People v. Van Dyke
178 N.E.3d 263
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Case arises from the Laquan McDonald shooting and subsequent prosecution of Jason Van Dyke; the trial court entered a broad "interim decorum order" in January 2016 restricting extrajudicial disclosures.
- A February 2017 trial-court order required filings to Room 500; media intervenors sought relief and the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Room 500 filing requirement in May 2018.
- After Van Dyke’s conviction and sentencing (Oct. 2018–Jan. 2019), media intervenors moved to unseal numerous sealed court records; parties agreed to release many documents but 18 items remained sealed.
- The trial court denied aspects of the media’s efforts to vacate the decorum order and ordered 17–18 documents to remain sealed (May 23, 2019); media filed a timely interlocutory appeal as to the sealing order but not as to the earlier denial to join another intervenor.
- The Special Prosecutor later moved to lift the decorum order and to release the remaining sealed items in redacted form; the trial court granted that motion and released the 18 items redacted (Sept. 2019).
Issues
| Issue | Media/Appellants' Argument | State/Respondent (and trial court) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of media’s attempt to join a third party’s motion to vacate the decorum order | The May 23, 2019 order (denying reconsideration/joinder) was final and timely appealed under Rule 303 or Rule 605 | The proper vehicle is Rule 307 for interlocutory access orders; media’s appeal of the denial was untimely under Rule 307 and other rules don’t supply jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to this claim; the denial of joinder/reconsideration was not reviewable because Rule 307 required a timelier appeal |
| Whether the trial court erred by keeping (and redacting) documents relating to motions to dismiss that relied on grand jury material | Media: documents should be unsealed in full (or at least less redacted); public interest and newsworthiness justify release | State: grand jury secrecy and statute/common law preclude disclosure; redactions are the least-restrictive means; special-prosecutor redactions limited to grand-jury and juvenile identifiers | Affirmed on the merits: trial court did not abuse its discretion; grand-jury secrecy supported redactions and limited delay was reasonable |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction in Sept. 2019 to modify the prior interim order and release redacted documents after media filed its notice of appeal | Media: their notice of appeal divested the circuit court of jurisdiction; no changed circumstances justified modification | State: multiple interested parties remained; the motion to release was noticed and unopposed; appellate restrictions differ for interlocutory access orders | Trial court had jurisdiction to enter the September 2019 order; modification was valid and release in redacted form proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 397 Ill. App. 3d 232 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (interlocutory appeals under Rule 307 are proper vehicle for media challenges to access/decorum orders)
- People v. Zimmerman, 2018 IL 122261 (Ill. 2018) (supreme court endorses Rule 307 for appellate review of orders denying media access in criminal cases)
- In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949 (Ill. 2019) (party seeking grand-jury materials must show particularized need overcoming secrecy)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (grand jury is classic example where public-access presumption does not apply)
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 2008) (reviewing court must independently consider its jurisdiction)
- Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2016) (courts may in rare circumstances release historical grand-jury records under supervisory powers)
- Daley v. Laurie, 106 Ill. 2d 33 (Ill. 1985) (filing a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the cause)
- Bundy v. Chicago League of America, 125 Ill. App. 3d 800 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (trial court may not dissolve a permanent injunction absent changed circumstances)