Three Convicted in Plot to Retaliate Against Witnesses in Chicago Gang Murder Case
Donnita Bryant, Markeeves Brooks, and Michaela Richard were convicted of conspiring to retaliate against witnesses in a murder case.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 6:32 p.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 9, 2026, 7:39 p.m. ET — checked 29 min ago.
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 6:37 p.m. ET
Three Convicted in Plot to Retaliate Against Witnesses in Chicago Gang Murder Case
A jury has convicted Donnita Bryant, Markeeves Brooks, and Michaela Richard of conspiring with Diontae Harper to retaliate against witnesses in his murder case, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. The conviction stems from allegations that the group arranged a social media post of a witness interview to brand a government witness a 'rat.'
The FBI investigated the case. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled.
Sep 9, 2026, 6:32 p.m. ETFirst report
Three Convicted in Plot to Retaliate Against Witnesses in Chicago Gang Murder Case
Three people have been convicted of conspiring with a man to retaliate against witnesses in his murder case, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The convictions, reported on September 2, 2026, stem from allegations that Donnita Bryant, Markeeves Brooks, and Michaela Richard worked with Diontae Harper to arrange a social media post of a witness interview, branding a government witness a "rat."
The government alleged the conspiracy was aimed at retaliating against witnesses in Harper's murder case. The FBI investigated the matter, the Sun-Times reported.
The convictions were reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. Further details, including sentencing dates, have not been established.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 22:37current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 22:32current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 22:42current
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.