Foxx Defends Prosecutors Over Exonerations

Kim Foxx’s comments landed like a grenade because they cut against what most people think an exoneration means. In sworn testimony last month, the former Cook County state’s attorney said prosecutors sometimes stop fighting a conviction or a certificate of innocence for reasons other than actual innocence. Then she went further — saying she personally believed two men who were later cleared in court were still guilty. That matters because these rulings do not just clear names. They also shape lawsuits and taxpayer-funded settlements. ### What exactly did Foxx say? In the deposition, Foxx said prosecutorial “silence” should not automatically be read as an endorsement of innocence. Her clearest example was Arturo DeLeon-Reyes and Gabriel Solache, two men convicted in the 1998 murders of Mariano and Jacinta Soto in Bucktown. Foxx said she believed “the evidence suggested” the men had committed “a heinous act of murder,” even though her office later stopped opposing relief that helped them obtain certificates of innocence. (abc7chicago.com) ### Why is that such a big deal? Because a certificate of innocence is not just symbolic. In Illinois, it helps exonerees pursue state compensation, clear records, and strengthen civil cases over wrongful conviction. So when a former top prosecutor says, basically, “we let this happen without conceding innocence,” it raises a brutal question — what exactly was the office telling judges, victims’ families, and the public at the time? (abc7chicago.com) ### Who are DeLeon-Reyes and Solache? They were convicted largely on confessions tied to former Chicago police detective Reynaldo Guevara, whose cases have long drawn allegations of coercion and misconduct. The men said police forced false confessions from them. Their convictions were later overturned, Foxx declined to retry them in 2017, and judges later granted certificates of innocence. Both men then sued the city. (news.wttw.com) ### So did Foxx’s office exonerate people it still doubted? That is the uncomfortable implication. Foxx’s deposition, which runs more than 200 pages, describes how her office handled a broader set of Guevara-linked cases and certificates of innocence. WGN said the transcript covers dozens of murder cases, and Foxx acknowledged her office stopped opposing some petitions even while she still had doubts in at least certain cases. That is very different from the cleaner public story that an exoneration equals confidence the person did not do it. (abc7chicago.com) ### Why is this resurfacing now? Because the testimony is now spilling into active lawsuits. ABC7 said one of the men Foxx discussed had just reached a settlement with the city, and WGN said Chicago has already paid at least $100 million in Guevara-linked settlements, with more potentially coming. Once a certificate of innocence exists, it becomes a powerful document in court — almost like a state-issued receipt saying the conviction should never have happened. (wgntv.com) ### How does this connect to today’s prosecutor? It lands in the middle of a larger fight over how Cook County should handle innocence claims at all. Under Eileen O’Neill Burke, prosecutors have opposed 23 certificate petitions — 82 percent of the cases where the office took a position in the past year and a half. Under Foxx, the office objected to only 14, or 25 percent, during her second term. So the county has swung from a permissive approach to a much more skeptical one. (abc7chicago.com) ### Was Foxx unusually aggressive on exonerations? Yes, at least by the numbers. Foxx’s administration said it helped overturn 248 wrongful convictions during her eight years in office. Supporters saw that as proof the office was finally correcting old abuses. Critics now argue some of those decisions were too loose, especially when they fed into large civil payouts without a clear public explanation of what prosecutors actually believed. (injusticewatch.org) ### Bottom line The real issue is not whether prosecutors must fight every shaky conviction forever. They should not. The issue is clarity. If the state stops opposing an innocence petition because police misconduct poisoned the case, but still thinks the defendant may be guilty, that is a different public claim — and a different moral claim — from saying the person is innocent. Foxx’s testimony blew open that gap. (abc7chicago.com) (cookcountystatesattorney.org)