Following the alleged killing of Chicago Police Officer John Bartholomew and the critical injury of another officer by Alphonso Talley at Swedish Hospital last weekend, Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke criticized a judge for previously placing Talley on electronic monitoring. However, court records indicate that her office did not request the judge to revisit the release order, failed to appeal it, and did not attempt to detain Talley despite his violations of monitoring rules.
Talley also faces accusations of assaulting and robbing a cashier at a Family Dollar in Albany Park before shooting the officers with a gun he allegedly concealed after his arrest. A seven-time convicted felon, he had fled from electronic monitoring six weeks earlier while awaiting trial for armed carjacking and armed robbery.
“Electronic monitoring is not an alternative to detention. It does not keep people safe,” O’Neill Burke stated on Tuesday, labeling the county’s monitoring system as “broken.”
Defense attorneys and former prosecutors who spoke with CWB Chicago argue that while Burke’s office is quick to criticize judicial decisions, it seldom challenges dubious pretrial release orders in court.
“If they’re going to argue that [electronic monitoring] doesn’t keep the community safe, this is the case to use,” said a defense attorney who wished to remain anonymous, referring to Talley’s electronic monitoring status in April 2025 when he allegedly committed armed carjacking and robbery.
Judge John Lyke placed Talley on an ankle monitor on December 11, despite an eight-month jail stint on new charges, two pending felony cases, and previous convictions for four robberies and a gun possession charge.
Burke and other officials are now critiquing Lyke’s decision, yet records show Burke’s office did not ask Lyke to review it.
Moreover, when Talley committed multiple electronic monitoring violations in February, including overnight infractions, an assistant state’s attorney merely requested a verbal warning from Lyke, noting that Talley “seems to be complying now.”
This was Talley’s last court appearance before he vanished.
Talley’s case is not isolated. Records reveal Burke’s office also did not request a judge to reconsider Lawrence Reed’s electronic monitoring release, who is accused of setting a woman on fire on a Blue Line train in the Loop last November.
Burke’s office stated it has “limited options” to contest problematic release decisions and cited appeals and a Motion for Relief as tools it has used successfully on occasion.
“Using these approaches, we have successfully reversed rulings and secured detention for defendants charged with criminal sexual assault, kidnapping, attempted first-degree murder, and aggravated vehicular hijacking,” the office stated.
CWB Chicago identified two instances where Burke’s office successfully employed a Motion for Relief: a case in suburban December 2024 involving a man accused of kidnapping and raping a 16-year-old, supported by DNA evidence, and a Chicago case last spring where a judge released a woman accused of shooting someone during a bar fight based on inaccurate defense claims.
Such motions are exceedingly rare in Cook County, and Burke’s office did not discuss any pending appeals or motions.
If a Motion for Relief is unsuccessful, prosecutors can appeal to an appellate court under Supreme Court Rule 604. Legal researchers for CWB Chicago found 35 appellate court orders related to pretrial release decisions filed by state’s attorneys across Illinois during the cashless bail period. None originated from Cook County.
“If the state believed Judge Lyke’s decision was wrong and posed a community danger, Rule 604 allowed for an appeal and a request for continued detention during the appeal,” an attorney told CWB Chicago. “It’s a fail-safe that would involve at least three Illinois appellate judges.”
A source within the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office stated that the office is cautious about appeals as an unfavorable ruling “may establish binding precedent with a negative impact” on public safety.
That caution might be understandable. Illinois appellate courts often defer to lower courts on a defendant’s “dangerousness.” As noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeals, “This court will not substitute our own judgment for the circuit court’s judgment simply because we would have analyzed the factors differently.”
“This can create an environment where a circuit court judge’s poor pretrial release decisions go unchecked because appellate courts presume lower courts are using sound judgment,” commented a former prosecutor.
Out of the 35 cases from other counties, 16 directly challenged a judge’s finding that a defendant could be safely released under set conditions. Appellate courts reversed and remanded in only four cases, or 25%.
This situation could be one of the challenges with the SAFE-T Act, which grants significant authority to judges.
“In most cases where Republicans have criticized the SAFE-T Act,” Governor JB Pritzker stated this week, “it’s been due to bad decisions by an elected judge in Illinois, or no hearing because the prosecutor didn’t bring it to the judge, leading to someone’s release.”
A spokesperson for Burke’s office mentioned that her administration has concentrated detention efforts in First Appearance Court, where defendants appear immediately after arrest.
Over the last calendar year, prosecutors requested detention in 12,702 cases, with judges granting 67% of those requests, the spokesperson reported. This contrasts with 7,575 detention requests and a 63% success rate during the first 14 months of cashless bail under former State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.
A former prosecutor reviewing these figures said the numbers raised more questions than they answered.
“There are more than 4,000 cases where a judge denied a detention motion,” noted the former prosecutor. “And yet, they did not appeal a single one? That seems extraordinary to me.”
Original reporting you’ll see nowhere else, paid for by our readers. Click here to support our work.
