Missing Cops from Cook Co Brady List Raise Concerns About Cover-up of Police Making False Statements

Over 100 Chicago police officers with sustained misconduct allegations excluded from prosecutor’s disclosure lists

Photo byScreen Capture/Youtube Video [Creator]

COOK COUNTY - Chicago police officers are prohibited from making false or misleading statements under department policy, yet over 100 officers who have been found to violate this standard remain missing from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Brady list. These lists are critical for prosecutors, as they ensure that exculpatory evidence and any potential witness credibility issues are disclosed to defense attorneys, in line with legal obligations under U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

A recent investigation has revealed that many officers, including those involved in serious incidents of misconduct, continue to escape inclusion on these lists. Notably, a number of Chicago police officers found to have made false statements—deemed violations of Rule 14 by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA)—are still missing from the Cook County State’s Attorney Office’s (SAO) Brady lists. The missing names include officers implicated in the violent 2020 arrest of Leroy Kennedy IV, an incident that sparked an internal investigation, leading to sustained findings of misconduct against the officers involved.

The 2020 Kennedy Arrest and COPA Investigation

In August 2020, Chicago police officers Jonathan Ridgner and Nicholas Abramson were patrolling in Humboldt Park when they encountered 26-year-old Leroy Kennedy IV sitting outside a store with friends. According to the arrest report authored by Ridgner, Kennedy's reaction to the police presence—stiffening his body and enlarging his eyes—led the officers to suspect he was carrying a weapon.

Ridgner pursued Kennedy on foot, claiming that Kennedy resisted and struck the officer multiple times. In response, Ridgner conducted what he described as an “emergency takedown,” grabbing Kennedy by the collar and throwing him to the ground. A subsequent search of Kennedy revealed only credit cards and a cell phone, and no weapon was found.

The official reports from Ridgner and his partner were later signed off by supervisors, Sergeant Nicholas Urban and Lieutenant Kevin Keefe, who observed no issues with the officers’ conduct after reviewing body camera footage. However, a subsequent investigation by COPA, which released its findings in August 2022, painted a different picture.

Findings of Misconduct and COPA’s Recommendations

COPA investigators found numerous discrepancies in the officers’ account of events. The civilian oversight agency concluded that Kennedy had been wrongfully stopped, that Ridgner used excessive force during the arrest, and that both officers made misleading statements in their reports. Instead of grabbing Kennedy by the collar, as Ridgner had claimed, he had grabbed Kennedy by the throat before slamming him to the ground, causing injuries.

COPA also criticized the officers for fabricating a justification for their actions and for mocking the situation afterward in their vehicle. Based on these findings, COPA recommended that Ridgner, Abramson, Urban, and Keefe be fired from the Chicago Police Department (CPD) for violating Rule 14.

Despite COPA’s recommendations, Interim Police Superintendent Fred Waller only supported the firing of Ridgner and Abramson. He declined to pursue the same course for Urban and Keefe. In August 2023, the Chicago Police Board, which reviews disciplinary actions when there is a disagreement between COPA and the police superintendent, sided with COPA’s chief administrator and voted to terminate all four officers.

Discrepancies in Brady Lists

Although Ridgner and Abramson faced disciplinary actions and their misconduct was highlighted by COPA, only Abramson was placed on the SAO’s “do not call” list—a list of officers deemed too unreliable to testify in court due to credibility concerns. Neither Ridgner nor his supervisors, Urban and Keefe, appear on the list, despite COPA’s findings of false and misleading statements by all involved.

According to an investigation by the Invisible Institute and the Chicago Reader, Ridgner, Urban, and Keefe are among 120 current and former Chicago police officers with sustained Rule 14 violations who remain missing from the State’s Attorney’s Brady lists.

These lists, named after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases Brady v. Maryland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), obligate prosecutors to disclose any evidence that could undermine a case, including evidence questioning the credibility of law enforcement witnesses. The Cook County State’s Attorney maintains two lists: a stringent “do not call” list, barring officers from testifying in any case, and a broader “disclosure” list for officers whose credibility issues must be shared with defense attorneys.

The omission of these officers from the lists has sparked concerns among legal experts and civil rights advocates about the completeness and effectiveness of the lists, which are critical to ensuring a fair justice system.

Broader Implications for Police Accountability

The missing names have raised questions about the transparency of police disciplinary processes and the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms in ensuring that misconduct is fully accounted for. The investigation revealed that while the SAO has compiled lists of officers with credibility issues, including those involved in lying or making misleading statements, nearly half of the officers with sustained Rule 14 violations are absent from these lists.

According to data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, more than 75 officers missing from the lists are no longer active duty. Some have resigned or retired while under investigation, while others have unsuccessfully appealed their dismissals. However, at least 15 officers with sustained violations were still on active duty with the CPD as of May 2023.

Among the officers missing from the SAO’s lists is former Chicago police officer Nicosia Mathews, who resigned following a sustained Rule 14 violation and now works as a police officer in Riverdale, a suburb of Chicago. The fact that such officers can continue to work in law enforcement, despite serious credibility concerns, highlights gaps in oversight and accountability.

Calls for Reform and Transparency

The findings of the investigation have led to renewed calls for reform of the Brady list system and greater transparency in police disciplinary processes. Legal experts, including Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, argue that the lists should include any sustained complaints or criminal charges, even those that do not lead to criminal convictions.

Moran, who has written extensively about Brady lists, contends that limiting the lists to only sustained cases fails to capture the full extent of police misconduct. She has called for an expansive approach that tracks misconduct even in cases where officers have retired or been dismissed.

“It is crucial that any misconduct that could undermine an arrest or criminal case be included on these lists,” Moran said in a 2016 law review article. She emphasized the importance of including both major violations, such as constitutional rights violations, and minor offenses, such as traffic violations, that could affect an officer’s credibility.

Civil rights attorney Flint Taylor, who has been involved in police misconduct litigation for decades, echoed these concerns. He pointed to the persistent “code of silence” within the CPD, which was acknowledged by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into police practices. Taylor argued that the failure to include all officers with sustained Rule 14 violations on the Brady lists represents a significant shortfall in the accountability process.

Systemic Issues with Recordkeeping and Information Sharing

The omission of officers from the SAO’s lists may stem from systemic issues with recordkeeping and information sharing between the CPD and the prosecutor’s office. A May 2023 audit by the Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified significant problems with the CPD’s handling of Rule 14 violations and its communication with the SAO regarding officers with sustained misconduct findings.

The OIG warned that the failure to properly track and share information about officers with credibility issues could have serious consequences, including wrongful convictions and legal liabilities in civil suits. In response, the CPD committed to creating a process for notifying prosecutors when an officer has a sustained Rule 14 violation. However, there is little evidence that such a process has been implemented.

Emails obtained through FOIA requests show that the SAO has repeatedly requested information from the CPD about officers with sustained Rule 14 violations, but the police department has been slow to respond. In one instance, an SAO official sent multiple follow-up emails to the CPD’s legal counsel seeking confirmation of a list of officers with sustained violations. Months later, no response had been received.

COPA, which also tracks Rule 14 violations, has stated that it regularly provides information to the SAO upon request. Despite this, there appears to be a lack of coordination between the two agencies in ensuring that all relevant officers are included on the Brady lists.

Future of Brady List Reforms in Cook County

As Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx prepares to leave office in December, her successor will inherit the challenge of addressing the gaps in the Brady list system. Eileen O’Neill Burke, who is expected to take over the office after winning the Democratic primary, will likely face pressure to ensure that all officers with sustained misconduct allegations are accounted for.

Foxx, who publicly released her office’s “do not call” list for the first time in 2023, has emphasized the importance of transparency in the justice system. In a previous interview, she stated that any sustained Rule 14 violation or criminal charge against a police officer warrants disclosure under her reading of the law.