Investigate Evidence of False Allegations Against Cops

Time for Trump DOJ to Determine If Consent Decree Was a Madigan/Rahm Setup?

 Citing new allegations by city attorneys of a potential pattern of false misconduct allegations against Chicago Police officers in three separate federal lawsuits, the FOP has demanded an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

In what could have far-reaching impact, allegations of wrongdoing in the industry of suing police officers are being leveled by city attorneys in federal civil cases, echoing claims that have been made by the FOP and its lawyers for years. The FOP, therefore, has asked the DOJ to investigate this alleged wrongdoing. 

“In order to afford Chicago Police Officers their constitutional rights, the DOJ must immediately initiate an investigation into the pattern of false accusations against the police and, if proven, attempt to discredit the anti-police movement that infects our ability to serve and protect the citizens of Chicago,” FOP said in a letter to U.S. Attorney John Lausch. 

In one case, attorneys are alleging a journalist for the New Yorker magazine crossed the line from journalist to activist in an article alleging Tyrone Hood was innocent of a 1993 murder. Hood and Wayne Washington were convicted of the 1993 murder of Marshall Morgan, a basketball player at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Hood had his sentence commuted in the waning moments of Governor Quinn’s scandal-plagued administration. Hood’s attorneys have filed a federal civil lawsuit against the detectives, including Kenneth Boudreau.

The city attorneys are fighting back in the lawsuit, claiming the New Yorker article was used by former Governor Quinn to justify his decision to commute Hood’s sentence and then later to claim Hood was innocent. 

The city attorneys are also attempting to subpoena Quinn for a deposition. Court records indicate Quinn is fighting it, which begs a question. If Quinn believes that Hood is innocent, wouldn’t he welcome the opportunity to assert it in a deposition? Who hides from the opportunity to fight for the exoneration of someone he believes is innocent? 

In another case,attorneys representing detectives accused of coercing a confession from Armando Serrano for another 1993 murder filed a motion alleging that Serrano and his “agents” intentionally hid or got rid of evidence that proved the man’s guilt. In the motion, the attorneys also accuse a former Northwestern journalism professor David Protess of engaging in sweeping misconduct—both inside and outside of his classroom.

From court documents:

In 2003, Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism professor David Protess, his journalism students, and their private investigator (collectively “Medill”) began investigating the case on behalf of Plaintiff Serrano. Medill created many videotapes, audiotapes, and memoranda of interviews of key witnesses. 

In 2004, Medill succeeded in extracting Vicente’s recantation. But discovery has revealed that prior to recanting, Plaintiffs’ gang, the Imperial Gangsters, threatened Vicente’s life because of his testimony against Plaintiffs. Thereafter, and in consideration for his recantation, both Plaintiffs offered Vicente protection from assassination, and along with Medill, offered him other hidden incentives, including a prison transfer and a fortune (described by Plaintiff Montanez as “ching-ching”) from the proceeds of Plaintiffs’ anticipated civil lawsuits.

In the third case, city attorneys are representing detectives being sued by Stanley Wrice, who claims he was coerced into confessing to a 1982 gang rape and severe burning of a woman in his own residence. In their defense of the retired detectives, the attorneys have subpoenaed a large body of evidence against Protess from many of his exoneration investigations, which, the attorneys allege, bolsters a pattern and practice claim against Protess. 

What also badly hampered Wrice’s exoneration claims is the fact that he lost a bid for an innocence petition when a judge denied granting it because the judge believed Wrice was guilty of the crime. In his ruling, the judge also cast suspicion on witness recantations obtained in the case by students working under Protess. 

The three cases not only bolster allegations FOP members and the Lodge itself have been making for decades about exonerations and the civil lawsuits based on them, but also may signify a potential seismic shift in the city’s willingness to bring these cases back into the courtroom for further scrutiny under the lawful rules of evidence, not settle them for the cheap political capital they offered the way Rahm Emanuel did when he was mayor.

Indeed, the motions by the city attorneys assert a narrative vastly different than the one justifying many anti-police measures. 

Consider this: The city under the Rahm administration walked into federal court and agreed to a consent decree between the city and the state Attorney General Lisa Madigan alleging that the police routinely violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Now the city is marching into the very same federal court and alleging that its police officers are being falsely accused of violating the constitutional rights of minorities. 

Well, which is it? 

Why didn’t the city under Emanuel and the attorney general under Madigan bring forth this evidence as justification notto impose a consent decree? More so, what about the Department of Justice investigation under the Obama administration that paved the way for the consent decree to begin with, an investigation condemned by former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions? This investigation, based solely on anecdotal evidence, somehow ignored the compelling anecdotes of these cases and others. 

For too long the Chicago Police have been accused of wrongdoing on the flimsiest, most suspect motives. The mountain of evidence pointing to a pattern and practice of misconduct in this movement that has robbed the public coffers is so overwhelming that action must be taken—and must be taken now. 

Probably no one knows the corruption of the Department of Justice under the Obama administration better than President Trump. It’s time his DOJ initiated an investigation into the evidence of corruption in the industry of accusing police officers, a primary funding source for the anti-police movement and food supply for the most corrupt media machine in the country. This investigation must include Obama’s DOJ investigation that led to the consent decree.

Because if the police cannot get fair treatment under the law, then there is no justice system at all.

Is there?