Prosecutor in Van Dyke case raises cautions

Says sentence review could have unintended results

Says he’s reviewing sentence, but an appeal could lead to unintended results.

The special prosecutor who won the historic conviction of former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke said Friday he is reviewing the relatively lenient prison sentence handed down for the murder of Laquan McDonald but cautioned that an appeal could lead to unintended consequences.

Joseph McMahon’s comments came a day after the Illinois attorney general’s office, which played no part in the Van Dyke case, signaled in a surprise move that it might intervene over the sentencing.

During an appearance Friday on WGN-AM radio and in a follow-up interview with the Chicago Tribune, McMahon said his trial team was consulting with McDonald’s family and will decide within a month whether to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review if a Cook County judge properly applied the law in sentencing Van Dyke to less than seven years in prison.

After the announcement Thursday by the attorney general’s office, at least one lawyer had harsh criticism, telling the Tribune that McMahon had “abandoned his responsibilities” by not challenging Judge Vincent Gaughan’s legal interpretation.

McMahon, the Kane County state’s attorney who voluntarily took on Van Dyke’s prosecution, cautioned that a legal challenge of the sentencing could prompt the defense to appeal the conviction, potentially forcing a new trial and dragging the case out for years. “If that happens, we’re going through this entire process again, and I don’t think that is in the long-term best interest of the city or the victim’s family,” said McMahon, who sought 18 to 20 years in prison for Van Dyke. “And that is my focus.”

On Thursday, a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul told reporters that the office is “reviewing” Van Dyke’s sentence. “We are going to do a careful review of the record and the law, and make a determination based on our review,” Maura Possley said.

While the statement left unclear what exactly Raoul’s office is examining, legal experts told the Tribune the attorney general might be considering whether to petition the state Supreme Court to order the trial judge to sentence Van Dyke again — only under tougher guidelines this time.

The attorney general’s announcement came as a surprise to McMahon, who told the Tribune that Raoul did not contact him beforehand, though some members of his staff had sought information about the case.

Last fall, a Cook County jury found Van Dyke guilty of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery, marking the first time in half a century a Chicago police officer was convicted of murder for an on-duty shooting.

Van Dyke shot McDonald in October 2014 as the 17-year-old walked away from police while holding a knife and under the influence of PCP. Graphic police dashcam video of the shooting — ordered released by a judge more than a year later — sparked weeks of chaos and political upheaval, exacerbating the alreadyfraught relationship between Chicago police and minority communities.

Judge Gaughan sentenced Van Dyke to six years and nine months in prison under the less stringent second-degree murder statute, not for the aggravated batteries that could have led to a much longer sentence. Van Dyke is eligible for parole after serving about half the sentence.

On the day of the sentencing, McMahon told reporters that he accepted the judge’s decision. The shorter sentence prompted the defense to back off promises to appeal Van Dyke’s conviction out of concern that such a move could result in added prison time.

In response to questions about the attorney general’s interest in the case, McMahon on Friday acknowledged Raoul — as does any citizen — has the legal authority to do so. McMahon said any high-court appeal would have to be based on whether the judge followed mandatory sentencing requirements, not on his discretionary authority to mete out the prison term.

The special prosecutor said his team began weighing the pros and cons of seeking high-court intervention before the attorney general’s involvement. McMahon said he will reach out to Raoul as he continues to talk to McDonald’s family and decide his next move.

The slain teen’s greatuncle, the Rev. Marvin Hunter, told the Tribune on Friday that he wants to learn more about what legal options are available before weighing in on the issue. He said he has heard from legal and civil rights experts from around the country since the sentence was announced. “Then we can make more of a clear statement as to what we believe should be done,” Hunter said. “But, just off the cuff, I believe the sentence (the judge) gave was wrong. It was wrong, and we have to get this right because the world is watching. … Certainly, three years is not a sentence that matches the crime that happened.”

Daniel Herbert, one of Van Dyke’s attorneys, has blasted the review by the attorney general as politically motivated, accusing Raoul of exploiting “the tragic death of Laquan McDonald for his own political gain.”

McMahon disagreed. He did, though, question whether it would do more harm than good. “A lot of people would have liked a longer sentence,” he said. “I asked for a longer sentence. But I also think there is value in certainty and closure. And if there is a way to achieve that, maybe we can get to that point sooner rather than later, and I think that in the big picture would be a good thing.”

McMahon declined to say if he was disappointed or felt a sense of failure in the sentence. Instead, the veteran prosecutor said he hopes history will accurately reflect the role that the case has played in Chicago’s history.

“Hopefully, with the passage of time, what people will remember about this case … will be that a police officer was held accountable. He was convicted of murder, and he was sentenced to prison,” McMahon said. “That will be the long-term message — that our laws do apply to everybody, and we will step forward and hold everyone accountable whether they’re a police officer, private citizen, career criminal, what have you. The laws apply equally to all of us. I hope that’s the bigger message that people will take from this case with the passage of time.”