Van Dyke avoids jail for now as judge delays bond ruling
A judge will decide next week whether Jason Van Dyke lands in jail for giving press interviews just days ahead of his trial for the murder of Laquan McDonald.
At a rare Saturday hearing at the George Leighton Criminal Court Building, Judge Vincent Gaughan said he would hold off on ruling on whether to take Van Dyke into custody for violating the judge’s “decorum order” barring Van Dyke and others involved in the case from talking publicly.
Gaughan set a hearing for Thursday — the day after jury selection is set to begin — on Special Prosecutor Joseph McMahon’s request to revoke Van Dyke’s $1.5 million bond. The judge also ruled that once the murder trial is over, Van Dyke will have a separate hearing on a potential contempt of court charge.
Van Dyke, who had refused interview requests throughout the three years since he first was charged with McDonald’s murder, last week granted interviews to the Chicago Tribune and WFLD.
In court on Saturday, Assistant Special Prosecutor Joseph Cullen called the interviews a pre-trial “media blitz” that defied a court order intended to tamp down publicity surrounding the high-profile case.
“If a decorum order is in place to prevent parties from trying case in the press in a highpublicity case like this, it is appropriate,” Cullen said. “Nothing could be more clear with the media blitz the defense has been on for the past few days.”
Van Dyke’s lawyer, Daniel Herbert, said Van Dyke had been the subject of negative news coverage since charges were announced against the veteran officer in November 2015.
“There have been thousands and thousands and thousands of stories written about Jason Van Dyke, all of them negative,” Herbert said. “To submit that this so-called ‘media blitz’ . . . has unleveled the playing field against them is . . . preposterous.”
Herbert also said Van Dyke had a First Amendment right to talk about the case, and hinted that his client was afraid he might not live through the end of the trial.
“He might not make it to trial,” Herbert said. “The threats out there are real. He’s afraid for his safety.”
Gaughan quickly ruled that a hearing on the contempt charge — a case that could require another jury trial — would wait until after the McDonald case concludes, but said he would have to weigh the implications of revoking Van Dyke’s bond ahead of the trial.
The First Amendment argument, and Herbert’s statements about the threats against Van Dyke’s life, did not seem to sway the judge. Gaughan pointed out that Herbert could have asked the judge to allow Van Dyke to speak publicly about the case at any time after the decorum order was entered in 2015, and Herbert’s statements of concern for Van Dyke’s safety could have “unintended consequences.”
“What you’re trying to say is I should take your client into protective custody,” Gaughan cautioned.
Gaughan said he would weigh his decision on Van Dyke’s bond, and specifically was concerned about the implications of Van Dyke making public statements when he could also testify during the trial.