Table Of ContentIN THE CIRCUTT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CRIMINAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plainsif Case Nos
ITCR-0970001
FCR-0970002
17CR-0970003
}
DAVID MARCH, )
JOSEPH WALSU, And }
THOMAS GAFFNEY ) Honorable Doenion A. Stephens,
3 Judge Presiding
Defendants
ORDER
henca trial fr all three defendants, Ihe Court,
This case ix before the Cour! follow
thas heand the testimony of ull the witnesses, reviewed all the properly adeitiod exbibits, and
hheurd she arguments ofthe partes.
All three dofendents, David March, Joseph Walsh, and Thomas Galfoey, are changed
‘ith the offenses of camspiracy to commit official misconduct and obstruction of justice, oficial
‘misconduct, and absteuttion of justice.
ANDICTMENT,
‘Regarding the conspiracy charge, the indictment states thal no lates than Oxiober 20
2014 and continuing thereafse, all Unree defendants commited the offense of eamspisacy when
feach—with intent thatthe offense of official misconduct be committed and that the offense of
‘obstructing justies be committed apreed with each other, Individual A (now known to be Jason
Van Dyke), and others known and unknown to the Special Grant Jury to the eonuission of the
‘offense, and an actin furtherance of the egreement was performed by any party tu the agement
tis further stated in the indictment, that the objective of the eomspiraey was 10 conceal
of Laquan MeDonald (hereinulter McDonald)
the tue facts of the events surrounding the kil
bby Chicago Police Department Osiicer Van Dyke (hersinafler Van Dyke) in order to shield their
fellow offiver from criminal investigarion and prosecution. In furtherance thereof, the eo-
conspirators: (1) lied sbout what occurred und misshamucttized the viseo cecandings so that
independent e-iminal investigators would not kuow the truth ubout the MeThonal kiting and hs
public would aot see the video recordings of the events; (2) undersvad Ul publieaiing oF he
‘events surrounding McDonald's lilling, including the video recordings, would inexerably lead 0
f thovough criminal investigation by am independent body and Tikely criminal charges; (3)
eveuted police rports in the eitical erly hours and days following the killing of MeDocild that,
contained important fale information in an attempt to prevent ot shape ary criminal
investigation. Funthsrmore, all theee defendants and Van Dyke were members of the Chicago
Police Deparment wiho were involved inthe investigation ofthe ftal shooting of MD and
4 memes ofthe Chicago Polive Deparenent, ll thee defendants and Vem Dyke, and others
‘now and unknown to the Special Grand Jury coordinated their activites in onde to protect
cach other snd other members ofthe Chicago Poiee Department by furnishing false informstion,
touking false reports, failing to reper or eortoct false inlirmation, ignoring contrary information
cor evidouce, obstructing, justice, imentionaly or recklessly failing to pertinm # mandatory duty
ts which exch knows le or she is fabidden by
as reyuited by lave, and knowingly performing
law to perlrm,
Its Father chauged in the indictmene that a three defendants committed the offense of
official misconduct when each, being a public officer or employee in his or her official capacity
intentionally or recklessly failed to perform any mendalory duty’ as required by law and
-nowingly performed au act which he or she knows be or she is foebicea by law to perfor,
incorporating all a the above allegutons
Ie 3s futher charged in the indictment tha ll thve defendants commited the offense of
citing justice when eat, with intent to preven! the apprehension, cbsirct the prosecution,
ad obstruct the defense of any person, knowingly furnished false infomation, incorporating ll
the abnve allegations
The State contends tha the defendants should be Found guilty of conspitacy because they
funished false information, cvated false repo fale to corrector report the fase infbemation
sad ignored contrary information or evidence, Essentially, the State contends that the false
information or félse rgports consist of the following:
1. Chicayo: Police Detective David March (hereinatter March) wld Chicago Police
Officer Dora Fontaine (hereinafter Fontaine) to include false information inher
original case report, specifically thu: Van Dyke was injured; Van Dyke, Chicago
Police Officer Joseph Walsh (hereinafter Walsh), Chisago Police Otticer Thomas
Gultney (hereinaficr Gainey) and Chicago Police Olficer Joseph Mefiligatt
(hereinafter MeFlligot) were all victims; McDonald vas an offender; and the
sult (assault upon a police officer with knite
category oFeffeme was aggravated as
or culling instrument),
A General Progress Report (GER)! and statement in March's supplemental eeport
attributed co Fontaine states “O ignored, mised K aim toward VD [Van Dyke] as if
attacking VD.”
A GPR prepared by March and attuibuted un Walsh states “at 12-L5 £ © swung knife
al PO V in aggressive manner” and that “VD continued firing as 0 contimmed moving,
attempting yet up stil ured wiknifo.”
4. A statement in Mach’s supplement report attributed 10 Walsh slates “When.
‘MeRonald got to within 12-15 feet of the alicers he swamg the kale toward the
‘officers in an aggressive manner” and “VD continued fting his weapon at McDonald
1s ore reports completed contenorancously by Detstves dv the ene oil nestigton, They re
used 0 aden rep ing subsequent rar
2 cae es report abe completed
‘ammurder. sqgravasedDatey, haley, sgravatsd aes or asa hile petoroing@ Pale ston cites oe
tury oro, or (2) x detection a
‘stl while im the
STRR isa topot Ua detent ple oilers reponse to a sul
TIGR ee conned in General Ordor GO¥-1205 (0, Fs, CPD Onder 3
«as MeDamald continued moving on the ground, attempting ta get up, while still armed
sith the knife."
A GPR prepared by March and athibutsd ta Individuat G (aow known as PO
‘Visamontes) states “0 fell to ground bul continued (move, attempting tw yet hack
‘up, koilesfill in hand,"
A stfement contained in March’s supplesmental report and alfributed to lndividual G
(Viramontes) states “McDonald fell to the eround but continued to move, attempting
to get back up, withthe kn sil im is hand”
“the recovered in-ear eumera video fiom
cmsistent with the aeeounts of all ofthe
The supplemental report of March slate
845R and 813K was viewed and Fiund ta
‘The supplemental report of March also lists Van Dyke, Walsh, Gaffhey, end
McElligot as victims und McDonald asthe offender
The supplemental report af March slates that “McDonald committed aggeavated
assaults against thee offers, Fnully forsing VD, ix defeuse of his life, to shoot anu
ill MeDioral"
That Van Dyke, Walsh, und Gaffhey prepared aud submited virtully identical
Officer Bausry Reports (OBRY’ and Tuctieal Response Reports (TRR)' with
intorraation chat they knew t0 be false, specifically, OBRs with “Na. of officers
bettered: 3° and “stubbed cut including actual utterspt)”
‘That « TRR prepared by Van Dyke indicated “asssilant: assault immincat threat af
hattery." “nsailant> battery attack with weupan,” “assailant: deadly free uses force
likely to cause death or great bodily fan.” and “WD fired his weapon in fenr of his
life when the offender while armed with a knife continued lo upproach.”
That TRRs prepared and submitied by Walsh and GalTaey indicated: “assilan
assault imminent threat of battery,” “assailant: battery attacked with weapon,” and
iy force uses farce likey to eause death or great bodily hari,”
“assailant: des
ficr involved er ll insidots wher: (1) sworn mas ste ietin of
ithe vet of « murder agravated batry babery, agreed asta oF
rformanee ath or her dis,
‘sacle. The guideline nr cotapleing &
3. Thar the OBRs and TRRs were reviewed and approved by supervisor
4 That the concluding paragraph in March's supplemental reports is not supported by
the videos ur witness statements
15, That March provided false information tp Medial Pxarviner Investigator ae! Us
in staing that the subject lunged al Uke oicer
The Slate contends that all three defendants, Van Dyke, and others filed to report of
comet the false information with the Chicago Police
‘The Stale further contends that all three defendants aud others, failed w locate, identi
or intrviow witnesses, or w ensure the location, identification, or interview of witnesses, of the
shooting of MePamald—including throe nanamed witnes
whose information was incunsistent
‘with acccunts of Chicago Police Depariment members
‘The Stu fothor cowtends that March and others failed lo locate and preserve physi
evidence, of fo ensuce the location, identification, and preservation of physical evidence
including vdeo and photographie evidence.
tine State aso asserts that all three defendsni, Van Dyke, aud others used vatious means
te cammmunicate with wack other in order to coondinete the netvities aF the conspiracy
The State asserts that all three Uofondants, Vern Dyke, and others used meaas «
aisropresen, conceal, anil ide, snd (o cause to be mistepreseated, conceued, an hidden, ths
sutivites of the conspiracy, and w@ avoid detection and spprsension by law enforcement
authorities.
‘The Stet also assets that all three deferdumts, Vim Dyke, and ethers deleted or failed to
preserve communications with eax other concemning and during the uclvities ofthe conspiracy.
‘The State contends that all three defendants, Ve Dyke, and others violated the Rules and
Regulations of the Chicago Police Department anu violated General Orders and Special Orders
of the Chicago Police Department.
LEGAL STANDARD
A “conspizacy involves a criminal agreement to commit a separate criminal actor a's
People v. Kilner, 185 Ill 2d 81, 138 (1998). “Te make a primo facie showing wi a conspiracy,
the State must establish that: (i) two or more people intended ty vammit a etime, (i) they
engaged in a common plan to accomplish this goal, and (li) an act or acts were doxe by ane or
‘more of them in furtherance of the eouspirscy.” People v. Caraga, 2018 Tl App (Ist) 170122
334 LIL App. 3772, 783 (Lst Dist. 2002))
37 (citing Ktiner, [8S I. 2d al 138; People » Batres
The Court must determine whether there was an agreement between these defendants and
others.
Jecause a compiracy is almost never susceptible of direct proof, it may be established
from circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from all tho sussounding facts and
circumstances, including the aveused’s owm words and sets, coupled with commonsense
knowledge of the behavior of persons in similar circumstances.” Caraga, 2018 IL App (Ist)
170173, 439 (citing MoChure v. Owveny Corning #iberglas Corp., 188 M28 102, 124 (1990)
‘Beeauss of the clandestine nature of conspiracy, Minvis courts sermit road inferences ta be
‘Urawn from the eitcumstances, acts, and eandue: of the pasties.” Batrez, 334TH, Agp. 3d at 783
84 (citing People . Melgor.
31 Ill. App. 34 510, 521),
Regarding co-conspirator siulornents, Zor a statement ur be admissible under this
exception, the stalement must somehow further the conspiracy of camitibute to the
uuccompl’shment of ts goal. Kilner, 185 TN. 2d at 141, “Before 6 co-coespinalor’sstateinent may
be
cimitted into evidence, the State rust make a prima facie showing that a conspiracy cxisted
vith independent proof of the conspiracy, ke, prool upart fram
s-eonspinaton’s statement
sought lo be admitted.” Caraga, 2018 IL App (Is) 170123, 439 (iting People ». Cerna, 399
UL App. 34.1198, 1203 (4th Dist. 2010); Ratres, 334 Ml. App. 3d at 783).
For the charge of conspiracy, the State must prove the following propositions beyond a
reasonable doubt:
‘Hist: That the defendants agreed with eack: other und others, to the commission of
the offenses of official misconduct and obstruction of justice; And
Secamd: That the defendant did so with intent that the ollenses of official
misconduct and ubstruction of justice be committed; And
Thine: ‘That an actin Turtherance of the agrecenent was perforraed by any purl to
the agreement
Tor the charge of official misconduct, the State must prove the following propositions
beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant was a public officer or public emplayees Amd
Sevond: That when in his officiel capacity, the defendant intentionally ar
rcoklessly failed to perform a mandulory duty required by law. Or
Second: "That when jn his official capacity, the ueendumt knowingly performed an
act which he knew he sens forhidlen by law to perform. Or
Second: That when in his oficial eapacity the defendant performed an actin
enves of his lawful authority with intent 10 obtain a personal advantag
imselt or another
State must prove the following propositions
Tor the charge of obstruction af justice,
beyond a eusemable douby:
‘iss: That the defendant knowingly concealed physical evidence: Amd
Sooond: ‘That the defendant did so with intent to provent the apprehension o¢
obssuel the prosocution of Van Dyke. Or
Fits That the defendant knowingly furnished false infomation: And
Sevond: ‘That the defendant did st with intent to prevent the apprehension or
obstruct the prosecution of Van Dyke,
A person ix reckless or uols reuKlesy when hal penion consciously distgerds
substi and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exis or that a rsull wil follow, and such
sisrogard constitutes gross devistion fiom the standard of eace which a rowsonable porto
‘would exercise in the situation, 720 ILCS Si.6 (LOIS 2018).
SUMMARY 0}
Ths incident began around 9:87 pr. near 4st Steot amd Kildare Avene when Galley
and McTiligot responded toa call of someone holding a person asho ws brlcng into cars ard
tincks. Both officers were in all uniform and in a marked police Spost Utility Vehile (SU)
When the oflicers first arived atthe scene, they hail « brief conversation with Rudy Rills
(hereinafter Bovillas), the mun who ealled 911 to report the break-in, Buarilles gave then a
description un dieetion of light forthe offender As the wficers begun to dive in the given
dircetion, Meliligot observed an individual—now kuown as McDonald—who fit Balas
description, hiding in the bushes, Motligott gol out af his police vehiele and uyprocehed
McDonald, directing MeDonald to show his hands, When MeDonald took bis hands out of his
pockets, he was holding a keite in his right hand, Once Meltigoltinfrmed GalTney thet,
MeDonld was arse with «knife, Gay radioed for assistance and ntsc.
‘McEiligott continued to walk near MeDonsld as he walked on 40 Street heading tawanl
Pulaski Roa, McElligott coutinnally directed MeDonuld to drop the knife. He di Us as many
45 25 10 30 Limes, bul McDonald rofused to comply. MeDonalil was acting erratically, amd at
times, held his hand out with his knife, when he turned ioward MeElliget? aad Gainey, Gatfney
‘remained in their syusd car, parallel alongside of McE.ligott. As MeDonald approached Karlov
Avenue, Galinsy wened his squad car in front of MeDonuld, MeMonald then pierced the right
4
front passenger tie of the SUV with his knife, deflating the tire, and continued to walk closes to
Pulaski Road, Galliney agsin tumed his squad car in front of MeDonald. This time, MeDousld
Josked in Ciftney’s direction, tock his knife and stabbed atthe passenger side windshield oft
squad car. McDonald thea continued toward Pulski Rod, taking off in fil sprint, MeEltigott
continued to follow McDonalds however, McDonald sent diiugh a Burger King Restaurant
parking lot and Gito Pulaski Roa, AL dis point as MeElligot was waiting uo eros the ste,
down the
other poliee units were autiving on scene, MeDoaald slowed tn a walk and contin
amidale of Pulaski Road as poise fiers eacvited t ative and instruct hon fo drop te Kile
Van Dyke and Walsh were Beat $852. Other polive units that aived on suene included
Wontsine and her partner Officer Viramontss (hereinafter Virsmontes) Thett 841, (Officers
Mondragom (hereinafter Mondragoa) and Sebastian (hereinaltsr Sebastian) Beal 813R, ard
Officers Baca (hereinalier Bacerr) and Velez (hercinafer Velez) eat 22.
‘As MeDonald continued to walk soulbbound in the middle of Pula Road, Vet: Dyke
and Walsh exited their wehicle. oth oficrs were in fll police uniform an in a marked ptice
SLY. MeDinald was orécred to deop the kite numerous times, but he did, As MeDonald
comtinsed to walk southbound, he was shot mulple times by Van Dyke, MeDocal fe to the
ound bul cominued to mows with che knife sill in his and, McDonald did no drop his kite
lui] Walsh was able to ikok it out his bund after MeDonald was lying on the ground.
Aller the shooting, the seene was preserved, snd de
tives and supervisors were tiie
March was the lead detective assigned to this shooting Upon ariving on scene te interviewed
Van Dyke, Walsh, GalThey, Mcklligot, Foatsine, Viramontes, Moadzagon, Schastan, Bacern,
und Velez. There was no ovidenve presented tha these officers knew March ptfor tha date
and some of the officers did nat even know each other, In addition, one March realized that
cersin offisers wimessed what appened, he separated them, and inferviewed them
indepeedeny. Winesses in Turger King, the joining parking lot, aud Dunkie” Tamats were
locsted and alsa iamorviewed on scene, The deteutives also comduced a search for any pod
cameras or surveillance cameras from neaiby busineses or buildings. An evidence tecician
‘was called 10 ths scene to process the sven, lake photographs, and collec the evidence. At some
point, while Fontaine vs taking down the names and star numbers of all the offers at the
seene, she observed a few unknown officers in Dunkin’ Donuts looking aa laptop an viwing a
video which depictod MeDonald walking down the see
Allthe officers who were on seene were diosted to go to Atea Cental (Are) fr futher
interviews In addition, the civilian witnesses who were om seene wate also brought Inthe Arca
for futher interviews. March and other dtetives conducted follow-up interviews with he on-
Scoue officers and any witnesses tte were brought wo the Arey, nclting: Ala Renitez, Socout>
Falcon, Renato Coss, Andera Calderon-Bautistn, Maia Hemant, and Yolanda Lope
‘As Fontaine arrived at ths Arca, ste observed other Sth District officers siting in a
common area veitng to talk to the deleetves, Sho didnot hear then discussing this ined
‘Van Dyke was not in this proup of offices, and na une was speaking abou: covering up the
shooting, When MeTligottaived! at the Area, be saw soute detectives, ut not specifically
March, viewing the Dunkin’ Donuts video with Walsh and Van Dyke, and he hoard an
‘unrecognized voice mention that Walsh had heen backpodaling. MePigott only hese! them
Jiveussing the positioning of the wffieers on scene.
March also inventoried the evidence, including videos that were reuovered from nearby
businesses and police vehicles, and, specifically, the squad video (hal purports to eepture Van
