Inside Cook County Special Prosecutor Appointments
Special prosecutors are supposed to help maintain impartiality and reduce bias in the courts. However, critics are reporting that a lack of transparency and procedural frustrations are leading to increased costs and a threat to the public trust in the courts.
Sometimes, judicial cases are not reviewed by the usual Chicago judges or public prosecutors but deferred to special prosecutors. For those seeking appeals, allegations of misconduct by law enforcement or legal representatives connected to current prosecutors and judges, bring about the need for special prosecutors to handle the cases.
Special prosecutors are court-appointed lawyers who provide “independent, detached review and prosecution” outside the court that typically handles such cases. At times, offices can appoint special support as special assistants who also operate as independent parties. Special prosecutors can step in when the office wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety or is recognized as materially impaired in its ability to remain independent and impartial.
The public can petition for special prosecutors as well. A group of government leaders, organizations, and private citizens is currently filing a petition for an Illinois judge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate alleged misconduct by federal agents during immigration operations last Fall.
Although special prosecutors are intended to be effective measures for removing bias in the courts, the process by which individual lawyers or firms are appointed has not been clear or transparent to the public. Attorneys on cases that involve special prosecutors say that “the public has access to very little information regarding how judges arrived at the decision to appoint a specific prosecutor.”
What the public does know is that lawyers and firms can get repeat arrangements as special prosecutors. According to the Chicago Tribune, one firm in particular billed the Cook County courts $9 million over 17 years, underscoring the trends of repeat assignments for select appointees. Critics are pointing to the gainful nature of special prosecutor arrangements as an even stronger justification for increased transparency. Additionally, disputes over special prosecutors can lead to further litigation and, consequently, increased costs for the court system.
When it comes to mitigating the costs of relying on special prosecutors, there are some guardrails already in place. Namely, legal precedent instructs the courts, before appointing private attorneys, to “contact public agencies… to determine public prosecutors’ availability to serve as a special prosecutor at no cost to the county.” However, reduced availability could be a reason for the popularity of hiring private lawyers.
Over time, these covert selection processes, with little public oversight, have the potential to undermine the standards of justice and transparency in the court system. Advocates for transparency say the public needs more information in order to promote integrity and accessibility in the judiciary.
