Page 10 - September 2019 FOP Newsletter

SecondVice President’s Report
DOJ must investigate evidence of false allegations against cops
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 investi- gation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
In what could have far-reaching impact, allega- tions 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, there-
fore, 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,” the FOP said
in a letter to U.S. Attorney John Lausch.
In one case, attorneys are alleging that a journalist for The New
Yorker magazine crossed the line from journalist to activist in an article alleging that 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 Pat Quinn’s scandal-plagued administra- tion. 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’s innocence.
The City attorneys are also attempting to subpoena Quinn for a deposition. Court records indicate Quinn is fighting it, which begs the questions: 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” in- tentionally 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 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, audio- tapes 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 as- sassination, and along with Medill, offered him other hidden in- centives, including a prison transfer and a fortune (described by plaintiff Montanez as “ching-ching”) from the proceeds of plain-
10 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ SEPTEMBER 2019
tiffs’ 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 the 1982 gang rape and severe burning of a wom- an 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 de- nied 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 that FOP members and the Lodge itself have been making for decades about exoner- ations and the civil lawsuits based on them, but also may signify a potential seismic shift in the City’s willingness to bring these cas- es 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 mea- sures.
Consider this: The City under the Emanuel administration walked into federal court and agreed to a consent decree between the City and Illinois 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 al- leging 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’s office under Madigan bring forth this evidence as justification not to impose a consent decree? More so, what about the DOJ inves- tigation 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 com- pelling anecdotes of these cases and others.
For too long, the Chicago police has been accused of wrong- doing 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 DOJ 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 cor- rupt media machine in the country. This investigation must in- clude 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?
MARTIN PREIB