Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » Raoul responds to Van Dyke decision
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Raoul responds to Van Dyke decision

Wednesday, Mar 20, 2019

* NBC 5

A lawyer for a white Chicago police officer convicted of killing black teenager Laquan McDonald says he’s “extremely pleased” with a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court to let stand a prison sentence of less than seven years for his client.

The Tuesday decision denies a bid by the Illinois attorney general’s office and a special prosecutor to have Jason Van Dyke resentenced. Critics said the sentence was far too lenient. With credit for good behavior, Van Dyke could be freed in three years. […]

Before deciding on a sentence, Gaughan first had to determine if the case fell under the “one act, one crime” doctrine, allowing Van Dyke to be sentenced on only the more serious of the two crimes he was charged with. Van Dyke was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in a trial last year.

Prosecutors, citing precedent, argued if Van Dyke was sentenced for only one of the two charges, it should be for the aggravated battery charge, which carried a higher sentence.

Defense attorneys countered that second-degree murder was the appropriate charge, despite the possibility of probation. Ultimately, Gaughan chose to sentence Van Dyke for second-degree murder, giving him the 81-month sentence.

* Tribune

No explanation was given for the court’s refusal to hear the case. But the decision fell largely along political lines, with the court’s three Republicans — Rita Garman, Robert Thomas and Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier — joining Anne Burke, a Democrat who is married to Chicago Ald. Edward Burke, a onetime Chicago police officer who is facing federal corruption charges.

Two of the seven justices on the court, both Democrats, objected to the majority decision in full or in part, saying they believed Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan improperly relied on a previous Supreme Court opinion when he sentenced Van Dyke for a second-degree murder conviction, not the more serious counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.

Another Democratic justice, Mary Jane Theis, did not participate in the decision.

* AP

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul stopped short of criticizing the court, though he went out of his way several times to note the four justices in the majority didn’t offer a word of explanation for why they ruled as they did.

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t appear to be an option, including because the core legal issues have to do exclusively with Illinois law. Raoul acknowledged that his office had run out of options.

Asked whether Van Dyke’s comparatively light sentence was an illustration of racial disparities in sentencing, Raoul paused before saying: “Suffice to say that I believe the sentence was inconsistent with the law.”

AG Raoul replied “No comment,” when asked directly if he thought the Supreme Court ruling was politically motivated.

* Raoul’s press release…

We initiated this motion in conjunction with the Special Prosecutor based on the trial judge’s sentencing decision because it was inconsistent with Illinois law and Illinois Supreme Court precedent. We sought the Supreme Court’s review via a motion for leave to file a mandamus petition.

The Supreme Court majority, without explanation, denied that motion. However, two justices wrote separately to dissent from the denial, recognizing that the sentence was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and that the Court could and should grant the requested relief by exercising its supervisory authority.

The majority’s denial, without explanation, does not confirm whether Judge Gaughan’s sentence is consistent with Illinois law. Nonetheless, we recognize and respect the Court’s authority, which it can exercise without a specific request.

I would like to recognize the Special Prosecutor’s work throughout this case, as well as his office’s partnership with mine to bring this matter before the Court.

* Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Kimberly Lightford spoke for the caucus yesterday…

We are disappointed by the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. The sentencing Van Dyke received earlier this year contradicts state law and the high court’s precedent.

It is frustrating that the Supreme Court rejected this motion without explanation and saddening to know that law enforcement officers are not being held accountable for their actions.

The Illinois Legislative Black Caucus respects the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision, but will continue to fight to fix our broken justice system.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

  1. - Perrid - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:04 am:

    It may be rare for the SC to give reasons for refusing to hear a case, but I really think they should have here, especially after the dissenting members of the court wrote theirs. At least make the attempt to assure people that this isn’t partisanship or the blue wall. Instead we get nothing and everyone gets to fill in the blank as they wish.

  2. - A guy - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:06 am:

    ==G Raoul replied “No comment,” when asked directly if he thought the Supreme Court ruling was politically motivated.==

    From the start this was all politically motivated after the judge ruled. Kwame satisfied the people he needed to satisfy with his action. There’s lots for him to do now. It’s time to get on with the business of his office and move forward.

  3. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:27 am:

    If this was a political decision, what does that say about Justice Burke?

  4. - Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:29 am:

    Raoul’s decision was not “politically motivated.”

    He was joined my the Republican special prosecutor in an effort to redress what they believed to be a miscarriage of justice and a misinterpretation of the law.

    I would like to know why Theis did not participate. No show on such an issue of intense public interest?

  5. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:42 am:

    This decision short circuits the defense appeals. The risk to JVD of reopening this is too high.

  6. - A guy - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:53 am:

    The court might speak most loudly when it doesn’t speak at all. I think that may be the case here. They weren’t willing enough to fault the previous judge and question his judgement for whatever reason. If it is to be appealed any further, it will be with the minority dissenting opinions. While they didn’t all speak individually, the court spoke as a whole.

  7. - A guy - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 10:55 am:

    ==what does that say about Justice Burke?==

    It says she’s 1 of 5 in a majority.

  8. - West Side the Best Side - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 11:48 am:

    Justice Theis and Judge Gaughan worked together in the Public Defenders Office and on the bench at 26th St. They may, for all I know, be family friends and for that reason she did not participate. Appellate level courts generally only address issues raised by the parties. The petition was for mandamus, not mandamus and/or a supervisory order. Justice Neville was appointed to and is seeking election for the vacancy of Justice Freeman. His dissent certainly won’t hurt him in the primary.

  9. - Perrid - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 12:53 pm:

    A Guy, she’s 1 in 4 in a majority. I made the same mistake yesterday, but Justice Theis did not vote on this.

  10. - Shevek - Wednesday, Mar 20, 19 @ 3:55 pm:

    The Court’s Order was clearly politically motivated. I listed to Gaughan on the radio when he explained his sentence before delivering it. As an attorney I was quite confused by his complete reliance on a dissenting opinion from a case directly on point (the Lee case dealt with the exact same issue, sentence for 2nd degree murder or aggravated battery with a firearm). Circuit courts cannot simply decide they like a dissenting opinion so they’ll go with that. They are supposed to follow the law, which would be the majority opinion issued by Lee. So, for the Court’s majority to decide they don’t feel like reviewing the issue (which is what the Order means) is essentially saying that a circuit court is free to ignore our precedents as long as it’s a hot issue and we don’t want to deal with it.

    Very disappointing.

  11. - Keyrock - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 7:01 am:

    It says about Justive Burke that she’s married to a former police officer and current criminal defendant, and that her husband was backed for re-election by the Fraternal Order of Police.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Question of the day
* Belated Willie Wilson fact check
* Whistleblower strongly disagrees with IG findings
* Separated at birth?
* Fun with numbers
* Madigan has spent $1.2 million on legal fees since fall 2017
* You just cannot argue with some people
* *** UPDATED x7 *** $170K Goodwill director lays off low wage workers citing minimum wage law that doesn't apply, but son makes $96K
* Chance the Snapper in custody
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...





Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller