People v. Sampson, 943 N.E.2d 783

Defendant Donald H. Sampson was indicted on two counts of aggravated battery and one count of resisting an officer.
The circuit court dismissed the indictment after finding prosecutorial misconduct at grand jury proceedings.
The State appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding the misconduct did not deprive due process and the indictment could proceed.
Huntley, a Kankakee County detective, testified before the grand jury; the State allegedly failed to disclose his hearsay basis and his status.
The prosecutor used leading questions and presented witnesses from multiple cases at once, according to the circuit court.
The majority concludes the indictment was valid and the case should be remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did grand jury misconduct deprive due process?	Sampson asserts due process was violated by misleading testimony.	State contends misconduct did not prejudice the grand jury or nullify the indictment.	No reversible due process violation; indictment reinstated.
Did failure to disclose hearsay and Huntley’s status affect validity?	Huntley’s status and hearsay nature were not disclosed, misleading the grand jury.	Disclosures were not required; testimony supported probable cause.	Not dispositive; indictment still valid.
Was prejudice shown to warrant dismissal of the indictment?	Prejudice existed because the grand jury was misled.	Prejudice not shown; evidence supplied probable cause.	Prejudice not shown; indictment stands.

People v. Fassler, 153 Ill. 2d 49 (1992) (indictment may be dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct)
People v. DiVincenzo, 183 Ill. 2d 239 (1998) (due process when prosecutor misleads grand jury or presents deceptive evidence)
People v. Creque, 72 Ill. 2d 515 (1978) (grand jury not bound by trial rules; hearsay may be present)
People v. J.H., 136 Ill. 2d 1 (1990) (grand jury investigation free from egregious procedural constraints)
People v. Holmes, 397 Ill. App. 3d 737 (2010) (no general duty to disclose hearsay to grand jury; exceptions noted)
People v. Oliver, 368 Ill. App. 3d 690 (2006) (misleading hearsay testimony can violate due process)
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (grand jury традиционно broad; indictment can be based on hearsay)
United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) (grand jury investigation not to be mini-trial)
Calandra v. United States, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary rule not extended to grand jury proceedings)
Torres, 245 Ill. App. 3d 297 (1993) (no obligation to present all exculpatory evidence to grand jury)
Jones, 19 Ill. 2d 37 (1960) (grand jury testimony evaluated for competence; indictment not invalidated by witness status)
Hruza, 312 Ill. App. 3d 319 (2000) (insufficiency of evidence to negate probable cause governs holding)