FirstAlerts

Former Evanston-Skokie District 65 Superintendent Devon Horton Charged in Federal and Georgia Cases

Federal prosecutors allege Devon Horton accepted kickbacks in exchange for contracts, while Georgia authorities charge him with aggravated assault.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 1:54 p.m. ET
Devon Horton, the former Evanston-Skokie District 65 Superintendent, has been in two separate cases, according to the Chicago Tribune. Federal prosecutors in the allege that from 2020 to 2023, Horton approved District 65 work contracts to companies of three friends that did little work, in return for kickbacks totaling nearly $81,000. He faces 17 counts of wire fraud, tax evasion and embezzlement, which carry a maximum prison sentence of 290 years. Separately, Georgia prosecutors have Horton with one felony count of aggravated assault by strangulation of his wife in the presence of his two children, and two misdemeanor counts of cruelty to children in the third degree. Horton is from Stone Mountain, Georgia. The charges are allegations, and Horton is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The cases are ongoing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 17:54current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.