Reposted by Shannon Craig Straw
UPDATE: The decision by Judge April Perry to open an inquiry into “Broadview Six” wrongdoing puts Chicago’s U.S. attorney’s office in largely uncharted waters and adds fuel to a scandal that erupted four months ago
Where will it end?
Ask your Magic 8-Ball
www.chicagotribune.com/2026/10/01/b...
chicagotribune.com
Judge to begin inquiry that could lead to criminal contempt charges in ‘Broadview Six’ case
A federal judge on Thursday said she’d initiate a “fact finding” process to determine whether potential criminal contempt charges are warranted against prosecutors in the “Broadview Six” case.
![That is because OPR—not the United States Attorney or the U.S. Attorney’s
Office (which might in the ordinary course be perceived as partial)—is the longstanding
independent entity in charge of investigating “allegations of misconduct” involving Department
attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 45.12; Justice Manual §§ 1-4.200, et. seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 0.39(c)(c) (heads of
offices “shall provide information and assistance” to OPR in connection with its inquiries). If OPR
determines that there was actionable misconduct after conducting its investigation, OPR will make
a professional misconduct finding that triggers various effects. See, e.g.,
https://www.justice.gov/opr/professional-misconduct (discussion of OPR role and authority); see
also https://www.justice.gov/opr/investigative-summaries (summary of OPR investigations and
referrals). In that way, an independent investigator is already reviewing the actions of Department attorneys in this matter, irrespective of any decision this Court makes on former Defendants’
motions. That ongoing investigation is an effective and time-tested means of “deter[ring]” any
conduct this Court deems objectionable. Hasting, 461 U.S. at 506 & n. 5.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreigo7hcn4bc5hcq4v7xzpgete3tnmhlcceeudo5kri3wqr6csdso64)
![were done specifically as it relates to the redactions, were done intentionally or with a desire to mislead the Court.6
5-21-26 Tr. at 50:23-51:2 (emphasis added).
Perhaps the most troubling statement by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding is the message
he sent to all employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, literally within just a few hours of leaving the courtroom where this Court made clear its severe displeasure with the misconduct that occurred in this matter, and Mr. Boutros was forced to dismisss this case with prejudice. Rather than being chastened by all that had been exposed to date, immediately thereafter the U.S. Attorney wrote an office-wide email to publicly commend the conduct and actions of the AUSAs at the center of this self-created storm:
[T]oday was an important day for the Office. We saw three courageous prosecutors ...fight long and hard for a case they inherited when a colleague departed the Office. These prosecutors fought for the rule of law . . . Our Prosecutors were strong and courageous.
May 21, 2026 email from U.S. Attorney Boutros to all employees at U.S. Attorney’s Office (emphasis added). Thus, the public record created by U.S. Attorney Boutros regarding this case demonstrates he not only does not see or comprehend the grave misconduct committed by his prosecutors over the past nine months in directly deceiving this Court (among other things), but that he is actually sending the message to all the young (and old) prosecutors in the Office that the behavior of these prosecutors should be praised and thought of as “strong,” “courageous,” and having “fought for the rule of law,” when exactly the opposite should have been the message delivered from the lead law enforcement official in our district. The government’s general
6 Notably, U.S. Attorney Boutros offered to share with the Court (and presumably the public) why he holds such a sincere belief, “And if Your Honor wants to hear more about that, I'm happy to come back and explain why that…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreiexjvx6mbs7rbcammuffh5riept5lajt4w2ckjmp2mtsqw3tcm2ei)
![agreement to write a check should not cause the Court to divest its authority to bring to light the web of misconduct that has now only begun to be exposed.
This goal of transparency and further investigation, moreover, is one which U.S. Attorney Boutros has publicly stated he “fully supports” because he is “confident that upon careful, unbiased consideration, [no] misconduct by the United States Attorney” will be found. See supra n.3 (quoting U.S. Attorney Boutros). The Court should accept this invitation from the U.S. Attorney and complete the process that is required to bring this matter to a just and public-confidence- restoring conclusion.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:elipdmmf5istuvtyituspske/bafkreiddokialo5hnyi2bluu45542lbob7syj2m6vdfmxnotzezzcl5acy)
