$27M Wrongful Death Settlement: Chicago Police Pursuit Press Conference

[00:00:29.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
Marcy, we ready to go? Good afternoon. My name is Lance Northcutt, N-O-R-T-H-C-U-T-T. I'm a partner with Salvi, Schostok Pritchard in Chicago. I'm joined by my co-counsel. I'd like to have them introduce themselves.

[00:00:45.02] - Eirene N. Salvi
I'm Erin Nakamura Salvi.

[00:00:47.20] - Tara R. Devine
Tara Devine.

[00:00:49.09] - Aaron D. Boeder
Aaron Boeder.

[00:00:53.05] - Lance D. Northcutt
We are here because we are on the precipice of a settlement that, if approved, is going to end the litigation in the matter of Harrell v. City of Chicago and, equally important to the taxpayers of Chicago, stop a huge financial risk that would have occurred if this case were to go to trial. We're going to talk today in a lot of detail about why the settlement now and why the settlement that's being proposed is different from the outcome of a first trial. And I want to say at the outset, and I will say again before we are done, what had happened before in that first trial has no resemblance to the case that is now in front of the city council. None. We've heard chirping from an editorial board and at least one alderman that have reduced this question into sound bites, spoken sound bites, as if this entire case were that simple. Well, why would the City of Chicago and its taxpayers have to pay $27 million for a settlement when there used to be a trial that had a $10 million result. Putting aside the fact that there was an appeal that criticized what was a complete mismanagement of the trial, errors abounding throughout the trial record, forgetting the fact that the evidence that would be heard by the next jury is absolutely nothing like the evidence that was heard by the first jury.

[00:02:34.16] - Lance D. Northcutt
and putting aside the explosive evidence that we found since we became involved in this case, which was after appeal, that changes the game and the risk calculus for the City of Chicago. So when we heard Corporation Counsel in its considered judgment say, "This is in the best interest of the taxpayers," you have no idea how true those words are. So let's go at the beginning. It's the 24th of June, 2017, a pleasant summer night, and a woman named Stacy Horrell is with her 21-year-old daughter, a beautiful young woman named Kimberlyn Myers, who, like a couple other people we know of, was a South Side girl who aspired to be a famous singer. Kimberlyn and her mom were best friends. They were coming from one of Kimberlyn's performances late at night, going down a street on the South Side of Chicago. They had their whole lives ahead of them together. Stacy, 46 years old, husb— wife of her husband Henry. Stacy, mother to 6 children, a mother so dedicated and doting that she literally homeschooled these kids when it was apparent that they couldn't get every advantage they were due in a public school system that was faltering.

[00:04:10.20] - Lance D. Northcutt
3 days from that day, little Kamiyah was about to have her 8th birthday. They were talking about that event. They were talking about all the times ahead. In an instant, it was all blown to smithereens. So why did this happen? How did this happen? Was it the work of a criminal and no one else, as has been suggested by some folks? No, it was yet another predictable outcome in what happens when officers ignore their training, ignore their general orders, and ignore common sense and decide they are going to violate the orders of the Chicago Police Department, go against their training, and gamble with human lives. And what will be put on display in front of a Cook County jury if the settlement does not go through is not only the human carnage that was caused that day, not only the reckless behavior of officers whose misconduct maligns the work of every good, honest, hardworking officer out there. And the city of Chicago is full of police officers who are honest-to-God heroes. But what happened that day was not the work of heroes. It was the work of cowboys. Who decided they were not only going to pursue a vehicle in violation of department policy, they decided they were going to cover it up.

[00:05:44.09] - Lance D. Northcutt
And that cover-up literally began at the moment they decided they were going to chase. So let's start with what was actually seen and heard on that night. We're going to show you ,video that depicts two different perspectives. One is what happened on the scene from the perspective of a dashcam of an officer whose vehicle was behind the pursuing vehicle. That pursuing vehicle was an unmarked vehicle that under then existing general orders never should have been in a police pursuit. You're going to see the beginning of this pursuit. You're going to see them go through a red light. You're going to see them go through stop sign after stop sign after stop sign, then you're going to see what happens as they try and cover it up. What you will not hear is a siren, a siren that would have warned Stacey Harrell, a good and careful driver, that an emergency vehicle was coming, a siren that would have warned Stacey Pull over, get out of the way, make sure you and your daughter are safe. Why no siren? Because they wanted to make sure that nobody knew what they were doing. And so we're going to start with this basic video that shows you through grainy footage a little bit about what they did and said that night.

[00:08:02.06] - Lance D. Northcutt
Stop right there. Did everybody hear that when the officers together went, ooh? That was the impact of the fleeing car hitting Stacy's car. The process of Stacy's death began at the moment you heard these officers say, "Ooh." Watch what they do next. Now, you didn't hear any sirens, but watch what they did with their emergency lights and how they slowed down. Stop right there. Notice how now these officers have their lights off and are just cruising along at normal speed. They know there's been a catastrophic crash because they just saw it happen. But now they're making it look as if they just happened to be in the area, just happened upon an accident. Let's continue. That white car that we see is the fleeing vehicle. That red car that we see is Stacy's vehicle. That's how this all started. Now let's take a look and see what happens in the moments after the impact. Now one would think police officers who are engaged in a pursuit would look at this and realize someone has been critically hurt. Whoever was in that car that the vehicle they were chasing just hit could be alive, dead, or struggling for life, and that person or people need help.

[00:10:09.15] - Lance D. Northcutt
Let's take a look at what the officers were doing to occupy their time as Stacy Harrell was dying. Stop right there. We weren't even chasing him. That is what the chasing officer just said. And if you look inside and you see the jeans of someone, that's Kimberlyn. Kimberlyn Myers, 21 years old, who had just suffered a traumatic brain injury, a broken collarbone, a lacerated liver, as her mother was breathing her last breaths. Kimberlyn had to literally crawl over the body of her dying mother because these officers, rather than try and help her out of the vehicle, were busy making up a false story to cover the fact that they had just engaged in an illicit pursuit. You heard the first installment of that narrative. We weren't even chasing. Let's hear the rest of what they do, and let's watch what the officer who is behind the wheel decides to do with his time as Stacy is crawling over the body of her dying mother. I'm sorry, as Kimberlyn is crawling over the body of her dying mother.

[00:11:59.21] - Unknown
Yeah, we need 2 ambulances, 5-9-1-Sail, Squad 63-Eddie, uh, try to catch up to that car. We weren't chasing it, um, we en route that accident.

[00:12:09.11] - Lance D. Northcutt
Stop right there. We weren't chasing it. We on viewed that accident. I'd like to ask the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune. I'd like to ask any alderman. Would anybody sitting in a jury box who is awake agree with what that officer just said? Let's continue. So, finish on the vehicle getaway.

[00:12:43.14] - Unknown
Uh, we came up afterwards, we saw people fleeing, um, into southbound in the alley.

[00:12:51.01] - Lance D. Northcutt
Let's stop right there. As the officer is on the radio weaving an alibi for himself, slowly putting on his rubber gloves You hear a scream in the background. That scream is Kimberlyn, right next to and on top of her dying mother. Let's continue.

[00:13:19.19] - Unknown
I think my partner's got one female detained, and I think, uh, there was one male with, uh, dreads, uh, on foot.

[00:13:30.10] - Lance D. Northcutt
Those are the screams that a jury is going to hear. Those are the words, are the words of the officer that a jury would hear. And you're about to see the face of Kimberlyn and what she went through as her mother was dying. Are you okay?

[00:14:08.02] - Unknown
Hey, can you try to— can you try to get out on the other side? They're going to try to open you. Hold on, hold on. They're going to try to get you out on the other side. Hold on. Wait, no, no, you're going to cut yourself.

[00:14:22.09] - Unknown
You're going to cut yourself. Hold on, hold on.

[00:14:23.16] - Unknown
Get back in there. Get back in there. I got to get out.

[00:14:27.05] - Unknown
I got to get out.

[00:14:36.02] - Lance D. Northcutt
That's what they did. Right after they had alibied themselves, they let her fall. Like a sack of potatoes straight onto the ground. Inside that car, Stacey Harrell was literally dying. And that's how it ended for Stacey. But what happened after that, the insult added to injury and death only compounded this tragedy. I said before, and I will say again many times before we leave here today, what happened in the first trial has no resemblance to what is coming next if this settlement doesn't go through. Because when we took over, when Salvi, Schostak, & Pritchard assumed control of this litigation from the prior attorneys, we, underwent an extensive investigation, including a forensic review of every piece of evidence— electronic, forensic, and otherwise— to determine what really happened, who knew what, and who did what. So what did we find? What did we find that was never disclosed, never part of the first trial? 5 to 11 officers, 2 sergeants identified. No activation of body-worn cameras, which, as a jury would hear, is not only a violation of policy, it's a violation of the law. If you intentionally deactivate your body-worn cameras in an effort to conceal evidence, it can rise to the level where a police officer is decertified or sometimes even charged with a crime.

[00:16:29.10] - Lance D. Northcutt
5 to 11 officers, 2 sergeants. 20 officers on the scene who turned off or left off their body-worn cameras. 2 officers on the scene who were involved in what would have been the immediate aftermath on the scene when statements were being made, and of course not recorded because they were being concealed. 2 of these officers, our investigation revealed, were part of the Sergeant Ronald Watts crew. Both of these officers, a few months after this happened, were put on a list of officers who were literally unable to testify in criminal cases because the Cook County State's Attorney's Office had made a determination that their testimony was so lacking in credibility, that their affiliation with a convicted felon was so tight that they could not even put them on a witness stand. We found that out well after the appeal. We found out that a supervising lieutenant actually told the pursuing officers to turn off their body cams. Our forensic review found instances where you had officers whispering to make sure the body cameras were turned off. In one video that we were able to uncover, we hear a police officer say, "That's why you don't chase." And then that officer wrote a report.

[00:18:17.23] - Lance D. Northcutt
You know what he didn't talk about in the report? The fact that there was a pursuit. The cover-up was wide. The cover-up was systemic. The cover-up was not part of the first trial, but will be in the second. Make no mistake about it. And what that means in a new trial before an entirely new judge, who is the presiding judge of the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, one of the most experienced jurists in the state who has presided over other police pursuit cases against the City of Chicago— what that means is with one stroke of the pen, a judge has the authority to literally sanction the city to the point where all of this misconduct in hiding evidence would strip it of its trial defenses. Let me state that in another way, in case the aldermen want to listen to this part. We could conceivably be in a trial where the city of Chicago would not be able to defend on liability based on this misconduct. And if that is the case, the only thing a jury would consider is the horror show visited on the Harrell family and the damages they have sustained as a result of this senseless, preventable, tragic death.

[00:19:47.05] - Lance D. Northcutt
And so what do we talk about when we hear those lawyer words, damages? What are damages in a wrongful death case? Is it just a bunch of numbers in an editorial? Is it just something that we talk about as one event? Sad day. No. When we talk about wrongful death, it is quantified along the timeline of people's lives. And here we have one husband, six children, a child who was 5 years old at the time mom died, a child who was 7 looking forward to mom's homemade birthday cake 3 days later when she turned 8. Children that she had homeschooled, children that she had been there for at every Christmas, every birthday, every special event, every singing performance. Stacy was ripped out of that family, and each and every one of those human beings have their own story. And so we speak to juries about the quantum of loss. And how that loss is measured, not over the course of a single day, but over the course of a lifetime. A 5-year-old who still has nightmares, who has to go through the rest of his life, the rest of his tender years, with that pit in his stomach when he meets somebody new for the first time, a friend.

[00:21:14.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
Hey, tell me about your family. Is your mom going to come to this? That's the life sentence that that 5-year-old got, that that 8-year-old got, that that 21-year-old got, that the older siblings got. The love, support, companionship, guidance was stolen from them. That's how we will talk to juries. Now, the City of Chicago has shown a willingness in the past to gamble. To say, you know what, we don't like paying these judgments, we don't like paying settlements. And who can blame them? But there are no good options here for the city. There are none. And we have shown this firm time and again what happens when the city council decides they want to gamble with taxpayer dollars. Case in point, the Nathan Jones case. I, along with some of the attorneys joined with me today, were on that case. We prosecuted that case, and the city squandered the opportunity to settle until we were at the point where literally there was a jury outside the door, and the result was a payout of $45 million plus. And then the biggest example of how financial mismanagement and gambles by the City Council of Chicago can put the taxpayers on the hook was the case of Spicer versus the City of Chicago.

[00:22:49.00] - Lance D. Northcutt
I was one of the lead attorneys in that case. I prosecuted that case. I put on that evidence, evidence where we had two parents and one sibling, two parents and one sibling. As opposed to one surviving spouse and six children. And in that case, the city waited and waited and waited, and they bet that a Cook County jury was somehow going to make sense of this in the city's favor and put it in the sound bites that they like to speak in. And so even after millions of dollars were offered too little too late, That case went to trial and went to verdict, and the result was a national record in police pursuit cases, just shy of $80 million. The insurance companies for the city are on the hook too, because the city's insurance only goes so high. So beyond that point, or if one of the city's layers of insurance coverage has already been exhausted, it's the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. And so what is not covered by insurance, if this case were to go to trial, is now going to be the taxpayer's problem. A problem that could have been avoided had the aldermen of this city done the responsible thing, even if it's right before an election.

[00:24:15.24] - Lance D. Northcutt
And so how does that play? Well, Our firm had an example of this less than 2 weeks ago. An insurance company that said, "We're not going to settle in good faith. We're going to take our chances at trial. Here's $4.5 million. Take it or leave it." We returned a verdict just shy of $1/4 billion. So if an alderman wants to step up and say that the problem is out-of-control attorneys and not out-of-control conduct on the streets of Chicago that's killing people, we will engage. Tomorrow there's going to be a vote. That vote, make no mistake about it, is going to be whether the city is prepared to cut its losses in the face of new and explosive evidence and an entirely different trial that doesn't have any resemblance to the first, or whether they want to gamble. And if they decide they want to gamble, if individual aldermen want to step up and say, no, we don't want to do this, and besides, there's an election next week, take their names down. Remember their names at the ballot box. If the city of Chicago and its taxpayers once again get stuck with a runaway verdict that is supported by the law and evidence because the amount of loss is so profound.

[00:25:49.16] - Lance D. Northcutt
This case, if it goes to jury, we believe will be far in excess of a $100 million verdict. The evidence that the jury didn't hear in the first trial will be presented now.— and the litigation risks that the city faces are enormous. They could literally be in a position where they are defenseless and just have to say, all of this harm isn't so bad, let's come up with a lower number. That's the city's position. You've seen the conduct, you've seen the face of Kimberlyn Myers. You're about to meet Kimberlyn Myers. We're going to have her come in and say a few words. She will not take any questions, obviously, given the sensitivities. But rather than me talk, I would like to have her speak to what happened that day forward and the loss that she has sustained, the loss her family has sustained.

[00:27:33.16] - Lance D. Northcutt
Kimberly, these folks have heard what happened to your mom.

[00:27:40.23] - Kimberlyn Myers
Yes.

[00:27:41.06] - Lance D. Northcutt
If you could tell us in your own words. What has happened since that day.

[00:27:51.05] - Kimberlyn Myers
Well, I lost my mom on June 24th, 2017. My mom left behind 6 kids and a husband. To you guys, that may seem like a regular day, but to us, that day changed our life completely. Not only was our mom taken away, you guys also lost 7 other lives because part of us was gone that same day. Every day that goes by doesn't seem like a regular day for us. It's been 8 and a half years since our mom's been gone. To you guys, that's numbers, but to us, that's lost memories that we could have. You guys, not only did you lose a mother, you lost a role model, a mentor. And to speak in you guys' language, my mom was a law-abiding citizen. She did everything that she could. My mom was a giver. My mom would do anything for anyone. And I wouldn't wish this on anyone. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I feel as if the way that the city of Chicago conducted that stop, it could have been prevented. My mom would have been here if you guys would have done it correctly. If you, but you guys did it your own way.

[00:28:57.07] - Kimberlyn Myers
You did it your own way. And now here it is. We have to suffer. Like I said, every day is not easy. It's not easy. We deal with night terrors. We deal with so much. There's so many memories that we wish our mom was here for. I have 2 kids. I went through my pregnancy alone without having my mom there. She would have been here if you guys would have just made one thing, did one thing different during that stop. She would have been here. If you guys would have just turned on your sirens or something, she would have been here. But you guys did it. You guys did it. And now we have to suffer. And there's nothing we can do about it but just sit here and just look at each other. Just look at each other every day and just remember our moms through one another. It is hard. It is hard.

[00:30:08.03] - Lance D. Northcutt
What you just heard is an exceedingly small sample of what a jury will hear. In the first trial, Kimberlyn was the only one of Stacy's children call as a witness. If there is a next trial, every single child, all 6 of them, will take the witness stand. Every single child will outline their own journey of pain and grief. Every single child will talk about their own experience of going through life without a mom. A jury will be told they have to consider each and every loss separately. And they will have to return a verdict that is presumed under the law to be substantial, literally in the jury verdict forms. And that's just the beginning. And so for the aldermen that say, well, we should blame the bad guy. Let me spoil the ending. The bad guy isn't going to be part of this trial. The bad guy got away. The bad guy had plenty of time to get away because the officers were slowing down as they approached that intersection, because the officers turned off their lights approaching that intersection, because the officers knew that somebody that had no part of this, that was just an innocent party, was injured or dead, and they had to distance themselves away from it.

[00:31:48.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
So if the city of Chicago wants to take the gamble that nothing was done wrong by anybody that day other than the bad guy that they let get away, we will take that on in front of a jury, because the law in Illinois says it is not the cause So when Aldermen talk about it is the fault, they are speaking from a position of ignorance because that's not what happens in a trial. The only question will be is, was the officer's conduct a cause? Not the only cause, not even the primary cause, but a cause. And if the answer, which is obvious, is yes,, then the city, for having had the recklessness to go to court and challenge this family and gamble with the taxpayers' money, will be on the hook for everything that happens afterwards. I'll take some questions. How—

[00:32:50.21] - Audience
this is really unusual to me. I mean, I can't think of a case where a defendant wins an appeal to have a new trial. And then in the course of that timeframe, it back—

[00:33:04.06] - Lance D. Northcutt
it's a real big backfire. It's a huge backfire. And let's be clear, the Corporation Counsel, the City of Chicago, is not there to dole out money to the plaintiffs' bar. We have to fight tooth and nail on every single case. That is their custom and practice. They don't just say, here you go. And they fought tooth and nail on this. And back when the evidence was limited, back before we knew all of this information, back before the law firm of Selby Shousek and Pritchard got involved, maybe it seemed like, oh, maybe we can do better on appeal because the first trial was a shambles. And if you read the appellate opinion, the appellate court was not in any way oblique about their criticism. And that criticism wasn't just about what happened that inured to the detriment of the city of Chicago. It was the other way as well. There were multiple trial errors. There were multiple problems with the case. And the case that was put in front of that jury is not the same case. Another point that I want to raise, apart from the fact that we have all of these kids that are going to testify, all of this new evidence, There was no medical testimony that was presented in the first trial.

[00:34:24.11] - Lance D. Northcutt
Here we've got a situation where all of Stacy's injuries, the only thing the jury heard about them was her own description of pain. In this trial, we will be calling a trauma orthopedist who is the team doctor for the Chicago Blackhawks. Who is going to explain in vivid detail the nature and scope of these injuries, lifelong pain. We're going to have the person who was then the chief neurologist at Stroger Hospital to talk about her traumatic brain injury, to talk about everything that happened. The first jury didn't hear any of this.

[00:35:04.13] - Audience
Was that the judge's decision, or was that the, the attorneys handling it originally?

[00:35:10.01] - Lance D. Northcutt
It was a combination of both. And, and I, I want to be clear here, our goal is not to criticize either the prior attorneys or the first judge. The record is what the record was, and the appellate court spoke and set a new trial. And so what that means now is the city is locked into certain evidence. The city has no medical experts. Let me repeat that. We are going to be able to put on a trial with two nationally renowned doctors, and the city has nothing to rebut it. We have a police expert that has already been deemed an expert by the court who will testify. The city has no police expert. They can have the same guys who were making these statements on video get up and try and explain that what a jury can see with their own eyes isn't really reality. Alternative facts. That's what the city has. And so it's night and day. And, and I, and I understand on a superficial level how someone could look at this and go, wait, $10 million, it was appealed, now it's $27 million. Well, you have to look at the evidence. You have to look at the record.

[00:36:28.03] - Lance D. Northcutt
You can't just speak in sound bites and reach an intelligent conclusion. And whether the city council has done that, whether they've done their homework or they just top-sheeted it and said, oh, $10 million here, we can't pay $27 million here, they do that at their own risk.

[00:36:47.06] - Audience
You mentioned Ronald Watts. Were you just citing that as an example, or there was some connection with what you asked?

[00:36:53.07] - Lance D. Northcutt
Oh no, no, no, no. Two of the officers on the scene were in the Watts Gang. They were defendants in dozens and dozens of federal civil rights lawsuits. Their credibility was so shattered that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office made the determination that they would rather sacrifice a criminal prosecution than have the risk of suborning perjury by putting those officers on the stand.

[00:37:24.01] - Audience
So in this next trial, if it were to happen, you would be calling these officers to the stand and they would not be able to testify?

[00:37:32.24] - Lance D. Northcutt
Well, it's not a criminal case. So a big part of this is going to be what this trial will look like. If the judge presiding over a second trial sanctions the city, there may be no evidence on liability. I hope the city council understands that because we had the same dynamic in Spicer where body camera evidence was destroyed and they got sanctioned. And if they are sanctioned now, the only evidence that is going to be presented will be damages evidence, the harm, the quantum of loss. And so if we are in a situation where there is any evidence about things that happen post-occurrence or if there is going to be a question about the credibility of officers or statements that were lost in those valuable minutes and hours immediately after this happened, that could come in.

[00:38:26.17] - Audience
Do you believe in a new trial, if it is not just a damages trial, you will be able— you believe you will be able to tell a jury that these officers cannot testify in regular criminal cases because they were connected to Ronald Watts?

[00:38:42.06] - Lance D. Northcutt
That will be up to the judge to decide. That is something that we are absolutely going to put front and center and litigate.

[00:38:50.08] - Audience
And the two officers, just to unpack that, were they— either of the two officers you're talking about related to Watts? Were either of them in the vehicle?

[00:38:59.04] - Lance D. Northcutt
No, these, these were officers that were on the scene, and it's critical to have some context here. When you have an event like this, any major event, evidence is being gathered by the second. Okay? We heard some of that on the video that you did have a chance to see. But what happens immediately when you have got multiple police units, supervisors, accident investigators, um, sometimes, uh, internal affairs people, all of these folks converge. And everyone's talking. And the most important statements are going to come from the officers involved, certainly, but also officers in the area who saw things, who heard things. And if there is an agreement, a tacit agreement, that everyone's going to shut off their body cameras, that no one's going to say anything, and that if someone is about to open their mouth, shh, you turn it off. That's where the cover-up comes, and that's what courts look at when they decide, is this so bad, is this so systemic that we should not even let the question of liability go to the jury?

[00:40:12.03] - Audience
One last thing I just want to know, uh, did they ever catch the guy, the per— did they ever catch the suspects? And did she die? Was she pronounced dead at the scene?

[00:40:23.16] - Lance D. Northcutt
Technically, she was pronounced dead at the hospital. Uh, we believe that she perished at the scene. They never caught the driver. And you, you saw these officers slowing down. It's not like they were speeding to help Stacy and Kimberlyn. You saw them go right past Stacy and Kimberlyn. They kind of pulled into the alley. They were going kind of slow. And the driver of that car, he got the head start, scot-free.

[00:40:49.23] - Audience
Was the officer putting the gloves on, was that officer— one of the drivers of the car that was trailing the car?

[00:40:56.03] - Lance D. Northcutt
That was the primary officer driving the car.

[00:40:59.19] - Audience
The unmarked car.

[00:41:00.23] - Lance D. Northcutt
The unmarked car. Oh, the unmarked car. Who was immediately behind the fleeing vehicle. That was the one who claimed we didn't even chase. Any other questions?

[00:41:14.06] - Audience
And to what extent, I'm sorry, was the cover-up brought up in the morning? No, problem.

[00:41:18.24] - Lance D. Northcutt
Not at all. The, the, you've gotta understand that there's a mosaic here. There's a context. And all of this information is information that the first jury never heard. This is also something that the first judge didn't consider. We had this in the Spicer case where there are multiple instances of misconduct of turning off body camera evidence, concealing evidence. And the judge in that case issued a sanction. In the law, the Illinois Supreme Court rules empower trial courts when the conduct is so egregious to not just say, okay, well, we'll put it in front of the jury and see what they think. They can literally take the issue or defense away from the jury. That is what we will ask for if this case ends up in a courtroom again.

[00:42:09.07] - Audience
You said one thing that I also want to follow up on. This was a moment, this was in June of 2017.

[00:42:15.18] - Audience
Body cameras were just starting to be rolled out.

[00:42:17.23] - Audience
I think that year, the next year, um, 20 officers on the scenes either didn't turn on their cameras or, or didn't have them on. Are you saying that, did they all have a body-worn camera on or did some just not have them on?

[00:42:30.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
There were some officers on the scene. We're referring to a huge number, we believe in excess of 20. That literally had them and either turned them off or never activated them in violation of the policy. That policy existed in 2017. The law existed in 2017.

[00:42:45.09] - Lance D. Northcutt
So they—even though it was newer than it is today, um, that was an established policy at the time this occurred.

[00:42:53.21] - Audience
So what we saw is before the shutoff, allegedly?

[00:42:58.08] - Lance D. Northcutt
Well, there were multiple shutoffs by officers on the scene. Who converged on the scene, who either didn't turn on their body-worn cameras or turn them off after they had been activated. We also saw multiple officers who waited to turn on their body-worn cameras. And, and the timing here is critical because if you're there and you have an opportunity to capture witness statements, and by witness statements, we're referring to officers who were either directly involved in the pursuit or who saw part of the pursuit, or who may have seen any of the offenders. And when you stop that evidence from being collected, that's a violation.

[00:43:36.03] - Audience
Did the original jury— did the jury see that video that you showed us?

[00:43:40.03] - Lance D. Northcutt
I don't know that they saw it in its entirety. There was, uh, some dispute as to what evidence was or was not shown, and the appellate record is silent on that. What I do know is what was argued and what was presented to the jury is not that. Just the small sampling of what I gave you here today is not something that was properly framed in front of the jury. It will be now if we get to that point.

[00:44:06.07] - Audience
I know the family probably wants to put this behind them immediately, but why not try it again?

[00:44:12.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
The question of why not try it again, Dave, is one that was answered over agonizing days and weeks. The Harrell family, in hiring us, did not hire us to settle anything. We are not retained in cases like this where we come in after appeal, where we're taking over for another firm because we're looking to just see if we can strike a deal. We were retained in this case to do what we did in Spicer and then some. And that was the plan all along. In this very question, well, how could there be a settlement for 27 when there was a verdict to 10? We believed that just based on those optics that we would be trying this case, and that's what the Harrell family wanted. They wanted justice. They had been pushed around. They had been screwed over by the city, and they wanted their day in court. The city approached us after it was clear that this collection of new evidence was on their doorstep and about to be heard by a jury. The Harrell family had no obligation to accept this settlement. They struggled with it. The most learned judge in the trial division, who literally presides over the entire law division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, looked at this case looked at his facts and said, this is a very reasonable settlement, and told the city in no uncertain terms, you're lucky. And yet here we are, and we've got some aldermen that are thinking, well, maybe we should take our chances some more.

[00:45:55.15] - Audience
So you already have an agreement with the city to settle this case for $27 million?

[00:46:00.05] - Lance D. Northcutt
This, this, this agreement has been set. It is a settled matter subject to City Council approval. The case has been dismissed. The, the terms have been settled. A probate court has approved distributions. The law division has said that this is a reasonable settlement. The judge who would literally be our trial judge has already spoken on this. So what happens— and it has to happen because City of Chicago has got a legislative body that controls the money— is if there is a no vote either by the Finance Committee or the full City Council, everything blows up and we go right back to the trial court. We start getting rulings. We pursue our motion for sanctions against the city. We go forward with all of our evidence, and the city is stuck without an expert, without a medical doctor, without a police procedures expert. And instead of having one child testify, they have six. No, we will be good to our word if the city does what they are supposed to do. Understand something: the Corporation Counsel in this case, if there was ever a gold medal for eliminating the city's downside, they should get it because the loss here is staggering. The verdict potential is staggering. In the fact that they were able to, when we were literally on the precipice of trial, we were in the process of presenting motions and getting ready to pick a jury, and they were able to sit us down and get the family in a room with the assistance of a learned judge and settle this case. That was a gift. Nobody wants to pay a $27 million settlement. Let me explain this. No one wants to lose a mom. So if anyone wants to engage on the value of human life versus the cost to taxpayers when this thing keeps happening again and again and again without any meaningful change near as we can see.

[00:48:15.07] - Audience
Why talk about this now? Because there are many settlements, and it's usually the reverse, to not say anything until it's voted on in city council. Why talk about this now? I could see, just to play devil's advocate, someone saying that you are trying it in public, and you've already begun the trial. Trying to influence aldermen to take action?

[00:48:46.20] - Lance D. Northcutt
What I'm trying to do is use our voice to put context around the trial that's already started in the public sphere. Our policy when we have a settlement, particularly with the City of Chicago, is to say nothing until that settlement is finalized. I'll explain. This is different because there has been an effort by at least one member of the City Council and one editorial board to mischaracterize the nature of this, to simplify it into sound bites, and to confuse the issue to the point where the taxpayers of the City of Chicago could be duped. Because if you just want to look at the sound bites, they would have every right to be duped. If it was as simple as some of these people are saying it is, I could see a reasonable person in a taxpayer's shoes saying, you know what, that doesn't make a lot of sense. But it's not that simple. And so to the extent that others have chosen to engage, to the extent that others have questioned our motives or the motives of the Harrell family, we had to speak out today. I don't like being here. I know the folks that have worked very hard at minimizing the city's exposure don't like this being voiced in the public sphere, and that would not have been our first course, but events have overtaken themselves. People have spoken, a media outlet has spoken and raised questions in the public sphere that those aldermen are going to read. We're less than a week out before an election. You think that's not a calculus? You think that these aldermen are not thinking about, boy, I don't want to go down in a, in a controversial vote. We've got it. We got an election next week. Well, pick your side, because there's an election happening all the time. And if they decide that the politically expedient thing in putting taxpayers' dollars at risk is better optics for them now, we'll talk again.

[00:51:04.21] - Lance D. Northcutt
Thank you.

[00:51:05.12] - Audience
Thanks.