2020 IL App (1st) 191384
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in the October 2014 shooting of Laquan McDonald; the trial court issued an interim decorum order on Jan. 20, 2016 restricting extrajudicial statements and the release of certain documents and evidence.
- The court modified filing procedures in Feb. 2017; media outlets intervened and successfully obtained a May 23, 2018 Illinois Supreme Court supervisory order vacating the Feb. 2017 filing restriction.
- Media appellants sought unsealing of numerous sealed court records post‑trial (they moved to unseal 99 documents); parties agreed to release many items but dispute remained over roughly 18–21 documents that contained grand jury material or juvenile identifiers.
- A separate journalist (Brandon Smith) moved to intervene to lift the decorum order for FOIA purposes; the trial court denied Smith’s intervention and rejected the media outlets’ joinder as a nullity.
- On May 23, 2019 the trial court issued a written order keeping certain documents sealed; media appealed. Later (Sept. 4, 2019) the special prosecutor moved and the trial court ordered release of the remaining 18 documents in redacted form.
- The appellate court considered (1) whether it had jurisdiction over the media’s appeal of the denial to vacate the decorum order and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by keeping or redacting grand jury‑related documents; it dismissed part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction over media’s challenge to denial of joinder in Smith’s motion to vacate the interim decorum order | Appellants: Rule 303 preserved their right to appeal the May 23 order; trial court’s nunc pro tunc ruling did not deprive appellate jurisdiction | State/Trial Ct: Media needed to pursue immediate interlocutory appeal under Rule 307; their delay forfeited Rule 307 review and no timely Rule 303 predicate existed because they never had a live motion to join after denial of intervention | Court: Dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction—media should have appealed under Rule 307 within 30 days; their motion to join was a nullity after denial of intervention, so Rule 303 did not supply jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by keeping/redacting documents (motions to dismiss alleging grand jury/ misconduct) | Appellants: Grand jury material used in motions should be public; redactions overly broad and withheld newsworthy information | State/Trial Ct: Grand jury materials and juvenile identifiers are protected by statute and common law secrecy; redactions were the least‑restrictive means and appropriate | Court: Affirmed—grand jury secrecy applies; trial court did not abuse discretion in delaying release or approving redactions of grand jury testimony and witness identities |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction in Sept. 2019 to lift the interim decorum order and release 18 documents after media filed notice of appeal | Appellants: Their notice of appeal cut off circuit court jurisdiction; no changed circumstances justified modifying an earlier order | State/Trial Ct: Notice did not divest court of jurisdiction as other interested parties (State, Smith, Van Dyke/City) remained able to seek relief; parties supported or did not object to release | Court: Trial court had jurisdiction to enter the Sept. 2019 order and to release the documents in redacted form; changed circumstances (objections evaporated and parties agreed to redactions) supported modification |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zimmerman, 2018 IL 122261 (Illinois 2018) (Rule 307 is the proper vehicle for appellate review of orders denying media access to criminal records or proceedings)
- People v. R. Kelly, 397 Ill. App. 3d 232 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (interlocutory appeals under Rule 307 appropriate for decorum/access orders; trial court balancing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor, 2019 IL 122949 (Illinois 2019) (party seeking grand jury material must show particularized need that outweighs secrecy policy)
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (Ill. 2008) (appellate courts have an independent duty to consider jurisdiction)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (public‑access presumption does not extend to grand jury proceedings)
- Daley v. Laurie, 106 Ill. 2d 33 (Ill. 1985) (filing a criminal defendant’s notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction over matters in that appeal)
- Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2016) (court’s supervisory power may permit release of very old grand jury materials in exceptional circumstances)
- Bundy v. Chicago League of America, 125 Ill. App. 3d 800 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984) (trial court may lack authority to dissolve a permanent injunction sua sponte absent changed circumstances)