Meet the Chicago DEI judge who let 15 time felon go free — who later set woman on fire.

quote:

---

The saga of Lawrence Reed, the 50-year-old accused of pouring gasoline over a young woman on a CTA Blue Line train and setting her on fire, represents a nightmare for advocates of criminal justice reform and more specifically the SAFE-T Act.

The Illinois statute, first enacted in 2021, famously eliminated the use of cash bail for those accused of crimes, violent or otherwise, and awaiting trial. In its place, the law established a system where prosecutors would be tasked with asking judges to detain defendants deemed a flight risk or a threat to public safety. Judges would have the final say on whether to imprison them as they awaited their day in court.

Before he allegedly attacked the 26-year-old woman, Reed, with more than 70 past arrests and a history of mental illness, had been accused of another violent crime — aggravated battery — and had been released in August over the objections of a Cook County prosecutor by Cook County Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez. At the time, the judge said, “I can’t keep everybody in jail because the state’s attorney wants me to.”
Those are likely to be words Molina-Gonzalez very much regrets when she next faces voters.

But what happened after Molina-Gonzalez made her fateful decision is what’s most on our minds right now. Thanks to strong and thorough reporting by crime news site CWB, we have a comprehensive look at just how badly our system failed the woman who reportedly remains in critical condition as we write.

Just before the attack took place the night of Monday, Nov. 17, Reed had been out of his home in violation of his curfew for much of the immediately preceding weekend, according to a court filing by pretrial personnel in the office of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans. (The chief judge’s office now has sole authority over the county’s electronic-monitoring program, under which those subject to pretrial home confinement rather than imprisonment are tracked.)

Reed wasn’t where he was supposed to be beginning 6:31 p.m. Friday, Nov. 14, until 6:21 a.m. the next morning, according to the CWB report.
Two days later, on the day of the attack, Reed was away from home in violation of his release conditions for virtually the entire day. Evans’ office reported receiving the first notice of Reed’s violation at 9:13 that morning. It got an “escalated alert” three hours later, at 12:13 p.m., and another “escalated alert” 12 hours later, at 12:13 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 18. That second escalated alert occurred about three hours after the woman was set on fire.

Reed was on pretrial release after having been accused of hitting without prior provocation a female attendant at a mental health facility so hard in the face that she lost consciousness. In other words, he is not the sort of criminal defendant who should be roaming Chicago streets at all hours.
CWB asked the chief judge’s office what their normal protocol is in a situation like Reed’s. The answer was disturbing, to say the least. Effectively, when there are curfew violations, the assigned officer will prepare a report with the details and share it with the assistant state’s attorney and defense attorneys on the case. At the defendant’s next court date, the judge will be notified of violations.

What about cases involving “escalated” alerts? Same answer.
That’s it. No request to Chicago police or the sheriff’s office to find the violator and ensure they’re where they’re supposed to be. No apparent physical intervention of any kind to ensure compliance.

When Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s office ran the part of the county’s electronic-monitoring program applied to those charged with the most violent and other serious offenses — a responsibility Dart handed over to the chief judge’s office earlier this year — sheriff’s officers often would intervene. They would call those who weren’t in their designated locations or would go out to locate the individuals. Unlike the sheriff, the chief judge’s office doesn’t have sworn officers at its disposal, but Dart at the time of the handover said his office would be available to help at the request of the chief judge’s office in cases where defendants abscond. The sheriff’s office tells us it’s unaware of any such ask since the chief judge took over the program, and in no event did it happen in the Reed case.

Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke said at the time of the change that she didn’t believe the chief judge’s office was prepared to run the program safely. The case of Lawrence Reed sure makes it look like she was right.

We believe the public at large is generally unaware that there’s now effectively no timely enforcement for those who violate or ignore conditions of release under the EM program. Given that EM has become the main alternative to incarceration under the SAFE-T Act when judges opt not to detain those accused of serious crimes, the currently lax state of EM enforcement obviously is a serious threat to public safety.

Evans, a fierce proponent of criminal justice reform and the SAFE-T Act over his 24 years as chief judge, will be chief judge only until the end of the month, having been defeated in September in his bid for reelection by Cook County Judge Charles Beach.

At the top of Beach’s list of priorities when he takes office on Dec. 1 must be an overhaul of the EM program to ensure that dangerous people who violate their terms of release face timely repercussions.
The Nov. 17 horror on that Blue Line train was preventable.

---