Charges dropped in 1989 murder investigated by Chicago cops tied to Jon Burge

By: Megan Crepeau, Chicago Tribune.

Kevin Bailey admits that there were moments during his 28 years in prison that he lost hope he would ever be cleared of murder.

“But I just kept fighting,” he said with a smile moments after his release Tuesday afternoon from Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet. “Just kept fighting.”

Hours earlier, with Bailey in a courtroom at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, a Cook County special prosecutor dropped charges against him and Corey Batchelor, who had been paroled in 2004. The two had long alleged that Chicago police detectives with ties to disgraced former Cmdr. Jon Burge had physically abused them into confessing to a brutal 1989 murder.

After Judge Alfredo Maldonado formally tossed out their convictions, Batchelor and Bailey, both 48, embraced in the courtroom.

Bailey then grinned, pumping his fists in the air as spectators in the courtroom applauded.

“I never, ever wanted to give up,” Batchelor, his voice at times emotional, later told reporters in the courthouse lobby. “At times, Kevin used to actually tell me that he was giving up, that he actually didn’t believe that we were ever going to get out. And all I did was motivate and motivate and motivate him, and let him know no matter what … the fight would continue.”

Batchelor and Bailey were 19-year-olds with no criminal history when they were arrested for the murder of Lula Mae Woods, the wife of a retired Chicago police officer, according to court records. Woods was found stabbed to death in her South Side garage in June 1989.

Read the whole article here: Chicago Tribune 

7th Circuit Allows Malicious Prosecution Case to Proceed

A malicious prosecution case brought by a woman wrongly convicted of murdering her son will continue in district court after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the grant of summary judgment to the United States government.

After a fire destroyed her home and claimed the life of her 3-year-old son in June 1995, investigators with the Indiana Fire Marshal’s office decided Kristine Bunch had intentionally set the blaze. But when samples from Bunch’s home were sent to William Kinard, a federal forensic chemist with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he determined no accelerants were present in the living room and boy’s bedroom, where the fire began.

According to Bunch, the investigators told Kinard they were not happy with the results of his report, so he agreed to fabricate findings and report that accelerants were found in the two central locations. Bunch was subsequently convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 60 years.

Read the whole article here: The Indiana Lawyer

Read the 7th Circuit Opinion Here.

Burge and nemesis Flint Taylor spar in video depositions in Jackie Wilson case

Lawyers for Jackie Wilson on Tuesday closed out their case that detectives under the command of Jon Burge tortured Wilson into confessing to the 1982 murder of two Chicago Police officers, in Wilson’s latest bid to win a new trial for the killings.

A courtroom gallery filled with CPD officers looked on as Wilson was cross-examined by special prosecutors at the second of what will be a trio of hearings on whether Wilson’s confession to the slaying of CPD officers William Fahey and Richard O’Brien was tortured out of him.

On Tuesday, as he did at an earlier hearing last month, Wilson choked up on cross-examination, as he repeated his recollection of being beaten by multiple officers until he confessed to the murders, as special prosecutors who tried to trip him up on details. Wiping his eyes, Wilson, 57, took issue with Special Prosecutor Michael O’Rourke skipping steps in Wilson’s account of the abuse when O’Rourke jumped from Wilson being clubbed with a phone book directly to being hooked up to an electroshock box.

Read the whole article here: Chicago Sun-Times

On 48th Anniversary of Fred Hampton’s Murder, Rampant Surveillance of Black Liberation Movements Continues

American political and social activist and Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton (1948 - 1969) raises his arms at the 'Days of Rage' rally, Chicago, Illinois, October 11, 1969. (Photo: David Fenton / Getty Images)

American political and social activist and Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton (1948 – 1969) raises his arms at the “Days of Rage” rally, Chicago, Illinois, October 11, 1969. (Photo: David Fenton / Getty Images)

Monday, December 04, 2017

By Flint TaylorTruthout | Op-Ed

In August 1967, notorious FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent out an urgent directive to all of his field offices under the file name “COINTELPRO-Black Nationalist Hate Groups.” It instructed “Racial Matters”(RM) agents to take aggressive — and highly illegal — actions to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize the activities of Black-nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership and supporters.” On March 4, 1968, exactly one month before Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, another urgent Bureau-wide COINTELPRO directive from Hoover’s desk instructed RM Agents to devise COINTELPRO actions designed to “prevent the rise of a ‘messiah’ who could unify and electrify the militant black nationalist movement.”

On December 4, 1969 — 48 years ago today — RM agents in the Bureau’s Chicago office secretly congratulated themselves and hailed their “success” to Hoover for masterminding the bloody pre-dawn police raid that left Fred Hampton, the 21-year-old chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP) — and most certainly a rising “messiah” — and Peoria Panther leader Mark Clark dead, and several other young Panthers seriously wounded.

Read the whole article here: Truthout 

Time for Kim Foxx to do the right thing

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx

Prosecutors have a hard time owning up to the injustices they perpetrate—especially in murder cases, all the more so when the deceased happens to have been a police officer.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office was supposed to be different under its avowed reformist leader, Kim Foxx, but the office has proved sadly unexceptional in refusing to acknowledge a palpable miscarriage of justice dating back more than four decades.

At about 2 a.m. on Oct. 10, 1976, a Sunday, Terrence Loftus, a 36-year-old off-duty Chicago police officer wearing civilian clothes, courageously tried to stop a brawl between 30 to 40 members of rival gangs—the white Gaylords and Puerto Rican Lawndale Imperial Gangsters.

Read the whole article here:

8 Principles for Aspiring People’s Lawyers

This was a speech originally given by People’s Law Office attorney Michael Deutsch this Spring at the 2017 Midwest Regional National Lawyers Guild Conference. 

I also want to welcome you and recognize your commitment to be here so early on a Saturday morning. These meetings are really important to share strategies, experiences and to provide the fuel of comradeship that keeps us fighting for justice in all aspects of our work.

One of the perks/ consequences of having reached senior status, and having been around so long, is being asked to share my insights on the representation of the victims of political repression.  To be sure we are entering dark and really uncharted waters, with what I would characterize as the neo fascist take- over of the executive branch of the federal government, and the very real potential of a sea change in the make-up of the federal judiciary, with the potential given the present vacancies and the attrition of the appointment of hundreds of new judges, as well as the control of state governments by conservative forces which are moving to rewrite laws to up the ante against those who protest.

However, despite the dire potential, we still have the trappings of so-called liberal or neo liberal democracy, where we have courts mandated to enforce  the constitution and juries composed independent citizens.

The historic reality that the U.S. was never a real democracy, racism, sexism and exploitation, has always been with us, and as a result we have had a long history of resistance and of repression.  In my own legal experience, I have seen the attacks on the anti-Viet Nam war movement, including the coordinated use of nation-wide grand juries under Nixon to imprison leaders, the Co-intelpro  program which targeted BLM imprisoning and assassinating  its leaders / the Attica massacre and its aftermath of indictments of the prisoners, the siege of Wounded knee the attacks on the PRIM, here and in Puerto Rico, the attacks of the CA Sanctuary movement, the use  after 9/11of  federal “terrorism”  laws to criminalize solidarity work, particularly against  Muslims and the Palestinian solidarity movement, and the passage of broad state terrorism laws to charge Occupy activists.  And countless other acts of repression against workers, woman’s rights, the LGBT community, environmental and animal rights activists and the wholesale attacks and deportations of millions of immigrants.

So I want to share with you some principles I have distilled from my own experiences as a lawyer in many of these struggles. I was very fortunate as a young lawyer to have the opportunity to work with the Attica Brothers in their fight for justice. And many of the experiences I had there were repeated in the subsequent political cases that I have had the privilege of being involved in.

Of course, some of these ideas should be obvious and others will not apply universally, but I humbly offer them for your consideration.

  1. First and foremost, as much as possible take leadership from your clients.  Understand their politics and their goals, specifically as it applies to your legal representation.  At Attica we had 60 brothers charged with 1400 hundred felony counts It was our job to translate in the courtroom and if called upon outside to explain that they were not the criminals, but the victims of a massacre and a subsequent orgy of brutality.  To do so we had to understand what caused the rebellion and the State’s cover-up.

When you represent a Grand jury resister, be clear if their position is non-collaboration, regardless of  immunity andimprisonment.  In the case of PRIM activists accused of being members of the FALN, they made a collective decision to not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court and demand POW status. This decision was a difficult one for a lawyer used to contesting the facts, but we accepted this position, prepared motions supporting their position under international law and took their case to international forums. Not surprisingly, they were convicted, but set the political stage, that they were not criminals, for their release as political prisoners.  In contrast , Independence activists accused in Hartford of being member of the Macheteros, fought their case on the facts, while still raising political issues.

  1. Secondly, we must work with the community of supporters of your clients. We must explain carefully your strategy as much as possible and listen to their views and concerns. Hundreds of people from all across the progressive spectrum were moved to support the Attica brothers, while our relationships were not always amiable, we felt an obligation to respect their support and provide them with information.
  2. Work collectively with co-defendants and their lawyers. Unity is key here. In multi-defendant cases, there may be strategy, political and style differences between the lawyers, but a collective coordinated defense ensures a stronger, clearer, presentation and minimizes the possibilities of  a defendant isolated and choosing to become a state’s witness.   In the Pontiac prison case, in which 17 young Black men faced the death penalty we had 20 different criminal defense lawyers who were used to representing their own individual clients, but after much struggle and meetings and sharing the unity of Attica, all agreed to work together with a joint strategy.  All were acquitted or had their cases dropped.
  3. As much as possible put the Govt/State on trial. look for ways in your motion practice to raise the political issues inherent in your case.  Selective enforcement, political motivation, international law, government vindictive prosecution or misconduct to raise political issues. Use discovery to expose surveillance, spying,  the names of informants and make it burdensome on the prosecution.
  4. Be creative!  Think of ways to expose the political/repressive nature of the prosecution.  In the case of Muhammad Salah, who was tortured in Israel, we kept demanding the protocols and procedures allowed by the Israeli interrogators, which the Court denied as classified. We kept insisting and ultimately the Court allowed us stipulations to be read to the jury about the Israeli methods, which were akin to torture. This was determinative in convincing the jury that he confession was coerced and unreliable.

In the case of the NATO 3 charged with material support for terrorism, – a 40 year potential sentence -we convinced the court to instruct the jury on a lesser included charge of mob action, a misdemeanor

  1. Act with courage. Don’t be afraid to raise political issues or challenge the prosecution’s good faith or the impartiality of the court.  In  Rasmea  Odeh’s case we moved to recuse the Judge because of his close ties to the State of Israel.  He angrily denied the motion, but later when it was exposed that his family had a financial interest in an Israeli business that was bombed he had to step down.
  2. Be Resilient.  Don’t let bad rulings or difficult facts deter you. Study the history of political cases and what lawyers did right and what they did wrong.
  3. See yourself as part of the resistance movement. Your legal skills as your contribution.  Fight for your clients and for justice!

With Executive Order on Policing, Trump Declares Racialized War on Dissent

By Flint Taylor

On the heels of the much ballyhooed meeting that an obsequious Donald Trump conducted this week with local law enforcement officials from across the country, the president titillated the gendarmes with a threat to destroy — COINTELPRO style — an unnamed Texas state senator rumored to be introducing legislation to prevent law enforcement from financing police operations by seizing arrestees’ property before they have been found guilty in a court of law. On Thursday, Trump followed up with an executive order that gave the recently confirmed Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions a carte blanche to bring down the wrath of the federal government on anyone who is unfortunate enough to have a confrontation with a cop, a prison guard, a border patrol officer or who knows who else outfitted with a badge and carrying a gun.

At first blush, the order could be seen simply as a wildly unpopular president playing macho man to our nation’s police departments and their reactionary police unions. The unions have been chafing over being curbed by the previous administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), which, by means of pattern-or-practice investigations and consent decrees, started to put the brakes on racist police violence. On its face, Trump’s new order looks like much bluster, with no enforcement mechanisms. Many of the provisions will need to be passed by Congress, receive funding and ultimately, pass constitutional muster — a hurdle that the authoritarian Trump administration, with its white supremacist hatchet men at the helm, seems unwilling to pay even a trifling respect.

On further analysis, however, the order can be read as an official authorization, from one white supremacist — Steve Bannon — to another — Jeff Sessions — to pursue the most racist and reactionary criminal legal policies in recent memory. The overriding theme of the order is “to develop strategies led by the Department of Justice … to further enhance the protection and safety of Federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officers.” What first comes to mind, quite intentionally, no doubt, are cops killed in the line of duty, the shooting in Dallas being the most prominent recent example. The policy statement — either explicitly or implicitly — appeals to fears about people of color and the demonization of Black Lives Matter (BLM), resonating with the barely coded racist refrains of “blue lives matter” and “law and order.”

Within the rubric of that declaration, and the details that follow in cold and calculating procession, the order, at bottom, takes aim at protesters, most urgently the Water Protectors at Standing Rock, BLM protesters across the nation, people protesting the Muslim ban and many others who practice acts of civil disobedience that bring them into conflict with law enforcement. Not content with local prosecutors dealing with these confrontations, this order encourages Sessions and his Department of Justice to find more punitive federal laws to charge protesters, to seek the passage of new federal laws to further aid this effort and to seek new mandatory minimum sentences to enhance the punishment of protesters, all under the guise of protecting law enforcement from “violence.”

Additionally, the order directs the Department of Justice to work with other federal agencies — no doubt the FBI, CIA and NSA prominent among them — to “develop an executive branch strategy to prevent violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.” As I typed those words, I had a chilling realization: This was the same rationale, and almost the exact same language, that the notorious J. Edgar Hoover used in his COINTELPRO directives that targeted Black liberation leaders Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture), Fred Hampton and their organizations, and permitted wildly illegal government surveillance and orchestrated state violence during the 1960s.

The order also calls for the DOJ to evaluate “all grant funding programs currently administered by the DOJ to determine the extent to which its grant funding supports and protects” law enforcement and to seek legislation that would “adequately support and protect” these agencies. What seems apparent from these provisions is that funding for police reforms in training, discipline, monitoring and the like will be quashed, while funds for wartime armaments such as SWAT tanks, drones, high-powered weapons and sophisticated 21st-century surveillance will be the norm.

This order, like the similar legislation that the American Legislative Exchange Council is pushing on the state level, is designed to criminalize and quash dissent. Like the attack on the media, it is aimed at defeating, with broad authoritarian strokes, growing popular opposition to a wannabe neo-fascist regime. Wrapped in “law and order” and protecting the police, the next target after those who practice civil disobedience may well be the millions who have been taking to the streets.

Yet, clearly, executive repression will not signal the end of resistance. This battle will continue to be waged in the streets, in the media and in the courts. Our very existence depends on the outcome.

This article was originally published in Truthout on February 10, 2017

Feb. 17 Legal Community Strikes Back on #F17!

At 1 PM (EST) on Friday, Feb. 17 (#F17), #LawStrikesBack! Lawyers, legal workers, law students, paralegals, court interpreters, investigators, social service advocates, and others who work in the courts will gather in front of courthouses across the country in coordination with the nationwide #GeneralStrike planned for the same day. We are asking NLG members and chapters to start planning a local action in your area! Let the National Office know if your chapter is planning an event so we can help publicize.

This is an opportunity for the legal community to express our solidarity with the growing movements against the new regime and its white supremacist agenda. Engage your local community! Invite speakers, make signs, and share with your legal colleagues and allies!

If your legal organization would like to co-sponsor this event, please email NLG Director of Research and Education Traci Yoder at

Join the event on Facebook!

SPREAD THE WORD! Use #LawStrikesBack along with #F17 and #GeneralStrike.

Sponsored by:
National Lawyers Guild
Center for Constitutional Rights
People’s Law Office
Sugar Law Center for Social and Economic Justice
Water Protector Legal Collective
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Abolitionist Law Center
Palestine Legal
TGI Justice Project (TGIJP)
Defending Dissent Foundation/ Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Sylvia Rivera Law Project

People’s Law Office Wins Landmark Wrongful Conviction Case

People’s Law Office attorneys have won a landmark wrongful conviction case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. PLO represented William Avery in a wrongful conviction case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and obtained a substantial jury verdict to compensate Avery for the 6 years he was wrongfully imprisoned. Avery was convicted of a murder that DNA testing later showed had been committed by a serial murderer, Walter Ellis. Avery then filed suit against the police officers who made up evidence against him—including a confession they falsely claimed Avery had given them and statements from so-called jailhouse snitches claiming Avery had admitted the murder to them.

At the jury trial in Milwaukee, PLO attorneys were able to establish that the “confession” was totally fabricated by detectives and that Avery had consistently asserted that he was innocent. Also, prisoners who previously claimed that Avery had admitted to the murder told the civil jury they had told the detectives that this was not true, and that Avery had made no such admissions. Although the detectives claimed they did nothing wrong they were significantly impeached during cross-examination and the jury believed Avery over them, and returned a verdict in his favor. But the trial judge, citing “mixed signals” from the court of appeals, took away the verdict and entered judgment for the defendants.

But in the appeal, Avery and PLO prevailed. The appeals court held that Avery’s claims of fabrication of evidence “fall comfortably within our decision in Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) [another People’s Law Office case], so the jury’s verdict was legally sound and must be reinstated in its entirety.” In a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Diane Sykes, the court, again citing Whitlock, held that “We have consistently held that a police officer who manufactures false evidence against a criminal defendant violates due process if that evidence is later used to deprive the defendant of [his] liberty in some way.” While to most of us it seems obvious that police officers who make up evidence that causes a wrongful conviction have violated the person’s constitutional rights, many trial level courts, like the district court here, have held that such plaintiffs could not sue under federal law, and were limited to pursuing remedies, often totally inadequate, under state law. The Avery decision decisively rejected this reasoning and will be extensively cited by other plaintiffs pursuing wrongful conviction claims. You can read the full text of the opinion here.

The case now goes back to the trial court in Milwaukee where PLO will immediately have the jury’s judgment for Mr. Avery reinstated and will then move for attorneys’ fees in addition to the jury verdict. In this way PLO will seek to have Mr. Avery receive the full amount of the jury award, without any reductions for attorney’s fees. This case is the latest in a long line where PLO has been able to obtain jury verdicts for wrongfully convicted clients and then defend the verdict on appeal, often obtaining groundbreaking decisions that increase the rights of civilians, obtain monetary compensation for the injured person, and ensure that police who intentionally violate the U.S. Constitution are held accountable for their egregious misconduct.

Chicago’s Brutal Example


A new Department of Justice report shows that Chicago police have proven immune to reform.

Only days after Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was questioned at a raucous Senate confirmation hearing about what his views on systemic police violence would be as US attorney general, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice issued its official report on the Chicago Police Department.

In official findings that should surprise no one that has lived in Chicago over the last several decades, the report was a scathing ninety-thousand-word indictment of the CPD. It first broadly found that the CPD “engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional use of force. ”

The report is worth quoting at length for what it claims about the department. It found the CPD

Uses Deadly Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and Department Policy;

Uses Less-Lethal Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and Department Policy;

Does Not Effectively Use Crisis Intervention Techniques to Reduce the Need for Force;

Fails to Accurately Document and Meaningfully Review Officers’ Use of Force, thereby Perpetuating a Pattern of Unreasonable Force, and that

Video Evidence Suggests a Broader Pattern or Practice of Unconstitutional Use of Force.

The report then went on to condemn, in rich detail, the systemic failures of the CPD in the interconnected areas of discipline, training, supervision, and control. Together with a pervasive police code of silence, in the report’s words, all “contribute to the CPD’s pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct.”

In the crucial area of police discipline, the DOJ found that

the City has put in place policies and practices that impede the investigation of officer misconduct;

investigations that CPD does conduct are neither complete nor fair;

insufficient staffing contributes to [the Independent Police Review Authority]’s investigative deficiencies;

investigations lack timely resolutions, undermining the quality of investigations and credibility of the process;

CPD and the City do not take sufficient steps to prevent officers from deliberately concealing misconduct;

the City’s discipline system lacks integrity and does not effectively deter misconduct.

The DOJ also found that the CPD’s programs to identify and monitor problem officers, particularly those who are repeatedly accused of police misconduct — known in police parlance as an “early warning system” — were, in practice, effectively nonexistent. It also underscored the CPD’s lack of transparency, particularly in the areas of the use of force and police discipline, and its backward and counterproductive approach to how it “collects, organizes, analyzes, tracks, and reports on available data and data trends.”

Most significantly, without ever using the term, the DOJ report, in a characteristically understated manner, also described the entrenched racism, both individual and systemic, that still defines the CPD and its day-to-day interactions with the communities of color and the criminal justice system. Couched in its overriding finding that the CPD should institute true and effective “community policing” to combat the escalating murder rate in Chicago’s poor communities of color, the DOJ found that

raw statistics show that CPD uses force almost ten times more often against blacks than against whites. As a result, residents in black neighborhoods suffer more of the harms caused by breakdowns in uses of force, training, supervision, accountability, and community policing.

Additionally, the DOJ found that the CPD “has tolerated racially discriminatory conduct that not only undermines police legitimacy, but also contributes to the pattern of unreasonable force,” and that its “review of complaints of racially discriminatory language found repeated instances where credible complaints were not adequately addressed.”

The DOJ underscored the impact that this entrenched police racism has had on Chicago’s communities of color:

The CPD must recognize the extent to which this type of misconduct contributes to a culture that facilitates unreasonable force and corrodes community trust. We have serious concerns about the prevalence of racially discriminatory conduct by some CPD officers and the degree to which that conduct is tolerated and in some respects caused by deficiencies in CPD’s systems of training, supervision and accountability. In light of these concerns, combined with the fact that the impact of CPD’s pattern or practice of unreasonable force fall heaviest on predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods, restoring police-community trust will require remedies addressing both discriminatory conduct and the disproportionality of illegal and unconstitutional patterns of force on minority communities.

Of course the existence — and even the recognition — of these and other related problems within the CPD is far from new.

In the past half-century, Chicago police violence and cover-up began with Mayor Richard J. Daley’s infamous “shoot to kill” order against African-American “looters” during the uprising after the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King Jr in April 1968 and the police riots later that year during the Democratic National Convention.

The police assassination of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton came the following year, and the next four decades are marked by the Jon Burge torture scandal, a scandal so broad and deep that it has now been shown to involve the entire command structure of the Chicago Police Department, two Chicago mayors, and at least one state’s attorney of Cook County.

Bringing this history to the present, we have the 2014 murder of Laquan McDonald, exposed for all to see by a video that the CPD, the Cook County prosecutor, and perhaps Mayor Emanuel himself suppressed for a year. The video, which shows the black teenager being shot by CPD officer Jason Van Dyke sixteen times, speaks volumes about all the other untold numbers of unjustified police shootings and beatings that were covered up by the department and its code of silence before the current era of videotaped police atrocities.

Evidence and findings that parallel those made by the Justice Department have been repeatedly set forth in court decisions, jury verdicts, lawsuits, expert reports, and official and unofficial investigations that also span the past five decades. In 1972, Congressman Ralph Metcalfe conducted an investigation of racist police violence in Chicago that led to the establishment of the Office of Professional Standards, the failed precursor to the police disciplinary agency that was so roundly castigated by the DOJ in its report.

After the US Supreme Court paved the way in 1978 with a decision that permitted private civil rights lawsuits to challenge unconstitutional police patterns and practices, lawyers at the People’s Law Office, where I work as an attorney, brought numerous suits spanning the next two decades that uncovered the detailed evidence of systemic police wrongdoing that the DOJ updated with its exhaustive current investigation.

In the early 1990s, police practices expert Lou Reiter, a former police lieutenant, filed a pattern and practice opinion in a police brutality case that mirrored the findings of the DOJ in the areas of code of silence, racially biased policing, “repeater beater” cops, and failures to adequately discipline, supervise, train, and monitor officers who had engaged in wrongdoing, and concluded that these systemic failures led to a pattern and practice of unconstitutional use of force.

More recently, a federal jury found that the CPD operates under a code of silence in which officers do not “snitch” on each other over matters of wrongdoing, the city admitted that the CPD had engaged in repeated acts of torture and awarded reparations to nearly sixty of its victims, and two reports commissioned by the city — one before, one after the McDonald video — made many of the same findings that the DOJ has now set forth in more comprehensive detail.

Victims of police violence, community activists, and veterans of the never-ending battle against systemic police violence have posed some questions: why did it take so long? Victims of police abuse and police reform advocates have been clamoring for a DOJ investigation for nearly twenty years, but found the door barred until the McDonald video broke it down.

Why did the investigation not address related issues to those that it did address — most particularly the epidemic of racial profiling in arrests, stops, and searches — and in the thousands of illegal detentions and frequent police violence taking place at the CPD’s secret interrogation site known as Homan Square?

And why did the DOJ focus only on community policing and not on the pressing issue of community control of police and a truly independent citizens’ review board to control police discipline?

Beyond these questions loom several larger ones. While the report is exhaustive in its documentation of the abysmal state of the Chicago Police Department, and makes ten pages worth of detailed recommendations, nothing is assured with regard to implementation beyond a brief agreement in principle that Mayor Emanuel and the head of the DOJ’s civil rights division signed that they would jointly “negotiate in good faith” “reforms to ensure sustainable, constitutional, and effective policing,” which would “include reforms of the CPD’s use of force practices, and accountability mechanisms, as well as its training, community policing, supervision, data collection, officer wellness systems and promotion practices.”

This agreement would be enshrined in a “comprehensive settlement in the form of a consent decree” that would be entered as a federal district court order and would be monitored by an independent third party. Beyond that, there was no assurance that any of detailed DOJ recommendations would appear as part of the consent decree.

More important is the good faith of the parties to make good on this agreement. At the helm of the DOJ, we will now have Jefferson Sessions, a great grandson of the Confederacy who is on record as opposing pattern and practice investigations because, in his view, they unjustly condemn an entire police department for the sins of a few “bad apples.”

Sessions is a trusted friend of police unions, which, with their reactionary and racist attitudes, have always stood as a primary roadblock — both in Chicago and nationally — to meaningful and lasting reform. The only question seems to be how drastically oppositional President Trump’s Department of Justice will be when it comes to combating systemic police violence.

On the other side of the coin is Mayor Emanuel and the CPD. How committed will they be to the recommendations of the DOJ report absent the hammer of a Justice Department that is committed to using the power of the Constitution and the federal court to compel the city to fully comply with its recommendations?

To date, they have acted only in response to the pressure of a mass movement lead by Black Lives Matter and the spotlight of the media. There is little confidence in their resolve to make the fundamental reforms that are required to change the police culture absent the DOJ hammer.

But this raises a question: is police reform doomed from the start?

As one anonymous person aptly noted to DOJ investigators, Chicago police officers act like they are an “occupying force” in Chicago’s poor and marginalized communities of color. Is this an aberration, or the actual purpose for the men in blue?

It is clear that an organized, racially diverse movement led by young people of color can make a real difference in the struggle to transform this entrenched police culture. But in the end, maybe the demand of Black Lives Matter is the only long-term solution: defund the police and devote the money to services and education in those communities where the police more frequently “harass and terrorize” than “serve and protect.”

This article was originally published in JACOBIN on January 25, 2017