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