Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Internal Investigation Culminates
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO) has completed its internal investigation into why certain statements were made in bond court on April 10th. The investigation revealed a breakdown of communication in how information was shared, which ultimately did not get elevated to State’s Attorney Foxx before, nor in a timely manner following, the bond court hearing. Specific findings of the internal investigation concluded:
- The attorney in bond court did not intend to give the impression that Adam Toledo was holding a gun when shot;
- Proper steps were not taken to ensure appropriate language was used in the bond proffer (a statement of facts delivered in court to support the charging decision made); and
- A lack of recognition about why the language used in the statements made in court could be interpreted differently than intended resulted in a lack of urgency with regard to understanding how and why the statements were made, ultimately hindering the office’s ability to address the situation in a timely manner.
Investigation Findings:
- The attorney in bond court did not intend to give the impression that Adam Toledo was holding a gun when shot. The investigation revealed that the language the attorney used in court was inartful, leaving an unintended impression. The statements at issue in the bond proffer were not intended to describe the sequence of events leading up to the officer-involved shooting but were only intended to provide facts related to the three charges brought against the defendant, Ruben Roman—one being class 3 felony child endangerment. For a class 3 felony child endangerment charge, the prosecutor must show that the defendant knowingly caused or permitted a minor to be placed in circumstances that endangered the child’s life (such as having a gun in hand) and those actions were a “proximate cause” of the minor’s death. As such, the attorney included a limited description of the events that led to the minor’s death. The investigation into the officer-involved shooting is the responsibility of a separate division, the Law Enforcement Accountability Division (LEAD).
- Proper steps were not taken to ensure appropriate language was used in the bond proffer (a statement of facts delivered in court to support the charging decision made). Establishing child endangerment requires a limited discussion of the officer-involved shooting, but the attorney in bond court was not given sufficient guidance as to what information should and should not have been included in the proffer. The investigation revealed this attorney’s work was not reviewed before going into court nor did the information provided to the State’s Attorney previewing what would be said in court align with what was presented in court.
- A lack of recognition about why the language used in the statements made in court could be interpreted differently than intended resulted in a lack of urgency with regard to understanding how and why the statements were made, ultimately hindering the office’s ability to address the situation in a timely manner. Following the bond court hearing, the State’s Attorney recognized a discrepancy in what had been presented to her on Roman’s case versus how media reported on what occurred in court. The investigation revealed that the lack of recognition of the critical and urgent nature of this situation hindered the office’s ability to react quickly to understand the circumstances that led to the statements made in court.
Foxx said: “The tragedy of the death of 13-year old boy has been clouded by the confusion and frustration my office has caused and for this I apologize. It’s not lost on me that our community is grieving and I want to assure Adam’s family and the public that my office is working diligently to investigate his death.”
Action Steps
Attorneys within the office will undergo training about presenting facts in court to support the charges at issue; additional office policies and procedures have been and will be implemented to ensure “checks and balances” operate as intended; with the conclusion of our internal investigation, the attorney who made the statements in bond court has returned to his assignment and is no longer on leave.