IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, 
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION .. 
a

 

JUDGE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

553
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. DEC 1 3 2017
i)
- - DOROTHY sac"
Plaintiff. CLERK OF WE. WRCU WN
v. NO. 17 CR 4286 1CL0URT

JASON VAN DYKE. Honorable Vincent M. Gaughan
Presiding Judge

Defendant. 


Defendant. Jason Van Dyke. has subpoenaed third?party witness and journalist, Jamie
Kalven. Jamie Kalven and the Garrity Team for the Special Prosecutor have both moved to
quash the subpoena. On December 6. 2017. the Court heard arguments from all parties and took

the matter under advisement. The Court rules as follows.

Many procedural safeguards ensure that a defendant?s fundamental right to due process is
protected. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 412. the Special Prosecutor is obligated to provide
any discovery material tending to negate the guilt of the defendant or reduce his punishment.
In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution violates an accused's constitutional right
tO due process of law by failing to disclose evidence favorable to the accused and material to
guilt or punishment. Bradv v. .llaryland. 373 US. 83. 87 (1963). This rule encompasses evidence
known to police investigators. but not to the prosecutor. Kyles v. l-Wzil?ley. 514 US. 419. 438
(1995). The prosecutor has a duty to learn of favorable evidence known to other government

actors. including the police. 1d. at 437.

The accused?s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process encompasses production of
documentary evidence by subpoena duces feet/m. independent of and in spite of discovery rules.
People ex rel. F?z?slzer v. Carey, 77 Ill. 2d 259 (1979). A subpoena (laces tecum should be allowed
and upheld if: (1) The material sought is relevant and usable as evidence; (2) The material cannot
be obtained any other way; (3) Counsel cannot prepare for trial without the material; and (4) The
subpoena is issued in good faith and the request is not a ?shing expedition. See United States v.
Nixon, 418 US. 683 (1974).

However. under Carey. the court must not hesitate to act on motions to quash subpoenas
which are oppressive, unreasonable. or overbroad. Carey-1, 77 Ill. 2d at 270. The permissible
breadth of a subpoena is measured by the subject matter and scope of the matter under
investigation. People v. Milerz's, 431 NE. 2d 1064 (lst Dist. 1981). A subpoena cit-ices team may
be subject to a motion to quash if; for example: (1) it is not speci?c enough (People v. Smith. 237
111. App. 3d 901 (3d Dist. 1992)); (2) it is overbroad (People v. Teller. 207 Ill. App. 3d 346 (2d
Dist. 1991)); (3) Compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive; (4) Compliance would
violate the Fifth Amendment right against self?incrimination (United States v. Doe. 465 US. 605
(1984)); (5) Compliance would violate the Fourth Amendment protection against. unreasonable
searches and seizures (Donovan Lone Steer, Inc. 464 US. 408 (1984)); (6) The material
sought is privileged (Appeal ofHug/zes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980)); The material sought is
not relevant (People v. Perez. 258 Ill. App. 3d 465 (5th Dist. 1994)).

The circuit court is required to weigh the evidence including the impact of any
undisclosed evidence on the verdict. See People Beamcm, 229 Ill. 2d 56. 72~73 (2008);
See People Harris. 206 111.2d 293. 31 (2002). Such an analysis requires applying established

law to the facts. People Beamcm. 229 Ill. 2d 56. 72?73 (2008). In making the materiality

Ix.)

determination. courts must consider the cumulative effect of all the suppressed evidence rather
than considering each item of evidence individually. People v. Hobie}: 182 111.2d 404, 435
(1998). citing K?es, 514 U.S. at 436?41.

he subpoena submitted by the defense in this instant matter is not sufficiently speci?c
and seeks irrelevant and privileged material. Each basis to quash the subpoena will be discussed
in turn.

First. there are no speci?c details regarding the alleged information that Kalven provided
Torres with defendant?s Galvin?protected statements. Indeed, the timeline of events suggests
that is not possible. Jamie Kalven spoke with 'l?orres in November 2014 after Torres? statement
to IPRA had already been memorialized on October 28, 2014. Report of?ProceediI/zgs: December
6. p. 26. As such. Torres could not have been exposed to Gantry?protected statements and there
is an independent source for Torres? statement. which is his own observations, not necessarily a
"leak" in the Chicago Police Department (CPD) as the defense suggests. Report of Proceedings;
December 6. p. 26?7.

Second. the information sought is irrelevant. The Garriiy team of the Special
Prosecutor?s Of?ce stated that they turned over 50,000 pages of discovery plus an additional
8,700 page of l.aquann McDonald?s DCF records. Report of?Proceediugs. December 6. p. 21.
The defense indicates that they have indeed received over 500.000 pages of discovery. Report of
Proceedings. December 6. p. 22. In all of those documents. there is simply no evidence to
support the allegation that Mr. Kalven received Gurrily?protected material. While such evidence.
if it existed, could be relevant to support the defendant?s theory that there is a ?leak" and a
criminal violation. there is simply no evidence to support such an allegation in the hundreds of

thousands of pages of documents tendered in discovery and Jamie Kalven himself has denied

Lu

having access to Gantry-protected statements. Further. any alleged ?leak? is a collateral matter
that is wholly irrelevant to any of the elements in a first degree murder trial. Investigation into
this issue is an internal matter to be handled by CPD. Therefore. to uphold the subpoena of Jamie
Kalven would be nothing more than a ?shing expedition in search of information that the
timeline of events. discovery documents. and testimony suggest simply does not exist.

Third. pursuant to the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act, ?No court may compel any
person to disclose the source of any information obtained by a 735 ILCS 5/8-901.
However. if the requirements for divestiture have been satisfied. then a court may compel a
reporter to disclose the source of information. People Palucio. 240 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (4th Dist.
1993). Here. Kalven?s source of information is protected by the Reporter?s Privilege. Further.
Mr. Herbert stated. ?Judge. quite frankly. we don?t necessarily care who the actual source was in

this case." Re MN 0 ?Proceedinus. December 6. . 38. As such. Kalven?s source is irrelevant.
I . 

Moreover. the claim that Kalven received copies of Garrify?protected statements is
contradicted by other sources that made the same information available the day after the
shooting. The CPD Office of New Affairs Press Release from October 21. 2014 contains the
same information that the defense claims could only have come from the defendant?s (I'm-Tigr?
protected statements. See Kalven '5 Exhibit 1 . As such. the claim that Kalven?s information could
only have come from Gravity?protected information is contradicted by the press release. Pat
Camden. an FOP representative. was also quoted in the Chicago?Tribune providing the same
information. See Kalvm Exhibit 2. Thus. Kalven"s information could have come from multiple
sources other than statements. Given that there is no evidence to support the
allegation that Kalven even possessed statements. Kalven's source of

information - information that it has not been proven he ever had is irrelevant.

Finally. even assuming arguendo. that Kalven was exposed to the Garrliy-protected
statements, there is still no taint. Defendant's non?Garrin?protected Statements to Detective
March are more comprehensive. meaning they contain the same or greater information than the
Garrily-protected statements. As such Witnesses could have been aware of the information
contained in the Gravity?protected statements Via the statements. Because
the non-Garrin-protected statements are broader and include the immunized statements. any
material statement contained in the Garriz?v?protected statements was available Via the substance

of the defendant's non?Gm?rity-protected statements and therefore no taint exists.
CONCLSUION

Based on the foregoing discussion. it is hereby ordered that the State?s Motion to Quash

the Subpoena of Jamie Kalven is hereby GRANTED.

  



 

Honorable Vincent Gatw
Circuit Court of Cook County 1M1 553
Criminal Division

9513161017

 

 

  

DEC 132017

Iii'wi'v'
Ling; 
DEPUTY COUNTY 1t RT