Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's Largest Criminal Court

by Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve

NAACP Image Award Nominee for an Outstanding Literary Work from a debut author. Winner of the 2017 Prose Award for Excellence in Social Sciences and the 2017 Prose Category Award for Law and Legal Studies, sponsored by the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division, Association of American Publishers. Silver Medal from the Independent Publisher Book Awards (Current Events/Social Issues category). Americans are slowly waking up to the dire effects of racial profiling, police brutality, and mass incarceration, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities of color. The criminal courts are the crucial gateway between police action on the street and the processing of primarily black and Latino defendants into jails and prisons. And yet the courts, often portrayed as sacred, impartial institutions, have remained shrouded in secrecy, with the majority of Americans kept in the dark about how they function internally. Crook County bursts open the courthouse doors and enters the hallways, courtrooms, judges' chambers, and attorneys' offices to reveal a world of punishment determined by race, not offense. Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve spent ten years working in and investigating the largest criminal courthouse in the country, Chicago-Cook County, and based on over 1,000 hours of observation, she takes readers inside our so-called halls of justice to witness the types of everyday racial abuses that fester within the courts, often in plain sight. We watch white courtroom professionals classify and deliberate on the fates of mostly black and Latino defendants while racial abuse and due process violations are encouraged and even seen as justified. Judges fall asleep on the bench. Prosecutors hang out like frat boys in the judges' chambers while the fates of defendants hang in the balance. Public defenders make choices about which defendants they will try to "save" and which they will sacrifice. Sheriff's officers cruelly mock and abuse defendants' family members. Crook County's powerful and at times devastating narratives reveal startling truths about a legal culture steeped in racial abuse. Defendants find themselves thrust into a pernicious legal world where courtroom actors live and breathe racism while simultaneously committing themselves to a colorblind ideal. Gonzalez Van Cleve urges all citizens to take a closer look at the way we do justice in America and to hold our arbiters of justice accountable to the highest standards of equality.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Law, Race, School, Politics, Academic

272 pages, Paperback

First published May 4, 2016

About the author

Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve is an Assistant Professor at Temple University in the Department of Criminal Justice with courtesy appointments in the Department of Sociology and the Beasley School of Law. She is the recipient of the 2014-2015 Ford Foundation Fellowship Postdoctoral Award, the 2015 New Scholar Award (co-winner) awarded by American Society of Criminology’s Division on People of Color and Crime. She is also an affiliated scholar with the American Bar Foundation. Her book, Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's Largest Criminal Court, and her legal commentary has been featured onNBC News, MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show and CNN.

Van Cleve received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Northwestern University where she was a legal studies fellow. Prior to receiving her Ph.D., Van Cleve served in The Office of the Chief of Staff at the White House during the Clinton Administration and subsequently worked for five years as a Consumer Brand Planner for Leo Burnett, USA. She is the former Research Director for Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice - a policy/nonprofit organization that specialized in legal advocacy.

Reviews

[David Eppenstein · Rating 1 out of 5]

To begin let me say that I was an assistant Cook County public defender for 25 years until my retirement. For the last 10 of those years I was assigned to the CCPD's Homicide Task Force. I was actively practicing in this court system at the time the author made her initial observations that formed the inspiration for this book. I am intimately familiar with the courthouse, its processes, behaviors, personnel etc. So where do I start? First this is a book review and not a dissenting opinion though it will be difficult not to cite my disagreements with the author. As a book, however, it is written in the fashion of a graduate thesis for a student of sociology or criminal justice. Consequently, it will have almost no appeal to the general reader or even to somebody that works in a criminal court system. For those former colleagues of mine that might wish to buy and read this book in hopes that it reveals the antics of local courthouse regulars well just forget it because it doesn't. This book will probably only interest academics and people that might wish to use its racial accusations as a weapon for political purposes. In short, the book has minimal value.

I have several areas of criticism for the book and its author and I hope to delineate them without launching into a debate over the author's conclusions. First, I have always believed that if you intend to criticize something or someone then you must also offer a solution or remedy for that which you criticize. Without this offer then you are just a complainer and a whiner. The only solution offered by this author comes on the last page of the book where she suggests that citizens visit the courthouse more often and that lawyers take on more pro bono cases. Ya, that will never happen so the author offers nothing useful or constructive just accusations. So what is the author's complaint? It seems as a 19 year old undergrad in 1997 she clerked for the Cook County States Attorney's Office at 26th and California in Chicago, the main criminal courthouse. When the author saw the defendants on the courtroom call for that day she was aghast that the overwhelming majority of the them were black and Hispanic. She was further appalled to observe that the people entrusted with executing the justice system were overwhelmingly white. Her immediate conclusion was that the system was racist. Really? And this leads to the first criticism I have with the book, a lack of comparison to other big city criminal court systems and also a complete lack of historic research within the Cook County system. The author makes much of the behavior of the attorneys and the judges in the system and the racial disparity between them and the defendants but doesn't look to see how these things compare with other systems. If Cook County was alone in this regard then the author might have a point. Unfortunately for the author I would be absolutely amazed that Chicago is much different from any like criminal court system in this country. But the author doesn't seem to care about testing her conclusions about Cook County by comparing it to other systems. She also does not look into the history of that system to learn if this is a recent occurrence. I think what she would find is that blacks and Hispanics are only the most recent group to feel the weight of the Cook County criminal justice system. When the city was new the Irish occupied the position now held by blacks and Hispanics. The Irish were then followed by assorted Eastern Europeans, then by Italians. If my belief is born out by a little historical research then the author's accusation is unfounded. Defendants are not abused because of their race but because they are poor, uneducated, and without opportunity. If there is a bias it is economic and not racial. In all my years in that courthouse I have never seen a defendant mistreated because of his race even when I knew the judge and prosecutors were almost certainly racists in their beliefs. What governs in that courthouse is the case and the evidence. The author is correct in stating that racist beliefs are hidden behind neutral facades and euphemisms but so what. As long as these beliefs are not given a chance to rule a minority defendant's fate then they are benign. What apparently upsets the author is that racists are given the opportunity to vent their racism within the confines of doing their job in this system. That might well be true and if the author has a way to prevent that she doesn't state it in this book and I'd like to hear what it might be.

The author makes many observations based on things reported by court watchers and from her personal observations during brief periods of employment both with the States Attorney as well as with my former office The Cook County Public Defender. I will admit that many of the observations are completely accurate but the conclusion drawn from them are not things I would completely agree with. To begin with the system does employ many people that are racists, that I will agree with. However, just because racists are employed in the system that does not mean the system is racist. There are clearly racists in Congress but that does not mean that our Federal government is racist or that even Congress is racist. The author makes an unfair leap with her accusation. Further, in all the observations and anecdotes she cites not one of them illustrates a defendant's case being mistreated or mishandled solely because of his or her race. The author seems entirely focused on the fact that people and defendants are not treated more nicely and respectfully. She goes on about violations of human rights but not really anything about legal rights and that's what is important in a court of law. Can court personnel be abrasive and rude? Absolutely. But is this common practice? No. And it was always corrected whenever it was noticed by anybody in my office or the judge. But let's not forget what this place is. It is the criminal courthouse. It's supposed to be a place that is impressive, daunting, intimidating. It is meant to be a place that you don't want to go to let alone return to and some personnel can take this ideal a bit too far but such people are the exception and not the rule. Nevertheless, the conclusions the author makes based on these observations are understandable. They are understandable because they are made by laymen briefly observing things they do not understand. She cites an example of an APD named Kevin who talks to a client accused of felony retail theft of a bag of steaks. Without any introduction Kevin asks the client if he wants a trial or a plea. The author is disturbed by the abruptness. The client says he bought the steaks at another store but didn't have the receipt and he was in this store to visit a butcher friend named Preacher. The client had no further information for this friend. Kevin asked the client if he wanted a trial and the client said he want a conference which is the beginning of a plea bargain. The author found this cursory treatment of the black client offensive. As a veteran PD I saw what was really happening here that a laymen would not. Kevin obviously had sensed the client was a scammer, retail thieves are notorious for this behavior and for playing the system. If the client was truly telling the truth and innocent then when asked about a trial then that is what he would have asked for. He also would have had information for Kevin to find Preacher. Instead the client wanted a conference, a term that had not been used in the discussion thus demonstrating his knowledge of the system. The author was offended but Kevin was a seasoned professional in a large, very large, court system doing his job as best he could. The author considered him part of the "charade of due process". Maybe had the author actually spent some real time in the court house instead of getting interview questions answered she might actually have learned something that might have generated a useful idea and a remedy. Instead all she comes up with is the accusation of racism that is baseless and unfair. It is impossible to learn or understand the workings of our criminal court system by sending laymen to sit in court galleries and take notes on what they see and overhear. To supplement these observations with answers to interview questions for the attorneys and judges will add more substance but you really need to spend some serious quality time in the system to come to any real understanding. This wasn't done and this book suffers for this deficiency.

[Nichole · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is extremely misleading and also dated even though recently published. Having personal knowledge of the system and knowing there are issues in Cook County and changes that need to be made, I can tell you that this author had lost all credibility with me. The assumptions made and the broad generalizations and leaps to conclusions from the spectator's point of view without knowing the whole story is infuriating to me. See my thoughts as I read the book below:

1) Having only read the introduction, I am already livid. As an attorney in the Cook County Criminal Court system, I read this thinking was this woman viewing the same court system I view every day? The introduction is so critical and offensive, it makes me think she is writing this, not scientifically, but rather as an opinion piece on what's wrong but not about what to do or what could be different and how. The words she uses to describe the Cook County Criminal Justice system seem to me to be for the purpose of attention grabbing (i.e. "Buy this book I wrote and read it!") rather than truly descriptive of the system. I am not a fan, thus far. Maybe she will change my mind as I get further into the book. Fingers crossed because I'd hate to waste anymore time with this nonsense if it continues on like this.

2) I have gone further...it is clear this author has no clue what she is talking about. She does not consider why a large number of incarcerated or those that appear as defendants are of color. Chicago is one of, if not THE, most segregated city in the U.S. And the poorest neighborhoods tend to be made up of mostly African American or Latino people. In the poorest of neighborhoods is where crime often occurs...not only that but racial profiling by police officers must also be considered. These are two huge reasons why Cook County defendant's are racially imbalanced. It's not right, but that is the reason. She writes this book as though it's the court system that creates this. This book is so short-sighted, I am sick to my stomach reading it. There is an issue, there is unfairness, but she is just so off-base about the cause and effect, that this book is difficult to read. I believe this book is flashy rather than scientific. I do not believe if it honest. It is the equivalent of a historical fiction. Stories and alleged observations from her experience, modified just a bit to fit what she wants to be true to make this book appeal(?) to readers. I assume I'll have more to say as I continue on.

3) I would have to write almost another whole book to point out all the issues as I have finished this book. I'm really disappointed in this author's poor judgment when writing this and making such conclusions that aren't based on the whole story and her failure to talk about May observations that were made about 10
Years ago and there is a vast difference in the courthouse and how it is run now. I'm
Just not pleased and hope people done read this and take her conclusions based on her observations as truth. Often times, she seems to be completely wrong but enjoys sensationalizing a situation.

[Celeste · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating. I work in this system as a public defender, and overall I think the author's criticisms are well taken.

I have some nits to pick with some of her characterizations, particularly with characterizing certain actions of defense attorneys, and in fairness to defense attorneys I think that certain institutional problems with doing this kind of work (mandatory sentencing, prosecutorial over-charging, etc) aren't fairly represented. But, this isn't a book about public defense, and it has made me stop and think about how various aspects of my job are viewed by the public.

[Ren · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. I was completely ready to be on board with her assessment of the Cook County judicial system as corrupt, racist, violent, etc. but I found myself so incredibly let down by several aspects of this book.
First, the writing itself is off-puttingly redundant, self-righteous, and self-congratulatory (and this comes from a queer, admittedly knee-jerk liberal who would have been 110% on the author's side). Van Cleve often seems like she tries to draw much too strong conclusions from somewhat lacking anecdotal evidence and in the absence of evidence simply assumes that there are wilful efforts taking place to prevent the collection of evidence she assumes to exist.

As an aside, I visited 26th & Cal myself in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the culture Van Cleve paints so vividly only to find that many of the themes she paints as universal (absolute silence demanded of families in the gallery, shouting at visitors i n the security line, verbal and physical threats toward the public for trying to cross barriers, assumption of white visitors as profrssionals/students) were glaringly missing from my experience there. I will be the first to admit that my one visit to only two courtrooms is an impossibly small sample size to declare Van Cleve's assessment to be incorrect or exaggerates. but my experience was so incredibly, vastly different from what I expected while reading this book, that it gave me weighty pause while trying to push through the rest of the book.

Obviously there are SERIOUS racial inequalities in our court systems and I firmly believe that much of what Van Cleve portrays in her books is true. However Her poor, redundant writing; her violent bias that at times seems to blind her perception; and self-aggrandizing asides made this book ultimately unreadable to me at around the 80% mark.

I wanted, and fully expected, to love this book. I believe wholeheartedly that there is incredible racial bias in our court systems that needs serious examination, but this book is simply not well crafted. It's vehemence reaches a point that ultimately discredits what I believe is a truly valid premise. I was deeply saddened by this.

[Roro5678 · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did not think this was well written at all. Quite insulting to criminal defense attorneys, and public defenders (I may be biased, as I am a career public defender and have close friends who are private criminal attorneys.) But it's fairly evident that this was written by someone who doesn't realize what a defense attorney has to do in order to secure the best outcome for their client. The use of "court watchers" is such an ignorant way to analyze the disparities in criminal practice; I've seen MADD do the same thing, displaying their true lack of understanding for a judge's, prosecutor's or PD's decision. So it was very upsetting to see this book use the same tactic. I really had high hopes for this, but I'll just go back and read Professor Alexander's book again.

[Carrie N. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book really makes you think twice about all of the procedures and interactions in criminal courts that become everyday -- things people stop noticing, practices we stop second-guessing, comments that stop seeming wrong.

[Stephen Morrissey · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a lawyer, Nicole Gonzalez Van-Cleve's "Crook County" was eye opening in an awful sense: how the criminal courts of Cook County (Chicago) were (and likely still are) perverting justice and creating a system that promotes efficiency over true due process, and racialized concepts over anything even approximating colorblindness under the law.

The author details, in stories culled from hundreds of court observers and her own experiences as a prosecutor and defense attorney, the myriad ways that African-Americans, Latinos, other minorities and the poor are not afforded equal treatment in criminal courts. While the subtle berating of minorities by (largely white) prosecutors, police, and other professionals was not completely surprising, the intricacies of the system, and how justice was contorted into a paradigm of efficient dispositions, was truly striking.

We all owe it to make our court systems better than this. As Van Cleve ends the book with a brief comparison between the Cook County courts and pre-Civil Rights justice (including lynching), one wonders what due process means in an age where prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys work towards common goals completely stripped of any sort of justice.

This is a harrowing account of modern American justice, and one that should not be ignored by any citizen who has either been wronged by the courts, or feels that the perpetration of such practices is a wrong, if not the ultimate wrong, in a country that prides itself on rule-of-law.

[Gretchen · Rating 4 out of 5]

WOW. ok so excellent and well done. my only (smallish) complaint is readability - some of these sentences were incredibly dense (and thorough) - I think this is the lawyer writing coming through. and that's not bad, but I did spend a while on a few of them. this is a book that is trying to do the very difficult task of straddling academic writing and research with mass readability and for the most part I think the author does it well, but there is some repetition in her quest to be thorough. That said though if you were not already aware of massive systemic racism and injustice within the court system, you will be after this. An important book and a short and quite readable one as well. Would highly recommend.

[Maura · Rating 1 out of 5]

This work claims to be a comment on the racial disparities between those working at the Chicago courthouse and those forced to visit it. I found it hugely inaccessible. The author makes use of her large vocabulary, good for her, but not necessarily good for her audience. Fortunately I am college educated, but many of those who would benefit from the criticisms in this work are not. It is truly a college textbook, not a critique on on the court system.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important topic obtusely handled by Van Cleve. Dozens of other books on race and/or criminal justice would provide more nuance and innovation in their critique.

[Tristan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Early on in Crook County it became apparent that the author was trying to impress someone. Buzzwords are thrown around with reckless abandon. My guess is she intended the book for an academic audience and not mass market. That is the least of my concerns with her book though.
Early on Van Cleve makes it clear that she thinks racism is rampant in Cook County. She’s probably right. But she finds it in the most mundane of things. She’ll throw racism or racist in front of other words, with little to no evidence to back up her claim of racism. One of her first examples of “racism” is the line system at the Cook County courthouse located at 26th and California. It is racist because staff doesn’t have to go through security, while members of the public are required to go through an intrusive security process with guards who are mean. She describes it as a “depression era breadline” and says that “[t]his visual of a black and brown entrance and a separate entrance for whites was my first clue of a double system of justice[.] Page 16. The first problem with this claim is that she is a self described person of color, who admits to using the staff entrance. Second, there so many non-racist reasons why the security would allow staff in through a separate entrance from the general public. The fact that most of the general public happens to be people of color points to racism elsewhere in the system, but not in the courthouse. There are many problems with the security theater that goes on at many courthouses and airports. Guards that are surly for seemingly no reason, security systems that are at best ineffective, and a security process that is unnecessarily intrusive. But this is not an example of racism. She’s walked into the building trying to find racism.
The very next page she describes the staff as an “all-white cast.” A bold claim for which the statistics that she then provides don’t back up. 84% of state’s attorneys, 69% of public defenders and 74% of judges are white. Beyond the fact that those numbers don’t back up her claim of an “all-white cast” they might be an example of a courthouse that is more white than most. Except it isn’t. ABA numbers for 2012 report that 88% of attorneys were white. While that presents a large numbers of issues, it shows that Cook county is actually ahead of the curve here. Were 17 pages in at this point and I really want to give up on this book. It would have been my third quite book in a row though, so I powered through.
On page 19 she makes an observation so stupid I had to set the book down and come back to it later. She observes that the lawyers call the courthouse “26th and Cal” instead of “the courthouse.” To her credit, she doesn’t describe this as an example of racism, but she takes the time to note this for some reason. For those who are not familiar with the Cook County system, there are five separate courthouses. Saying 26th and Cal is not some weird thing that is done, it is how you can be unambiguous about where you are going.
Her book is based off of her own observations at an intern with the State’s Attorney’s office, as well as interviews and observations by court watchers. She has some legitimate examples of racism occurring for the court watchers. Minority court watchers are treated as though they are defendants, while white court watchers are treated like aliens who got lost on their way to mars. This is a problem, but she offers no solutions or ideas for how to fix the problem.
She also takes issue with members of the Public Defender’s office and State’s Attorney’s office being friendly with one another in court. Many court watchers seem dismayed by this as well. Some noted that they had the gall to joke with each other. I understand why members of the public might see this as a problem, but cannot understand how someone who worked with the State’s attorney’s office could see this as a problem. Attorneys must be able to differentiate their personal and professional lives. If we did not, we’d have no friends in the bar and live even more miserable lives than we currently do. I’m friends with some state’s attorneys, dislike others, and don’t know some others. But it doesn’t matter who I’m against in court, I’m going to be professional with them regardless of our personal relationship. When I was a public defender I was stuck in a courtroom with the same State’s Attorneys for 8 hours a day. Regardless of my feelings for them, you better believe we joked with each other at times. You have to in order to remain sane. Lastly, defense attorneys who have good relationships with State’s Attorneys get better results for their clients. Not because they State’s Attorney gives them favors, but because the Defense attorney knows what the State’s attorney is like, what issues get them upset, and what can be done to obtain a better deal from them.
After this she moves on to talk about the word “mope.” Mope is a word that is used by attorneys in Cook County to describe some defendants. I’ve heard the word used on occasion while a public defender. When I heard it, it was to describe the frequent flyers in the system. A mope v. mope crime described a situation where both the defendant and victim had significant records, and it was pretty unlikely that the victim was going to show up for court or cooperate with the State. I’ve never heard the term used in a racist way. The first example of someone being called a mope was about a white guy. For someone who is looking for racism, and finding it everywhere, I’m not surprised that this is another example of racism to her.
She takes the mope concept and broadens it into a discussion of the “us vs. them” mentality that the attorneys, both PDs and SAs have. This is a legitimate point. I’ve been there. This isn’t an example of racism though, this is an example of a system that is overburdened. PDs and SAs with caseloads that are too high start feeling this way after a while. To defend them a bit though, it isn’t as though they are dealing with the best and brightest that society has to offer.
She second guesses the decisions of public defenders on a regular basis. One public defender is horrible because he refers to a man as a “redneck.” This is racist because in her mind “redneck” is the white equivalent of the n-word. The fact that I wrote “n-word” and not the actual word, but had no problem writing “redneck” should be a clear example of why that isn’t true. Moving on to the actual point, she is unhappy with the redneck’s attorney because he doesn’t request a “mental fitness evaluation.” She’s seen this person in court once, interviewed his attorney, and she knows he needs a mental health evaluation. She later reveals that this attorney has represented this client multiple times since he was a juvenile. This was his third offense as an adult. Beyond not asking for the evaluation, the attorney is bad for using the phrase “I understand where you are coming from” when the prosecutor refuses to give a lower plea offer. She thoughtfully translates what the defense attorney actually meant, “My client is a mope who is undeserving.” Throughout the book she takes issue with defense attorneys who don’t take everything to trial, or who acknowledge that their clients are anything other than upstanding citizens who were clearly wrongfully accused of their crimes. The poor redneck’s attorney was so awful that her “I see where you are coming from” approach to plea negotiations resulted in getting one year knocked off the plea offer. She wants people who are served shit sandwiches to eat them with delight. If I told the State’s Attorney that every single one of my clients was perfect and innocent, they would ignore me. She doesn’t understand that defense attorneys don’t just seek to establish innocence, more often than not they seek to mitigate the damage done by their clients.
Her worst example of bad mouthing effective defense attorneys deals with an attorney who has a client who won’t take the plea offer on the table. This attorney brutally says something like “I know you want to string him up, but I don’t want to waste my time taking this loser of a case to trial, so please give me a plea offer my client will take.” This is bad for two reasons. First, the phrase “string him up” is apparently racist. Second, the fact that it obtained a 6 month reduction in the sentence and the defense attorney’s client took that offer is wrong because it is about the defense attorney, instead of the client. The defense attorney should have instead said “my client is amazing, his shit smells like roses, he’s not guilty and there is no way you can prove it at trial despite all of the clear evidence establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Later she gets mad at a defense attorney because he doesn’t bring up hyper-policing or inadequate re-entry services when discussing a plea in a self described garden variety dime-a-dozen case. Later she comments that in all her time seeing plea negotiations she didn’t see people bring up caselaw, or fight to establish their client’s innocence. I’ve never brought up caselaw in a plea negotiation. Caselaw comes up in a “hey this case says you have to dismiss this” type of negotiation. Plea negotiations occur when your client is going to plead guilty. This is again another example of her failure to understand that much of what defense attorneys do is mitigate.
One defense attorney is mean because she yells at her client after he lies to her. This defense attorney is further awful because she doesn’t pass along the defendant’s note to the judge that essentially says “I am not guilty.” A note in a case where the defense attorney has explained that she is going to file a Motion to Suppress, even though the caselaw she is relying on is dicey at best. Does she seriously think it would be appropriate for a defense attorney to give a judge a note written by a defendant? Does she seriously think it would do anything if the attorney did give to the judge?
She seems to have a strong distaste for levity and humor anywhere near the courthouse. During a plea conference with a judge a defense attorney was successful in getting a plea reduced. After they finished, the judge said, during a humorous exchange, that “the next guy is going to get it.” I believe the author really believes that the judge was serious and was going to actually punish the next person worse because of the generous offer that was given. While I don’t doubt that might happen sometimes, I am 100% sure that this judge was joking. If he was actually going to do that, he wouldn’t have said it.
She doesn’t just dislike what the defense attorneys do though. The State’s Attorneys are inept as well. Beyond the racist charging decisions they make (an area that is almost completely overlooked in this book), the real problem is that they know that the laws are unfair, but continue to enforce them. One SA had a Maya Angelou quote in her office “When you know better, you do better.” But this SA failed to live up to this quote because she still prosecuted a case with a penalty the prosecutor felt was too harsh. Van Cleve writes that this SA “could narrate thoughtful critiques of the law and whether it provided justice or not but practiced the law in another manner entirely.” Page 133. What actually happened here is this attorney did her job. Assistant State’s Attorneys are given the job of prosecuting the law, as it is written. This attorney did exactly what she should do. She behaved as a professional. She disagreed with the law, but followed it, as her job and the law require her to do.
Chapter 4 is the best chapter in this book. This chapter takes on the State’s Attorneys office for prosecuting cases with known racist cops. They can, and should, do more to ensure justice is done. That means doing something about clear racism coming from the police. More of the book she have been on this subject. Racism in the system starts with where the police patrol, who they arrest, and what charges they recommend. A topic she neglected.
Throughout the book she does not provide nearly enough details of the cases she describes to accurately determine in the conclusions she is drawing are supported by the evidence. In one example she talks about two cases that she believes are nearly identical. In one the defense attorney just tells the person to take the plea. In the other the defense attorney seems to want to help the defendant more. She decides that the reason the PD wants to help the second client more is because he is wearing Calvin Klein brand glasses. Even if I accept that the two cases were actually identical, I highly doubt any public defender is going to be swayed by name brand glasses. Calvin Klein isn’t even an amazing brand of glasses, you can get them anywhere.
Judges and prosecutors are big meanies because they aren’t nice to the pro se. She writes “the pro se defendant is not just asking to participate but wants to participate as an equal.” Page 177. I don’t care what they want, they aren’t going to be equals. The pro se are idiots. It is never a good idea to represent yourself.
She doesn’t like it when anyone is mean to a defendant. One example is a defendant who interrupts his attorney to say that he doesn’t want a 402 conference as the defense attorney claims, he actually wants a 401 conference. 401 conferences aren’t things, he did want a 402 conference. She takes issue with the defense attorney rebuking his client for doing this.
This was a frustrating book to read. I stopped frequently to take notes on everything that she said that was just plain wrong. I ended up with 9 pages of handwritten notes. She had a very interesting topic, and totally botched it. Instead of presenting any real evidence, she presented her conclusions based on her full of herself observations. Seriously at one point she says “I am the record.” She walked into the building wanting to see racism, and she found racism everywhere it wasn’t.

[Elizabeth Higginbotham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America’s Largest Criminal Court by Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve is an important book, particularly at a time when we are thinking about the criminal justice system. We know that there are problems in Chicago, but the isolation of the court and its connection to the jail in the southern part of the city is a set up for no one to know what is happening. Not only is there mass incarceration, but there is racialized punishment as the Cook Country CJ system disposes of cases with little attention to the law, but to numbers and outcomes. It is all about race, as the stereotypes that prosecutors and judges have and that defense attorneys, especially public defenders come to accept and use, even if they are opposed. Yet, they learn how the system operates and modify their behavior to fit in and get cases moved through the process.

Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve’s book reflects decades of research in various forms, beginning as a clerk for the prosecutors, helping to organize files and offer support in the courtroom. Later she clerks for public defenders, so she has insights into the culture of each workgroup. As she completes her education and secures funding, she also has court watchers observe proceeding and keep careful records. I have been in courts, but not on a school trip. In Memphis I served on a jury in 1998 and in Delaware, I have been called for jury duty, but did not serve, but did see the arrangements in the waiting room and even a court room. It shocked me when the author writes about bullet proof glass separating the gallery from the professionals who dispose of cases. The architecture speaks volumes as it is mostly people of color in the gallery: family members, witnesses, and others who are not “insiders.” Yet, most of the insiders are White. However, even the professional of color have to play by the rules or they are “punished” as they lose status and, in the process, have their cases treated harshly.

The harsh reality of this book has to be factored into the thinking we are doing about the CJ system. All institutions take on a life of their own and this one has strayed a long way from the law. People are not the center here, even victims, it is about moving cases through the system. The author notes that the case loads are higher in Chicago than other cities, but the corruption is so deep. Yet, most troubling is how the needs of people are not addressed. The lawyers are just bargaining over jail time, rehab and the like—but if you challenge the system you are punished. Judges, often former prosecutors, are not listening to all sides and take offense when people want to exercise the rights that they have. The longer professionals work the more they play by the rules and remove themselves from accountability. Prosecutors have to cooperate with the police who they know to lie or shade the truth, but you cannot call them on their actions, if you question the police there are costs. The defense side also rationalize their participation, often selecting the clients that they can “help” while others are sold down the river.

We have so much repair work to do to not even restore, but establish justice. This book might encourage people to look at how their own court system is working.

The writing is dense in places, but telling this complex story is rough. Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve had mountains of field notes to shape into a book. However, she does provide readers with new language to think about the drive through justice that is being doled out in this community.

[Isabella Lanzante · Rating 5 out of 5]

“This supposed new brand of racism is just as punitive and abusive as traditional forms associated with the Jim Crow era and the like.”
⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀
Crook County is Nicole Gonzales Van Cleve’s culmination of over 1,000 hours of observation and 10 years of research. This powerhouse of a book explores the racial abuses and injustices that happen everyday in the Cook County criminal courthouse in Chicago. Cook County is the largest criminal courthouse in the country and as its nickname suggests, is infamous for the injustice that people face from every individual involved in the criminal justice system.
⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀
If this book sounds intimidating it’s because it is. It’s also one of the most impactful books you will ever read about the court system. I am thankful that I was given the opportunity to read this book for one of my classes this semester. It’s dense with data, but also peppered with the shocking narratives from defendants and Van Cleve herself. I absolutely loved this book. It brought me to tears, and it angered me at the same time. I kept having to get up and talk about what I’d just read to someone else because it was just that infuriating.

[Mercedez · Rating 3 out of 5]

She's not wrong, just outdated and repetitive. This book was written between the mid 90's and 2015. Race in America might be worse than in the 90's but the language used makes it feel outdated. We now know that "color blind racism " erases a person’s identity and allows the speaker to be blind to their own racist actions as demonstrated by the judges, prosecutors, and court appointed attorneys. Today we focus on social justice and critical race theory in our court systems. The constant use of "racialized justice" was not a descriptive enough word to describe the outcomes for these defendants. I really wanted to like this book. I will do as she suggests at the end and go court watch here in Chicago.

[Kiemon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book exceeded expectations. I am grateful for this righteous display of courage by the author. Risking career and reputation to expose what some of us have been aware of all of our lives. Some witnessed first-hand. The system is cold, callous, and not designed to help certain people. From racism, class-ism, bias, to downright indifference, the criminal justice system has done more harm than good to many low-income minorities in Chicagoland. Kudos to Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve. I hope this book is only the beginning.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very compelling analysis by NVC. The book was published in 2016, but the data was collected between 1997 and 2004. I would love an update with more recent court-watcher observations to see if anything has changed over the last two decades.

[JP Beaty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic ethnographic work, undercut by an authorial tunnel vision

[Bella · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great content, extremely repetitive and redundant.

[Carly Besler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone needs to read this!!

[jenny · Rating 2 out of 5]

the content is good, it was just really fkn dense. also a little repetitive tbh.

[Caroline · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reads more like someone’s thesis than an actual book. Has some interesting stuff but mostly just felt like filler and anecdotes. Thought it would have more statistics…

[Mariyam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for my courts in society class and had group discussions about it. i found this book interesting as an examination of institutionalized discrimination against impoverished defendants, how overburdened the legal system is, the toxic court culture, the power dynamics, etc.
As someone going in and out of court watching cases these past few months, so many of the narrative accounts rung true to stuff I've witnessed.
In my class of criminology pre-law students, we all came away from the book stressed about how hard it is to be a public defender as a career goal where we thought it could 'make a difference.' The whole idea of knowing the system is harmful, but the only way to help is being a player within it, which this book describes. However, I don't think any of us students in that class have worked in a court. Maybe some of us in legal offices, but I think there might be things we're missing or issues we're overestimating. hopefully.

This book also has some technical shortcomings. It's all based on narrative accounts of conversations the author witnessed. That means alot of the background mechanics of the cases she witnessed might have been missing, which puts her conclusions into question. Sometimes her conclusions might have been on the extreme side. We did get context for most of the things, but not everything. I know it's nearly impossible to probe into legal cases to that extent, so we'll never truly know how unfair certain cases, plea deals, sentencing, etc are. I think her interviews with attorneys were interesting to get their perspective on these issues. The way many of them admit to institutionalized classism and racism, but don't want to acknowledge it's full extent or their own participation in it. Kind of like these Goodreads reviewers lol.

In general, this book revealed alot of glaring, institutionalized issues. Specifically with the court actors: judges, prosecutors, public defenders. A lot of these comments are by attorneys who work in the court, and they are super offended by the criticisms. while they're right about limitations in Van Cleve's perspective/analysis, a lot of them are just proving some of the points made in this book. One review mentions Van Cleve describing how pro se defendants are looked down upon by the court, and the reviewer says 'well yes we look down on them because they're dumb.' ... So exercising their right to self-represent makes them dumb to you? Sure, 99/100 times a case is so legally complex that finding an attorney is essential. And sure, pro se litigants are highly prone to perjury from misconduct in the court. But at the same time, in many cases, they can't afford a super good attorney, and going with an overburdened PD who just wants to get their case off the docket could be disadvantageous too. Let's stop condescending the public for factors we don't control.
Lastly, i had to write an analysis for this book, and my professor was very adamant that we choose a complex thesis rather than some basic topic like 'there's racism in court' or something. So i discussed the way legal professionals in the court purposely minimize the defendant's legal consciousness and self advocacy because they either view them as too ignorant to be worthy of it, or they dislike how it disrupts the run-of-the-mill "processing human fodder into prisons" process they control. kind of controversial i know, dont be offended. i was taske with choosing a argumentative thesis and i'm open to criticism. essay: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l...

[Merricat Blackwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is extremely balanced and measured, which makes the portrait that it paints even more alarming. What Van Cleve documents here--social pressure to move cases quickly, career penalties imposed on defense attorneys who do their job too vigorously, an absolute lack of accountability for misconduct among lawyers and especially judges--adds up to a system in which due process rights have crumbled to nothing. I thought this book was a good complement to Alexandra Natapoff's Punishment Without Crime; it explores similar issues but with less of a lawyer's perspective and more description, more analysis of the kinds of things that don't show up in a court record. (And by the way, a lot of people seem to be confused about this--no, narratives gathered from systematic observation by a team of observers logging hundreds of hours in the court are not mere "anecdotal evidence.")

[Andy Armendariz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book for a class that I’m taking for my masters. It is a brilliant insight into the actions of the judicial system and how they feed into systematic racism in the criminal justice system. The author conducted qualitative research through observation and interview to really depict what it’s like to go through the Cook County court system as not only a defendant but also as a family member or friend of someone in the system. Most criticisms of the book that I’ve seen deal with the fact that this is such a negative outlook on the system and honestly I disagree. I think it’s negative as a critique, but more it’s a call to action for those in the system to change the culture of injustice and racism. Definitely worth a read if you’re studying racial disparities or punishment before conviction. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean anything in this world today.

[Austin Segal · Rating 4 out of 5]

An essential read for anyone working within, beside, or against the criminal courts in Cook County, Illinois. Van Cleve synthesizes years of ethnographic data to characterize the culture of the courts—created and reified by all actors of the courts—and the devastating consequences of these ideas, norms, and incentives on the people accused of crimes. This is not only an exposé on one of the most infamous court systems in the United States but also a necessary point of reference for any advocates working to reduce the harms of these courts.

[John NM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-argued qualitative documentation of the ways that systemic racism operates. Especially compelling in showing how every actor, even those in the relative positions of power, ends up being dehumanized either through the intention of or through the complicity with these systems.

Largest criticism is the writing, as it definitely reads awkwardly in many spots and has the feel of most academic writing (which is not good).

[Cwelshhans · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with the premise, but it felt like a snapshot of what happens in courtrooms without really discussing how things ended up that way or why they keep going that way. It's worth reading with other books that deal with other criminal justice topics.

[Imani · Rating 5 out of 5]

amazing book that flowed smoothly from idea to idea, but the conclusion was a bit of a disappointment because it didn’t measure up to the rest of the book which was well-thought out and researched, particularly when she suggested solutions to the problem that she spent the entire book detailing.

[Abi Hamilton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book had a good overview of an ethnographic approach to the inner workings and legal trials of the the crook county court rooms. This book had good insight of the racism and racial divide between legally trained and those affected by law.

[Katie 🐞 · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Stars

The messages and narratives within this book are so important but the delivery and writing were just flat and repetitive. The same point was argued incessantly and it just felt like a ton of anecdotes strung together loosely by an overarching theme. Overall very disappointing.