Politics: Trial may have to be moved because of Lyons
From today’s Journal Star article about State’s Attorney Kevin Lyon’s press conference:
[Accused rapist Monterius] Hinkle’s case is set for a pretrial conference later this week and trial next month. When reached by phone, his attorney, Kevin Lowe of the public defender’s office, said, ‘That’s my main concern. This is a case that has already garnered significant media attention.’
‘The current round of publicity [italics mine] makes it impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Peoria County, and as a result, I’ll be filing a motion to change venue,’ Lowe said.
And who is responsible for this “current round of publicity?” That would by Lyons. Even if you believe Darin LaHood was wrong to contact the family of the victim, the public learned about it ONLY because Lyons had his overwrought hissy fit in front of the cameras.
And bear in mind there is NO law against an attorney contacting the family of a crime victim, nor any ethical rule against it. If there were, Lyons would have filed charges or a complaint against LaHood with the bar association.
Lyons defenders (even those who use their own name) often cits how concerned he is about fair trials. Consider the underlying reason Kinkle’s attorney will seek a change of venue: His client can no longer get a fair trial.
And I’m sure the families involved in this will just love having to travel to whatever remote location is chosen for the trial. And the taxpayers have to foot the bill.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Can’t say I didn’t expect to see you draw this conclusion but COME ON. No matter how you twist it – the situation was caused by LaHood’s actions. There is a direct cause and effect. If LaHood hadn’t engaged in unethical (at a minimum) behavior, Lyons wouldn’t have had any opportunity to raise the issue.
Whether Lyons should have “sat on the information” rather than disclose it it is another matter. But why should he when LaHood is clearly pimping for the police officers.
If you did this for money, I’d call you a prostitute. But since I think you’re doing it out of personal belief, guess I’ll have to find another term for ya.
Keep on keeping on.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
What is the possible prejudice against the Defendant because of this? That is the root cause for a change of place of trial, not because of a press conference called to uproot someone who contacted the victim or her family.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
wrong wrong wrong. lyons never mentioned the name of the defendant, it was lahood who did that. it was the specific mention of hinkle as a monster and a serial rapist which poisoned the jury pool, not the references to lahood’s false statements to a victim’s mom about being the new prosecutor on the case. all of those cases may not be tried at once which makes references to them in a different trial improper. and don’t be sure that lahood’s statements didn’t violate the ethics rules of the state. in fact, if he had been a prosecutor, he absolutely would have violated the new supreme court rules regarding pretrial publicity. and if the police investigation shows that he learned the address from a police detective, and not from the pjstar (as he said this morning on the greg and dan show), then accordng to don craven, he’s participated in a violation of the law. (good work to WCBU for some real journalism and not just an I smell a rat hunch). if so, then an ethics beef is a certainty. lahood and better pray that gatehoue is too busy to check their archives for references to the victim address and that the police detectives on this case, including the union chief, don’t come cleanand admit that their endorsement included more information than the law allowed.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Bill, PLEEZ go to law school if you’re going to make legal conclusions and assinine statements that make no sense. Your blog may play to the masses, but then again, so does Bush.
~
August 20th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
As someone who has no dog in this hunt (I won’t even be voting for this position since I don’t live there), I’d say the blame goes to LaHood for sticking his nose in where he shouldn’t have been.
Besides, which way do you want it here, Billy? I believe your nickname for Lyons is “catch and release”, so shouldn’t you then be PLEASED the the trial may be moved and the alleged rapist can get the correct justice if he is indeed found guilty? Cake…eatin’ it…which do you want?
August 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Lyons would still be prosecuting. All that changes is the jury pool.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:29 am
What LaHood did was stupid. What Lyons did in response was immature and typical for him.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:32 am
I could have visited that victim and family and brought this to the attention of the public. How would that have been different from what Lahood did? None other than the politics of it all and the election. He’s in no jeopardy for his actions.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am
Prego Man: please don’t “label” something LaHood did as “unethical” without specifying the facts and the applicable ethical standard which those facts violated.
And I am putting this in the context of 12 years ago, where I had a client (Nikia Perry) that Lyons first had the police threaten him with the death penalty (for which he was not eligible) if he did not dump me as his attorney and offering him a 20 year Federal deal which was a lie, telling his mother that her life was in danger….another lie. And then Lyons personally (this is what I heard from Perry’s co-defenant) throwing a second murder charge against Perry until after Perry testified against me at the ARDC hearing a week before the election. That 2nd murder charge was then dropped the week of its scheduled trial.
Ultimately I left Peoria, not because I was disbarred, but because my life was threatened by a convicted felon who who solicited another convicted felon to “…do something about…” me and the City Attorney and the Detectives at the PPD took me aside and basically said, “…this is more dangerous than you think. You just turned over evidence of a dozen felonies on this guy, there should have been an indictment 2 months ago, but Lyons would not even take the evidence to a grand jury and gave the guy back the videotaped evidence….this guy knows he can go after you in Peoria County and that Lyons will let him get away with it….”
Prego, this is what experience I actually lived. Sure I am ultimately glad that I got the hell out of town and have a safe life elsewhere. But would I have been bothered by someone like LaHood coming in and sticking up for me. Heck no. So I can understand the position of the southside rape victim and her family in looking for someone who may soon have the ability to effect a little justice for them.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Billy, could he still be the prosecutor if the trial was moved out of his area? I don’t know, I’m asking you. I have no idea how it works. BTW, I also think Mr. Lyons has screwed up in this whole situation, he’s not blameless. But as Peo Proud says, the whole cause and effect started only because Mr. Lahood got himself involved in the first place.
So all I’m saying (again, I couldn’t care less who gets elected in this race) is the headline of your post is a bob or two off of plum, to use my Dad’s vernacular.