Good afternoon, everyone.
You're not ready?
No.
How long will it take you to get ready?
Okay.
I'm going to take the roll call anyway.
Court reporter, I'm going to start with the roll call.
We'll just give you the roll call at the end.
By then, hopefully, you'll be ready.
The Committee on Finance is called to order.
First, I want to thank you all for your patience.
As the previous committee finished up,
and I'm glad that you guys are still here.
Thank you, Chairman.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal.
Alderman Beal.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Ciccio Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Talia Farrell.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Wagesback.
Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Alderman Cazada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman...
I saw Villegas.
Alderman Mitts.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Sposado.
Vasquez, Alderman Reilly, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Martin, Alderman Silverstein.
We have a quorum.
How many?
We have 16.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
Chair Dowell's here.
We have a quorum.
We have 17.
Alderman.
Thank you.
Alderman Conway, Alderman Mitchell, Alderman Lee, Alderman Taylor, Curtis, Rodriguez, and Laspata have requested to participate remotely today for reasons stated under the provisions of Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Okay, so we'll get the two that are here and count them in.
Can I get a motion to allow...
That's Alderman Conway.
Sorry if I missed for an ABA call.
...these aldermen to participate.
So moved by Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And I want to confirm Alderman Conway.
Yep.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Lee.
Present.
Alderman Taylor.
Present.
Alderman Curtis.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Liz Spada.
At this time, we'll begin the public comment period.
I have respect for everyone's time.
Each speaker will be limited to three minutes.
Public comment is limited to 30 minutes.
And we will begin with Lynetta Thomas.
Good afternoon, Ms. Thomas.
Good afternoon.
Test, test, test.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, chair, committee, people, persons.
My name is Lynetta Thomas.
I'm here today not just as a concerned citizen, but as a witness to the pattern of financial mismanagement that's hurting black Chicagoans every day.
Let's begin with the truth laid out in today's agenda.
Over $27 million in taxpayer money.
Nearly $28 million is up for settlement today.
Case after case, police misconduct, negligence, failures to protect civil rights.
This is not just a line item.
These are consequences of city negligence and unchecked power, and the citizens are footing the bill.
$185,000 here, $240,000 there, $400,000 for a single case.
Then a staggering $8 million, followed by $18.5 million.
These are not just numbers.
They represent harm, pain, and lives upended.
And yet the same communities most impacted by this harm are last to receive meaningful investment or justice.
Meanwhile, black neighborhoods have been targeted under policies like the New American Plan, a plan that was not written with us in mind, but implemented on our backs.
While we are living with crumbling infrastructure, mold-infested units, and food deserts, closed public schools were quietly turned to shelters without a single public meeting, and money flowed like a river to welcome new arrivals.
Let's be clear.
This is not about migrants.
This is about misplaced priorities.
When CCA is in a deficit, CPD is in a deficit, and CPS is crying for help, but we find $18 million for one lawsuit and millions more in settlements.
The system is broken.
We need to stop stalling these cases.
Every day the city delays, the cost goes up.
These lawsuits are not just costly.
They're symptoms of deeper policy failures, mismanagement, and refusal to be proactive about accountability.
We need the energy, that speed, and the level of financial commitment when it comes to removing mold from black housing complexes, like those managed by CKO, now rebranded as Halston & Taylor, to avoid accountability.
Addressing the school closures and neglect of black children, especially those in special education, making investments in public infrastructure that actually serve legacy black residents of the city.
If you want to reauthorize, re-authorize, re-amortize of pension debt, then start by making sure that the very people paying into those pensions, our workers, our teachers, our elders, aren't being left to rot while slumlords rebrand and developers displace.
Stop hiding behind bureaucracy.
Stop hiding behind re-referrals and committee shuffles.
Tell the truth to the people who elected you.
Because right now, it looks like we're spending millions selling cases of harm and zero dollars preventing the next one.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Thomas.
On to acknowledge Alderman Cicho Lopez, we will count you towards quorum.
Our next speaker is Zoe Lay.
Oh, yeah.
Excuse me.
Yes.
Okay.
The court reporter, in order to get your comments, is asking that you not speak so rapidly.
Okay.
All right.
Ms. Lay.
Yeah.
I love seeing my favorite meeting because I'm always looking at the Department of Law that is paying out for police misconduct.
But when it comes to the city of Chicago misconduct, like the situation that happened with my family, it's still sitting over there in federal court spending millions of not settling that case.
But you'll settle cases for misconduct because y'all can put it on the police.
But I'm here because I want to address a major concern regarding how public assets are being handled in this city, specifically the 19.3 acres of public land in Jackson Park that were turned over under a so-called use agreement for just $10.
That's not a sale.
It's a 99-year transfer of control, and that's how ownership is possible when it comes to the taxpayers.
Owned land, valued in tens of hundreds of millions, can be given away for almost nothing, while residents are losing their homes over property taxes.
The Department of Finance has an obligation to evaluate real fiscal impact.
If the city can value 19 acres of prime lakefront property at $10 for a private foundation, which was the Obama Presidential Center,
then how do you justify foreclosures, fines, inflated assessments, and working on working-class Chicagoans?
We're asking for accountability, transparency, who authorize that valuation, and how does that align with your fiduciary duty to protect public assets and taxpayer interests?
And, yeah, I want to discuss that because I know what happened in Rahm Emanuel's administration, but majority of y'all were here, and y'all passed that.
And not only have they not made their endowment of $340 million, only $1 million went in there, but we're $1 billion going on, $2 billion in debt.
Budget season is here.
He made a promise that he wasn't going to raise taxes, but he's going to have no choice but to raise taxes and then blame it on, I guess, Trump.
But it doesn't have nothing to do with Trump.
It has to do with you guys laundering money and been laundering money and stealing money and making sure that it's not going back to the community.
So that's why our communities is messed up.
That's why nobody has no answer when it comes to settling my case, and nobody can't sit with me and stand with me and be the public servant that you guys were voted in to do because the city is so corrupt.
But the fact that the Obama Center has displaced people, he got a 99-year deal from Rahm Emanuel off of $10 and costing us billions of dollars.
And y'all sit here and keep using money to do these paid protests to protect illegals, but not worrying about us.
And we have a big displacement issue in the black community.
Thank you for your comments.
Our next speaker is Danielle Carter.
Okay, we in a financial meeting, huh?
So we have 1,600 businesses.
We had 1,600 businesses on the Magnificent Mall.
Now we have 784 businesses.
We are at a 51% decline because of high taxes and high crime.
Businesses are leaving.
Residents are moving.
And we know Chicago is financially.
It's over for us.
We know this.
If we don't.
Vote you guys out. If we don't vote this incompetent administration out, Chicago is going to end up like Detroit was and Gary, Indiana, because we know that you all have laundered, stole, mismanaged, and gave all our money to illegal aliens.
So we're asking President Trump not to send any federal funds until we get you all out of office, until we get a financial forensic audit, itemized breakdown of all these departments.
We don't want him to send you all a dollar for you all to steal. Let the city fall until we get a new administration in. Let it fall, because all you all going to do is steal the money that he give you.
So we are making sure if you all, if President Trump don't get the IRS here, the DOJ, the FBI, if he don't get them here, before you all get out of these, before we get you all out of these seats, then we're going to make sure when we get into office that we are going to do a forensic audit.
And that's going to be the biggest RICO since Operation Grey Lord, because all of you all going to jail, we're going to make sure.
Because how you all stole our money, displaced us, gave it to illegal aliens, pushed us out of our community, misused our tax dollars.
Trust me, you all will pay for what you all did.
So we are going to make sure when we take these seats back, you all don't think that you all are in the clear, because we're going to make sure we get justice one way or the other.
Thank you, Ms. Carter.
Our last speaker is George Blakemore, and I want to acknowledge Alderman Moore has joined us and will be counted towards quorum.
Mr. Blakemore?
Yes, ma'am.
Voodoo economics.
Ma'am, yesterday I visited your ward.
I'm telling you, Pat, are you listening, Pat?
Are you listening to Mr. Moore?
Are you listening to me?
Pat Dowell!
Hey!
Somebody knock on that thing and tell us.
Are you listening to me, Pat?
Get off of that and talk to the people, George.
Mr. Blakemore.
Pat!
Pat!
My minister, Pat.
I went to your ward.
And you have a very powerful and rich ward.
I remember when Carter came down here.
I didn't say that.
Uh-uh-uh.
That man named Carter?
Yeah.
That little black man.
He came and said that you sent for your baby's daddy, white baby's daddy, to come down here to have a business.
Mark Carter said it.
I didn't.
And maybe he shouldn't have never went this low.
But I was in the ward.
The ward is beautiful.
It's beautiful.
And you got everything there.
The lake.
Oh, you got the jewel.
Oh, but I'm here to speak on the finance.
What's happening to that money?
And who's receiving that money?
And guess what?
All of these ultimately, the black ones, the white ones, the Hispanic, the Asian, oh, that is a sanctuary.
This is truly a blue, and you're giving us the blue.
Now, here come the red.
A gold red.
And then flip red.
Mr. Blakemore is saying, go black.
Go black.
Why not?
But I want Trump to come here and clean up this Democratic swamp here.
Why do you say it's a swamp?
By the amount of elected officials that have been indicted.
I got it.
These same blue people sold the streets out.
That's your money, honey.
Mary Daly sold the streets out.
And some of you was right here and voted for that.
So, you got the right one.
I was with you.
Go red.
Then here comes flip red.
I'm going black.
Did you know something?
When this next election comes, guess what?
They're all going to be Democrats again.
Trump, do what you can to clean up the swamp, but I can see it.
It's not going to flip nowhere.
This is a communist thing.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
Would like to acknowledge Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Rodriguez.
I'm here.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Mitchell.
Present.
Alderman Taylor.
I'm here.
Okay.
Also, I want to acknowledge Alderman Irvin, who will also be counted towards quorum, and Alderman Martin, and Alderman Mosley.
Good afternoon, guys.
All right.
This concludes public comment.
We'll begin our committee meeting with the approval of the September 2025 Monthly Rule 45 report from the Committee on Finance.
The report was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no questions, can I get a motion to recommend approval of the Monthly Rule 45 report?
So moved by Alderman Irvin.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion carries.
We have a total of six items on the agenda this afternoon.
The first item is from the Department of Law, which is a communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts, judgments, or settlements were entered into for the month of September 2025, and the revised reports for the month of June through August 2025.
These reports were sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, this item will be placed on file with the clerk.
Item number two are five proposed orders authorizing the Corporation Council to enter into and execute settlement orders in the following cases.
Case 2A, William Bell v. Officer Matthew Petruno and the City of Chicago.
Case number 20C-3740 in the amount of $185,000.
We are joined by Carolyn Fronzig from the Department of Law Corporation Council.
Is there a motion to record?
I'm sorry.
Carolyn, if you could give your presentation.
This is William Bell v. Officer Matthew Petruno.
It's a case pending in U.S. District Court.
On July 6th of 2018, plaintiff William Bell was struck by an unmarked Chicago Police SUV driven by defendant Chicago Police Officer Matthew Petruno.
It is undisputed that Officer Petruno drove his vehicle over the curb and sidewalk into a vacant lot located at 3350 West Huron Street and struck Mr. Bell, who had fled from a traffic stop.
Mr. Bell was transported to Stroger Hospital, where CT scans revealed a mandibular fracture in his lower right jawline.
Mr. Bell underwent an open reduction and internal fixation procedure on July 11, 2018, where the fracture was secured with a permanent geometric plate and eight bone screws.
The Chicago Police Department found the accident was preventable.
Mr. Bell and an independent third-party witness say that Mr. Bell was in the act of surrendering at the time that he was struck.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Officer Petruno used excessive force in violation of federal law and committed willful and wanton conduct in violation of state law.
The claims against the city are based on respondeat superior and indemnification only.
Officer Petruno resigned from the Chicago Police Department in 2021 and now lives out of state.
We believe a settlement of $185,000 is appropriate in this case.
It avoids potential attorney's fees if the verdict is found against the defendant's city of Chicago.
Those attorney's fees for plaintiffs may total in the amount of $500,000.
Any questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Lopez.
I'd like to be recorded as voting no on this item.
I haven't made a motion yet, but...
At the appropriate time.
They do know.
Can I get a motion?
Do pass by Alderman Cazada.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
Alderman Lopez and Alderman Quinn have been recorded as no's and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Item 2B, George Garcia, Kimberly Blevins for herself,
and on behalf of her minor children, G. Garcia and Kay Garcia,
and Michael Zastrow versus City of Chicago,
Chicago Police Officer Sergio Martinez, star number 19512,
and the Chicago Police Officer Guy Habiak, star number 14939,
case number 21, CV, 2850, and the amount of $240,000.
We will have that report from Carolyn Frunzik from the Department of Law.
Carolyn?
Thank you, Chair.
This case is also pending in the U.S. District Court.
This case involves a search warrant that was executed on March 13th of 2021
based on information that Officer Sergio Martinez received from a J. Doe
that plaintiff George Garcia was selling cocaine out of his residence.
Based on body-worn camera, the officers knocked and announced before entering.
One of the officers hits the door with the top of the battering ram
within approximately four seconds after knocking and announcing,
and then fully ramming the door after about 12 seconds.
Notably, while they are ramming the door,
Mr. Garcia is heard on body-worn camera stating that he would open the door,
but he does not do so.
The search warrant was only for the second-floor unit,
but after receiving verbal consent from Mr. Garcia,
the officer searched the entire residence, the garage in the rear,
and Mr. Garcia's vehicle.
Mr. Garcia contends that while he did give consent,
it was under duress as he was in handcuffs and surrounded by police officers at the time.
Plaintiffs are Garcia, along with his wife, Kimberly Blevins,
and their two minor children, as well as Michael Zastrow,
who was an individual who was living at the residence at the time of the search warrant.
Plaintiffs bring Section 1983 claims against Officer Martinez,
the warrant affiant, and Sergeant Guy Habiak, the search warrant supervisor,
for unlawful search, unlawful seizure, supervisory liability against Sergeant Habiak,
and unreasonable procurement of search warrant.
They also bring Monell claims against the City of Chicago.
They additionally bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs allege that Officer Martinez,
under the supervision of Sergeant Habiak,
fabricated details from the J. Doe and his complaint for search warrant to secure the search warrant.
With this alleged false information,
the officers obtained a search warrant for the second floor of Garcia's residence only.
Plaintiffs claim that the officers executed the search warrant improperly
by failing to give plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to open the door after knocking and announcing,
pointing guns, handcuffing plaintiffs, including minors,
exceeding the scope of the search to areas outside the location described in the search warrant.
They also claim that officers found nothing during the warrant
and failed to repair damage done to the door when they broke it and left the home in disarray.
We recommend settlement in the amount of $240,000.
We believe this is also a cost-effective means to settle this case,
as it's in federal court,
and there would be additional attorney's fees for the plaintiffs
if plaintiffs were to secure a verdict in their favor on this case.
Thank you, Carolyn.
Before we go to questions, Alderman Curtis, have you joined us?
I have, Chairman. Thank you.
All right.
And Alderman O'Shea, I saw, come in and will be counted towards quorum.
Any questions from members of the committee on this item?
Seeing no questions, is there a motion to approve item number 2B,
motion made by Alderman Cazada, recommending do pass?
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it,
and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next meeting.
Item number 2C, Sharon Lyons versus the City of Chicago,
case number 20CV3412, in the amount of $400,000.
This report will also be given by Carolyn Froncic from the Department of Law.
Thank you, Chair.
This case is also pending in the Northern District of Illinois.
This federal case concerns the execution of a search warrant
at plaintiff's residence on February 26th of 2020,
plaintiffs claim that Chicago police officers wrongly procured and executed a search warrant
at the plaintiff's home and pointed guns at innocent children.
The plaintiffs are Sharon Lyons, her disabled adult son, Julius Terry,
and her minor granddaughter, Lily Savage.
On February 26th of 2020,
Officer Hammermeister, who was assigned to narcotics,
obtained search warrants for the first- and second-floor apartments at 4937 South Justine
based on information he received from a registered confidential informant
that an individual known as Blondie was selling crack cocaine from the first-floor apartment
and heroin from the second-floor apartment.
Narcotics officers who were not equipped with body-worn cameras
simultaneously executed the two search warrants at 4937 South Justine that same day.
Officers entered the first-floor apartment,
and while inside, heard someone running toward the rear of plaintiff's second-floor apartment.
Most of the officers then exited the first-floor apartment
and immediately breached the front door leading to the stairwell to the second-floor apartment.
At the same time, two officers went up the rear staircase
where they encountered the disabled adult son, plaintiff Julius Terry.
Defendant officers entered and cleared plaintiff's apartment.
While their guns were drawn, the officers denied pointing their firearms at any of the occupants.
Plaintiff Sharon Lyons claims that two officers pointed their firearms
at her four-year-old granddaughter, Lily, as they were clearing the apartment
and that Lily was forced to remain in the bedroom by herself,
screaming and crying for 30 minutes.
Body-worn camera does not support this allegation.
Body-worn camera after the entry into the apartment
shows that Lily was seen standing calmly with her grandmother
six minutes after officers entered the apartment.
Plaintiffs, along with adult male family members,
were detained for approximately 60 minutes while officers conducted a search.
No contraband was recovered from this search warrant.
We recommend $400,000 as an adverse verdict against the City of Chicago
where Chicago police officers could result in additional attorney's fees
totaling approximately $1 million.
Thank you, Caroline.
Any questions on this case?
Seeing no questions, is there a motion recommending approval of item number 2C?
So moved by Alderman Villegas.
Recommending do pass.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Opposed noted is Alderman Quinn and Alderman Lopez.
In the opinion of the chair, however, the ayes have it
and the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next City Council meeting.
Thank you very much, Caroline.
The next case is Blackman versus 2D.
Item number 2D is Blackman versus City of Chicago, et al.
Case number 19-CV-00767 in the amount of $8 million.
We are joined by Jessica Felker from the Department of Law to present the facts of this case.
Jessica.
Thank you, Chair.
The City recommends settling this case for $8 million.
The case was set for trial on August 18, 2025, before the parties reached a settlement.
If the settlement is not approved, the case will proceed to trial.
Plaintiff Eric Blackman was convicted of a 2002 fatal shooting of Tony Cox,
which occurred on July 4, 2002, at 1143 South Pulaski Road.
Blackman served approximately 15 1⁄2 years in custody before his conviction was vacated.
The charges were dismissed in 2019, and he received a certificate of innocence in 2020.
Blackman claims that he was wrongfully convicted as a result of retired Chicago police officers' misconduct.
The City and the officers were successful in narrowing the claims at summary judgment and on a subsequent appeal.
Although there are several claims remaining, they all revolve around one issue,
whether the officers fabricated the identification of one of the two eyewitnesses.
Tony Cox was shot by two assailants outside Fat Albert's restaurant.
The working theory eventually became that a notorious New Breeds gang leader, Booney Black,
ordered the shooting of Cox because of missing drug proceeds.
Various witnesses suggested different suspects, including the restaurant owner,
who was a friend of Booney Black's and Booney Black's nephew.
There are a few eyewitnesses on the scene.
Detectives created a photo array using information gathered
and searching the criminal history database to pull up mugshots of those with criminal backgrounds in the area.
The two eyewitnesses identified Blackman from the photo array and later in a lineup.
Both were women who were in their cars near the crime scene when the shooting occurred.
They both testified at Blackman's trial as to these identifications.
Blackman challenged his conviction, asserting that multiple witnesses saw him that night
at a Fourth of July barbecue when the shooting occurred.
On February 7, 2018, a federal court overturned his conviction,
finding that Blackman received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his attorney failed to investigate multiple additional alibi witnesses.
On May 3, 2018,
Blackman was released from custody. On January 16, 2019, the state declined to retry Blackman
and the indictment was dismissed against him. On February 20, 2020, after a hearing on Blackman's
Certificate of Innocence petition, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted Blackman a Certificate
of Innocence. During the proceedings in federal court, one of the eyewitnesses testified that she
never identified Blackman and that, in fact, she told officers and the prosecutors that Blackman
was not the perpetrator. The other witness stands by her identification today. Blackman now has 11
alibi witnesses to support his claim that he was not the perpetrator. He also questions how his
photo was put in the array in the first place and has presented expert testimony from an eyewitness
expert and a memory expert who says that the identification of the eyewitness who stands by
her identification is likely mistaken, that she did not have enough time to actually identify the
perpetrator. The main question for the jury to answer in this case is whether detectives in fact
made up the one eyewitness's identification and if they did, determine damages based on Blackman's
evidence of innocence. As I said, trial was previously set for August 18, 2025. If settlement
is not authorized, the parties will proceed to trial, where Blackman will likely seek at least $30 million
and the city would be responsible for Blackman's attorney's fees if he were to succeed at trial,
which could be in the range of $3 to $5 million. Considering the risk of litigation, the 15 and a half
years Blackman was in custody, the law department recommends that the city settle this case for $8 million.
Thank you, Jessica. Alderman Talia Farrell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question.
It sounds that there may have been some prosecution errors as well in the prosecution of this case.
Is the county unhooked for any of this $8 million in settlement or is this just all on the city of
Chicago? Mr. Blackman did not sue the county, so this is all on the city of Chicago.
Did we actually bring the county in as the defendants?
We did not. Mr. Blackman would have had to make accusations against them and he did not.
We can do that as well, can't we? As a defendant, if we feel that someone else may have some liability
in the case as well, we can bring them into the case?
If he had made accusations against the prosecutors, but he did not. So there was the only witness who
could make those accusations, the only reason that we would have brought them in is if there
was allegations that they did something wrong, but he did not make those allegations.
Okay. I'll look that up. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions on this case?
Seeing no other questions, can I get a motion for a due pass? So moved by Alderman Cazada,
recommending due pass. All those in favor of the motion? Hold on before we take the motion.
Alderman O'Shea, you?
I'd like to be in the court as voting no.
Okay. Well, when I get to that part, just say no. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed? And Alderman Shea, in the opinion of the chair, is opposed, but in the opinion
of the chair, the ayes have it. And the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the
next city council meeting. Item number 2E, Francisco Benitez versus Jerome Bogucki et al.,
City of Chicago et al., case number 23CV16896, in the amount of $18.5 million. Jessica Felker from
the Department of Law will also report on this case. Alderman Mitz, I see you and will count you
towards quorum. Jessica.
This is a reverse conviction case, which arises from the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of
then 18-year-old Francisco Benitez for April 1989 murders of Prudencio Cruz and William Sanchez.
Benitez spent approximately 35 years in custody until he was released in 2023 when his conviction
was vacated. On August 29, 2023, Benitez's conviction was vacated after the court found that he raised a
substantial claim of actual innocence. In September, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office dismissed
charges against Benitez, and then in December 2023, the court granted Benitez's certificate of
innocence. Benitez then filed lawsuit against four Chicago police officers, all retired, and the city
of Chicago. He also filed suit against ASA Gale Figer and Cook County. The underlying crime in this case
occurred on April 28, 1989. Cruz and Sanchez were both shot and killed while walking north from their
home located at 1243 North Harding. They were killed around 8.50 p.m. Witnesses on the scene said that
they heard Cookie and Fat Johnny, who is a friend of Benitez's, might have had something to do with the
shooting. Two witnesses said they saw a Hispanic male, 1618, running near the scene with his hand in his
jacket pocket. Neither of these witnesses claimed to have seen the actual shooting, and they did not
actually see any gun, just the hand in the pocket. Those witnesses were shown a photo array, which
included Benitez, and they both identified Benitez. They later identified Benitez in a lineup. Both
witnesses testified at Benitez's trial as to the identification. Benitez at first denied involvement,
but confessed after 15 hours in custody to detectives and then ASA Gale Figer in a written statement.
Benitez stated that he had shot the retaliatory shots towards a group of men. However, when his
criminal case began, Benitez then said that he confessed only because he was promised he could go
home and was worried he'd be beaten if he didn't confess. Benitez claims he had been at his aunt's
house the night of the shooting. His aunt testified to the same. He was nonetheless convicted by the jury.
In 2021, two new witnesses came forward, brothers who were 10 and 12 years old at the time of the
shooting, and they stated they both saw two gang members they knew, not Benitez, shoot the victims.
They did not come forward because their mother told them not to in fear that there would be gang
retaliation. In addition, a former gang crime specialist involved in the investigation stated that
the conviction never sat right with him because he knew Benitez and thought he was a decent kid.
This gang crime specialist created the photo array and put Benitez in as a filler and was surprised
when the witness identified him. An eyewitness identification expert testified that the two
witnesses who did identify Benitez likely misidentified him based on factors of memory and how the photo
array was arranged. In this suit, one of the witnesses who identified Benitez sticks by her
identification. The other claims that he lied and was threatened by officers and prosecutors to
identify Benitez. Overall, given the risk, settling at $18.5 million or $544,000 per year in custody
is fiscally prudent. The county, to our knowledge, has not yet reached a settlement with plaintiff and
may be in talks to settle at this time. If the case does not settle, discovery will resume and a trial
date has been set for January 2027. Thank you very much, Jessica. Any questions for members of the
committee on this case? Seeing no question, is there a motion to approve this item? So moved by, did you move?
Villegas, Alderman Villegas, recommending do pass. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation will report it out at the
next City Council meeting on October 16th. Thank you, Carolyn, and thank you, Jessica.
Moving on, item number three from the City Council is a resolution introduced by Alderman Villegas of the
36th Ward and Alderman Napolitano of the 41st Ward calling on the Illinois General Assembly to enact legislation to
authorize the City of Chicago to re-amortization of the public pension debt as part of a comprehensive
pension refinancing strategy. This item will be re-referred to a Joint Committee of Workforce
Development and the Committee on Finance. Alderman Villegas, is there anything that you want to say
on this matter? No, ma'am. Thank you. Looking forward to the hearing. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there a motion to re-refer item number three? So moved by Alderman Cazada. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it, and the re-referral recommendation will report it out at the City Council meeting. Item number four is a resolution introduced by Alderman Vasquez of the 40th Ward calling for hearings to examine
the City's the City's method for determining the settlement budgets and how the Chicago Police Department is addressing trends to prevent future misconduct. This item will be re-referred to a Joint Committee on Police and Fire.
The City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City's the City
Committee on Finance. Is there a motion to re-refer item number four to a joint committee?
So moved by Alderman Mitts. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed in the opinion
of chair, the ayes have it, and the re-referral will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. Hello, Alderman Cardona. We will count you towards forum. Item number five
is a proposed order authorizing the payment of various small claims to the city of Chicago.
This was a direct introduction, and the list of payments was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, this will be placed on the omnibus. Item number six is a proposed order
denying the payment of various small claims against the city of Chicago, also a direct
introduction. And the list of payments was sent electronically to everyone. If there are no
objections, this too will be placed in the omnibus. There being no further business before the committee,
can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved by Alderman Cardona. All those in favor of the motion signify
by saying aye. Aye. Opposed in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The committee on finance
is adjourned.
is adjourned.