TO YOU.
>> Phil: THANK YOU AMANDA.
NOW, OVER TO EDDIE ARRUZA WITH
A LEGAL VIEW OF TODAY'S
VERDICT.
>> Eddie: IT TOOK THE JURY IN
THE VAN DYKE CASE TO TAKE SEVEN
HOURS TO REACH IT'S VERDICT.
AS WE HEARD, THE JURORS WHO
SPOKE TO THE MEDIA AFTER FOUND
VAN DYKE'S TESTIMONY ON THE
WITNESS STAND REHEARSED AND
HARD TO ACCEPT.
ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT ONE JUROR
SAID WAS MANY, MANY FEELINGS OF
THAT NOW INFAMOUS DASHCAM
VIDEO, SHOWING LAQUAN McDONALD
BEING SHOT 16 TIMES.
>> WE THE JURY FIND THE
DEFENDANT, JASON VAN DYKE,
GUILTY OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER.
WE THE JURY FIND THE DEFENDANT,
JASON VAN DYKE, GUILTY OF
AGGRAVATED BATTERY WITH A
FIREARM, FIRST SHOT.
WE THE JURY FIND THE DEFENDANT
JASON VAN DYKE GUILTY OF
AGGRAVATED BATTERY WITH A
FIREARM, SECOND SHOT.
>> Eddie: JASON VAN DYKE
REMAINED EXPRESSIONLESS AS ONE
GUILTY VERDICT AFTER ANOTHER
WAS READ TONIGHT, WITH HIS BILL
REVOKED, HE IS IN JAIL, A
CONVICTED FELON.
>>> JOINING US WITH THE LEGAL
ANALYSIS OF THE JURY'S DECISION
IS RICHARD KLING, CHICAGO-KENT
COLLEGE OF LAW AND A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY.HE REGULARLY GIVES
LECTURES TO LAWYERS ON THE
ILLINOIS RULE OF EVIDENCE.
NANCY MARDER IS A PROFESSOR AT
CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW WHO
IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE JUSTICE
JOHN PAUL JURY CENTER.
SHE HAS WRITTEN AND TAUGHT
EXTENSIVELY ABOUT JUROR
QUESTIONS, AND JURY
DELIBERATIONS.
AND, SHARONE MITCHELL, ILLINOIS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PROJECT THAT
SHE RECENTLY SERVED AS A TRIAL
ATTORNEY IN THE COOK COUNTY
COURT OFFICE.
TAKE YOU ALL FOR BEING WITH US
TONIGHT.
LET ME JUST ASK A QUICK
QUESTION AND WERE ANY OF YOU
SURPRISED BY ANY OF THE
VERDICTS TODAY?
>> NO.
>> Eddie: ANY SURPRISES AT ALL?
SHOCKING REVELATIONS?
>> Guest: NO.
>> Eddie: MATT MASTERSON DID A
GREAT JOB AT LAYING IT ALL UP
BUT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE
CONVICTION TODAY, SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER AND THEN ALL OF THOSE
ASSAULT CHARGES.
TELUS, THE DEGREE OF
SERIOUSNESS THERE.
>> Guest: AS STRANGE AS IT
SOUNDS, THE AGGRAVATED BATTERY
WITH A FIREARM IS MORE SERIOUS
THAN SECOND-DEGREE MURDER.
AGGRAVATED BATTERY WITH A
FIREARM IS PUNISHABLE WITH NOT
LESS THAN SIX YEARS AND NO MORE
THAN 30.
IT IS NOT FISSIONABLE.
>> Eddie: A MINIMUM OF 6 FOR
EACH COUNT?
>> Guest: YES WITH 80 PERCENT
SERVICE.
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER IS 4 TO 20
IN THE PENITENTIARY BUT IT IS
PROBATIONAL.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS AGGRAVATED
BATTERY WITH A FIREARM IS MORE
SERIOUS THAN IT SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER.
HAVING DONE RESEARCH IN THE LAW
AND THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS,
WHAT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN AS A
COUPLE OF THINGS.
NO. 1 BECAUSE THE AGGRAVATED
BATTERY IS MORE SERIOUS THAN
THE SECOND-DEGREE MURDER, THE
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER WILL
PROBABLY MERGE INTO THE
AGGRAVATED BATTERY AND THE LESS
SERIOUS INTO THE MORE SERIES.
AND THEN SECONDLY, A QUESTION
WEATHER THEY SHOULD BE SERVED
CONSECUTIVELY OR CONCURRENTLY
HEAR THEIR IS A BODY OF LAW
THAT IF YOU GO BANG, BANG,
BANG, BANG, RIGHT IN A ROW THAT
IS ONE ACT, ONE OFFENSE, ONE
OFFENSE WHICH WOULD NOT BE
CONSECUTIVE.
>> Eddie: THERE IS SOME DOUBT
AS PROFESSOR KLING WAS SAYING
IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AS TO
WEATHER IT SHOULD BE SERVED ONE
ACT OR 16 SEPARATE OXFORD WHY
SUN-TABULOUS?
>> Guest: THE LAW.
THERE ISN'T CLEAR LAW ON THE
ISSUE.
THERE IS A MULTIPLE STRANDS OF
LAW AND THERE ARE LOTS OF
PETITIONERS THAT ARE GOING BACK
AND FORTH IN THIS QUESTION.
>> Eddie: NANCY MARDER IS
SOMEONE WHO IS VERY FAMILIAR
WITH JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT AT THE
LAST MINUTE.
THE JUDGE GIVING THEM THE
OPTION OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER?
>> Guest: I THINK IT WAS SO
THAT THEY COULD REACH AN
ACCOMMODATION, A VERDICT AND
THAT THEY ALL COULD AGREE ON.
>> Eddie: DO BELIEVE THAT
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER WAS
SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD NOT
AGREE ON IF THAT WAS THEIR ONLY
OPTION?
>> Guest: THERE IS A
POSSIBILITY.
YOU WANT TO COME TO SOMETHING
THAT IS MORE WITHIN.
>> Eddie: WHEN THEY STARTED THE
DELIBERATIONS, THE JURORS WHO
SPOKE OUT TODAY SAID THAT SEVEN
IMMEDIATELY SAID THAT THEY WERE
READY TO CONVICT.
TO WERE SAYING NOT GUILTY AND
THEN THREE OTHERS WERE
UNDECIDED.
AGAIN, IS THE SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER CHARGE THAT OPTION WHAT
BROUGHT THEM TOGETHER DO YOU
BELIEVE?
>> Guest: A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER, YOU HAVE
TO PROVE 1ST DEGREE MURDER AND
THEN THE DEFENSE HAD TO PROVE
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, IN
THIS CASE, SELF-DEFENSE.
SECONDLY, THE LAW OF ILLINOIS
IS QUITE RARE.
IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE OF 2ND
DEGREE MURDER AND SELF-DEFENSE
AND THE DEFENSE REQUESTED IT,
THE JUDGE HAD NO CHOICE.
PRESUMABLY THE DEFENSE
REQUESTED THAT THE JURY BE
INSTRUCTED ON SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER.
IF THAT IS THE CASE THAT IS THE
CASE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN
ACCOMMODATION.
IF I WAS A DEFENSE LAWYER, I
WOULD BE WRITTEN BY
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER BECAUSE I
WOULD SEE IT AS A COMPROMISE
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER WOULD
REQUIRE A MANDATORY MINIMUM OF
45 YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY.
THAT IS A LOT OF TIME TO GAMBLE
AWAY.
>> Eddie: SHARONE MITCHELL, ONE
OF THE THINGS I SAID TODAY IS
THAT THEY FOUND JASON VAN
DYKE'S TESTIMONY ON THE STAND
TO BE REHEARSED.
OBVIOUSLY ANYONE WHO TAKES THE
STAND IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE
ESPECIALLY FOR A MURDER CHARGE
IS REHEARSED BY THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS.
WHY DID THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
IN THE CASE SEE THAT JASON VAN
DYKE MIGHT NOT COME OFF AS
CREDIBLE?
>> Guest: IT IS DIFFICULT.
AT TIME HE REMEMBERED THINGS
VERY VIVIDLY.
AT OTHER TIMES HE DID NOT
REMEMBER THINGS VIVIDLY.
I THINK JURORS WANT CONSISTENCY
AND HONESTY.
I BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE,
THE JURY DID NOT SEE A PERSON
TELLING THE STREET AND COMPLETE
TRUTH AND THERE WERE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT VERSION OF
THE STORY WAS TOLD, WEATHER IT
WAS AN EXPERT OR OFFICERS
DURING THE SCENE ON THE SCENE
THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT.
YOU HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT.
>> Eddie: DO YOU THINK THAT'S
WHERE THEY LOST WHEN HE TOOK
THE STAND?
>> Guest: I THINK IT WAS A VERY
POWERFUL VISUAL.
THE DASH CAM VIDEO.
WHILE VIDEOS CAN BE INTERPRETED
IN DIFFERENT WAYS, WHEN YOU CAN
LOOK AT SOMETHING AND SEE IT
FOR YOURSELF, IT CAN BE VERY
POWERFUL.
AS YOU LOOK AT IT OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, IT IS REALLY HARD TO SEE
THAT.
>> Eddie: THEY LOOKED AT IT IN
THEIR WORDS, MANY, MANY, MANY
TIMES.
DO YOU THINK THERE WAS EVER ANY
TESTIMONY THAT THEY COULD HAVE
PRESENTED THAT WOULD HAVE
OVERCOME THAT VISUAL?
>> Guest: I AM HARD-PRESSED TO
THINK OF ANY.
>> Eddie: DO YOU THINK THAT WAS
A GIVEN?
>> Guest: IT WAS VERY POWERFUL.
>> Eddie: THE JURORS THAT SPOKE
OUT TODAY SOUNDED VERY
CONFIDENT IN THEIR DECISION.
THEY SAID THAT THEY LISTENED
CAREFULLY HERE THEY SAID THAT
THEY DIDN'T SOUND LIKE THEY
WERE FORCED INTO ANY DECISION.
JASON VAN DYKE'S OF ORDERS AND
I THINK WE WILL HEAR FROM ONE
OF THEM AND JUST A LITTLE BIT
HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THERE IS
THE FERGUSON EFFECT IN PLAY
HERE MEANING THE MISSOURI CASE
IN WHICH MICHAEL BROWN WAS
SHOT, A BLACK MAN BY A WHITE
OFFICER AND THAT SET OUT RIGHT
AND PROTESTS, REALLY AROUND THE
COUNTRY.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AT
ALL FACTORED INTO THEIR
DECISION TONIGHT?
>> Guest: I GIVE THEM A LOT OF
CREDIT.
TAKEN AT FACE VALUE.
THEY DELIBERATED AND IT WASN'T
A UNANIMOUS VERDICT AT THE
BEGINNING.
THEY LOOKED AT THE PROS AND
CONS AND IT WAS A HARD DECISION
TO COME TO.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS A PRODUCT
OF THE FERGUSON EFFECT, I THINK
IT WAS A PRODUCT OF
DELIBERATION.
>> Guest: IT IS HARD TO GET
YOUR HEAD AROUND.
THERE WAS A VIDEO AND THERE WAS
A TESTIMONY ASKING JURORS TO
BELIEVE SOMETHING ON THE VIDEO
THAT DID NOT SEEM TO BE THERE.
THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TO THE
VIDEO AND THE TESTIMONY THAT
SEEM TO CONTROVERT WHAT THE
VIDEO SHOWED MADE IT DIFFICULT
FOR THE DEFENSE.
>> Eddie: THERE IS A LOT OF
MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING
TAKING PLACE AND MAYBE WE ARE
ALREADY DOING THAT HERE NANCY
MARDER.
AS YOU LOOK BACK, SHOULD THEY
HAVE GONE WITH A BENCH TRIAL?
WOULD THAT HAVE MADE A
DIFFERENCE OPPOSED TO A JURY
TRIAL?
>> Guest: I THINK THE JURY
TRIAL IS THE FAIREST PROTECTION
THAT WE OFFER TO DEFENDANTS.
IT IS NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM THAT
THERE IS NO PERFECT SYSTEM.
I THINK THE JURY TRIAL IS WHAT
YOU DO IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT
A FAIR TRIAL.
>> Eddie: WHAT IT HAVE MADE ANY
DIFFERENCE IF JASON VAN DYKE
TESTIFIED?
DO YOU THINK?
>> Guest: I THINK ACCORDING TO
MY COLLEAGUE HERE, HE HAD NO
CHOICE.
>> Guest: IN A SELF-DEFENSE
CASE, YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE ONE
PERSON SAY WHAT THEY ARE
THINKING AND THAT WAS JASON VAN
DYKE GOOD THREE OF ALL THE
PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM TODAY
YOU GOT A SHOUT OUT FROM THE
JUDGE, HE PRAISED YOU AND
NOTICED THAT YOU WERE IN THE
COURTROOM THERE.
TELL US WHAT YOU FELT AND SAW
IN THE COURTROOM.
>> Guest: IT WAS AN INTENSE
COURTROOM.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED AS A TRIAL
LAWYER, BUT I WAS JUST THERE AS
AN OBSERVER.
IN TERMS OF THE JUDGE GIVING A
SHOUT OUT, I WILL GIVE HIM ONE
BACK.
I KNOW IT WAS A HARD CASE.
IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT AND VERY
COMPLICATED.
IT WAS IN THE FRONT PAGE AS YOU
KNOW, IT WAS A HEATER CASE.
I DON'T THINK THE VERDICT
WOULD'VE BEEN ANY DIFFERENT HAD
IT BEEN A BENCH TRIAL.I THINK
THE LAW IS THE LAW.
>> Eddie: SHARONE MITCHELL, ONE
OF THE GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL
HERE?
>> Guest: THEY WILL TRY TO
APPEAL IN THE APPEAL PROCESS
BUT THEY CAN THROW ANYTHING
AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE IF IT
WILL STICK.
I THINK ONE OF THE FOCUS WILL
BE THE VENUE QUESTION, THE IDEA
THAT THE CASE WAS HEARD IN COOK
COUNTY AND BECAUSE THE
SENTIMENT AROUND THE CASE
LOCALLY THAT THE DEFENDANT
COULD NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL,
THERE WILL BE OTHER ISSUES AS
WELL BUT ISIS ACT THAT WILL BE
ONE OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS.
>> Eddie: DO YOU WANT TO THROW
A MONKEYWRENCH AT THAT?
>> Guest: MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT NOT ALL OF THE CHALLENGES
OF THE JURY WAS EXERCISED THE
LAW IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE TO
EXERCISE ALL OF THAT TO MAKE
SURE THE JURY WAS FAIR.
IF ALL THE CHALLENGES WAS
EXERCISE IT WILL BE A LOSING
APPEAL.
>> Eddie: DESCRIBED THE IMPACT
OF A CASE LIKE THIS ON THE
JURY.
EXCUSE ME THE JURORS.
>> Guest: I THINK ANYTIME THAT
YOU SERVE AS A JUROR, IT LEAVES
A LASTING IMPRESSION.
YOU CAN ASK WILL 20 YEARS LATER
AND THEY WILL REMEMBER THE JURY
TRIAL.
I THINK WHEN PEOPLE SERVE, THEY
REALIZE HOW SERIOUS THEIR JOB
IS WHERE THEY GROW TO TAKE
THEIR JOB VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND SO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT
STAYS WITH THEM AND I THINK
IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS IT IS
SOMETHING THAT CAN CAUSE THEM A
GREAT DEAL OF ANGUISH OR
STRESS.
BECAUSE, THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH
THIS EMOTIONALLY WRENCHING
EXPERIENCE BUT ONE THAT THEY
ARE USUALLY QUITE POSITIVE
ABOUT AFTERWARD.
>> Eddie: THEY SOUNDED VERY
PROUD TO BE A PART OF THE
PROCESS ON THAT JURY.
SHARONE MITCHELL, THERE WAS A
LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE MAKEUP OF
THE STREET BECAUSE THERE WAS
ONLY ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN AND
WE HEARD FROM HER THIS
AFTERNOON.WAS THAT JUROR IN
EACH OF THE POSITION TO THINK
WE'LL.
>> Guest: YOU KNOW, I AM NOT
SURE.
I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF
COMMENTARY CENTERED AROUND THIS
AND THAT IT WOULD BE ABOUT
RACE, BUT I DID NOT GET IN THE
TRIAL.
THERE WAS ONE MENTION OF LAQUAN
McDONALD BEING A BLACK BOY AND
THERE WAS A RESPONSE IN THE
OPENING BY DAN HERBERT SAYING
IT WAS NOT ABOUT RACE.THE
ACTUAL TESTIMONY, THE CRUX OF
THE CASE DID NOT CENTER ABOUT
RACE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS A
FACTOR.
>> Eddie: RICHARD KLING, THIS
IS NOT OVER.
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER TRIAL OF
THREE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH
CONSPIRING A
THREAT POSED BY
LAQUAN McDONALD.
IT WILL BE ANOTHER SERIOUS
CASE.
GIVE US A PREVIEW OF WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN THERE, GIVEN WHAT
HAPPENED TODAY.
>> Guest: IF I WAS A DEFENSE
LAWYER IN THAT CASE I WOULD BE
POURING OVER THIS TESTIMONY AND
THE JURY BECAUSE I WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY QUESTIONING WEATHER
OR NOT I WANT TO NEGOTIATE A
PLEA.
REALISTICALLY IT IS CLEAR NOW
THAT THE CITIZENS OF COOK
COUNTY CAN CONVICT A POLICE
OFFICER IF THEY BELIEVE THE