Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
Posted in:
* Some background is here if you need it. Click here for the appellate order. Springfield Leaks had the scoop. Here’s the SJ-R…
A Friday hearing to set “least restrictive conditions” for the release of a former Sangamon County Sheriff’s deputy charged with the first-degree murder of Sonya Massey is off.
The Fourth District Appellate court on Tuesday granted a State’s motion to stay an order issued on Nov. 27 directing Sean Grayson be released from custody.
The new hearing date is Jan. 2, 2025, pending further action by the Illinois Supreme Court.
* WCIA…
“This will allow the State to pursue a further stay of the mandate directly from the Supreme Court,” the order reads. “Absent a further stay from the Supreme Court, the mandate will issue 35 days from the judgment.” […]
Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser told WCIA he has not finalized his appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, but plans to do so.
* Springfield Leaks…
[The appellate court] allowed the delay to give the State time to ask the Illinois Supreme Court for further action. The State had requested a longer stay to keep Grayson in custody during the appeal, but the appellate court found that the State did not show compelling reasons to justify holding him beyond the 35-day period.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 7:53 am
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t see the purpose in locking up an officer pre trial for something he did on the job. Is there some reason to think he is a flight risk or a risk to others? Presumably he is suspended or on desk duty or something, and not at risk to reoffend.
There are absolutely people walking the streets right now in Chicago and elsewhere who should be detained. But it is also true that there are lots of people who are detained that probably don’t need to be.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 9:20 am
== Is there some reason to think he is a flight risk or a risk to others? Presumably he is suspended or on desk duty or something, and not at risk to reoffend.==
He was (rightly) fired. There is no desk for him to do any duty. Given what he’s charged with, and his track record, obvious short fuse, poor judgment and temper, along with the tinder box his not being in custody will create, he could very much be a flight risk and danger to the community.
Comment by fs Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 9:51 am
- Homebody -
You might want to review the facts on this specific case. While he is no longer a police officer, the shooting was *not* targeted at a specific individual per se, but just a person who had called the Sheriff’s office for help.
Obviously, the person who was shot is now deceased. Given the circumstances, I take that to be a general risk to the public, as opposed to a specific risk to harm just one person. And as a general risk, even if no longer a police officer, I think that reaches the standard to detain.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 9:59 am
I am with FS on this.
The empirical evidence on the shooting shows a person who lacks impulse control, and is a danger and threat to the community. As to whether or not he is a flight risk, I cannot say; I can only speculate. But protecting the community from a demonstrably dangerous persons is sufficient grounds for detaining a person. We would do this in any similar shooting in which a person comes into a kitchen, interacts with a mentally ill person, and then unjustifiably shoots to kill.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 10:27 am
“something he did on the job”
You mean shooting an innocent woman to death?
“Presumably he is suspended or on desk duty or something”
He was fired because he shot an innocent woman to death.
“not at risk to reoffend”
Based on the fact that he shot an innocent woman to death?
“There are absolutely people walking the streets right now in Chicago and elsewhere who should be detained”
Are they people who shot an innocent woman to death?
“there are lots of people who are detained that probably don’t need to be”
Do you honestly believe there are “lots of people” who shot an innocent woman to death who should be out and about?
Sean Grayson, a man with a history of dangerous behavior, shot Sonya Massey, an innocent woman, to death.
He’s right where he belongs.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 10:27 am
In a sane, well-run society, penalties would be HIGHER for lawyers, judges, cops, politicians, and others charged with making and enforcing the laws.
But in a well-run society we’d also have variable tickets by income, like they do in Scandinavia, so rich people can’t treat speeding tickets like a throwaway cost while they ruin poor people.
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 11:01 am
Seems to me he will require constant security. Otherwise, someone is liable to take justice into their own hands. As a taxpayer, I have to ask: how much is this going to cost us?
Comment by Former Downstater Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 11:12 am
- I don’t see the purpose in locking up an officer pre trial for something he did on the job. Is there some reason to think he is a flight risk or a risk to others? -
Is this some lame attempt at trolling or do you not know anything about this case?
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 11:54 am
=I have to ask: how much is this going to cost us?=
About the same as it would to lock up any other noteworthy defendant. But just as in those instances it’s completely irrelevant to the analysis.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 12:38 pm
==About the same as it would to lock up any other noteworthy defendant.==
How so? Prisons are literally set up to protect people around the clock. I would guess round the clock protection of a private residence in not in most police department’s budgets.
And why is it irrelevant? If a department isn’t equipped to protect someone should they be released, isn’t that a good argument to keep them in custody?
Comment by Former Downstater Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 12:55 pm
“An Illinois appellate court ruled Wednesday that a former deputy sheriff […] should be released from jail pending his first-degree murder trial.”
Where does it say “Private residence?”
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 1:17 pm
yes, it is my assumption he will reside in one as well.
Given the fact many people in the community are big-time mad about his release, do you honestly believe his safety can be insured outside of a constant police presence? Especially considering I was able to find his home address with a 5-minute Google search.
The town he resides in, Riverton, IL has a population of 3,475. Do you honestly believe their police department is presently equipped for 24-hour surveillance?
Additional resources will be needed to protect him in his home. These resources cost money. It will be the burden of the taxpayers to provide this money.
Perhaps this is not a consideration the law allows for. But it certainly should be.
Comment by Former Downstater Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 2:26 pm
===do you honestly believe his safety can be insured===
What is the obligation for this?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 2:34 pm
The guy’s a loose cannon. Badge or not, he’s repeatedly proven himself irresponsible with cars, firearms, and human life.
Comment by Bob Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 2:39 pm
Thanks everyone for the extra info. I wasn’t familiar with all the background of this case. I somehow got it in my head this was a “run of the mill” excessive force case (though it is depressing that the idea of a “run of the mill excessive force case” is even a thing).
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 2:59 pm
==What is the obligation for this?==
I would assume part of the terms of his release would be adequate security to make sure he makes it to trial.
If not, I have no idea why he even wants to be released.
Comment by Former Downstater Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 3:43 pm
=I would assume part of the terms of his release would be adequate security to make sure he makes it to trial.=
The state has no legal obligation to protect a defendant upon release. Heck it often falls short on protecting victims. Any decision regarding release should be framed by the crime that’s been committed and the defendant’s propensity to re-offend while awaiting trial.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Dec 4, 24 @ 4:02 pm