Foxx Defends Prosecutors on Exonerations

A wrongful-conviction fight in Cook County just got a lot messier. Kim Foxx, the former state’s attorney, said under oath in April 2026 that she believed two men who were officially exonerated in a notorious murder case were still guilty. That matters because her office had already stood aside while those men won certificates of innocence — the court orders that say, in plain terms, the justice system got it wrong. So the gap here is brutal: what prosecutors apparently believed in private and what they allowed courts to say in public. ### Which case blew this open? The flashpoint is the 1998 Bucktown double murder case involving Arturo DeLeon-Reyes and Gabriel Solache. Both men were convicted after confessions tied to former Chicago police detective Reynaldo Guevara, whose cases have drawn years of allegations about coerced confessions and fabricated evidence. Their convictions were later overturned, and both men received certificates of innocence. (abc7chicago.com) ### What exactly did Foxx say? In the deposition, Foxx said she believed “the evidence suggested” the two men had committed “a heinous act of murder.” The key point was not just the opinion itself. It was that she said prosecutors’ silence — meaning not opposing an innocence petition — should not be read as a declaration that someone is factually innocent. Basically, she drew a line between declining to fight a petition and affirmatively believing the person did not do the crime. (abc7chicago.com) ### Why is that such a big deal? Because certificates of innocence are not symbolic paperwork. They help people clear court records, access state compensation, and strengthen civil suits against the city. If a prosecutor’s office lets those orders go through while still thinking the person may be guilty, that raises an ugly question — was the office making a legal judgment, a practical judgment, or a political one? And if nobody outside the room knew the difference, trust takes the hit. (abc7chicago.com) ### What was going on inside Foxx’s office? A federal judge had already ordered Foxx to answer questions about meetings between her office and lawyers connected to the Exoneration Project, some of whom also worked on civil cases against Chicago. Court filings described a “Guevara Case Review Protocol” that shaped how the office handled post-conviction claims tied to Guevara. That does not prove wrongdoing by itself. But it does explain why Foxx’s deposition landed like gasoline on an old fire. (boltsmag.org) ### Are these innocence fights unusual in Cook County? Not at all — and that is part of why this story matters beyond one deposition. Cook County is widely treated as the nation’s leader in known wrongful convictions, and many of those cases do not come with DNA proof. Only about 12 percent of wrongful convictions in Cook County have involved DNA, which means innocence claims often turn on witness recantations, police misconduct allegations, and whether courts believe coerced-confession stories years later. (cwbchicago.com) ### What changed after Foxx left? Her successor, Eileen O’Neill Burke, has taken a much tougher line on certificates of innocence. Recent reporting says Cook County prosecutors under Burke have tried to block nearly every exonerated person seeking one of these orders. So Foxx’s comments are landing in a system that has already swung from one approach — broad non-opposition in some cases — to another that demands much more proof. (injusticewatch.org) ### So what is this really about? It is about what an exoneration is supposed to mean. If the public hears “certificate of innocence,” most people assume prosecutors and judges now agree the person did not do it. Foxx’s testimony suggests that, at least in some cases, that assumption was wrong. The bottom line is simple — Cook County is not just arguing over old murder cases. It is arguing over whether the system speaks plainly when it says someone is innocent. (boltsmag.org)