Disorderly Conduct trial - Day 2

The trial of the Crystal Lake woman on four disorderly conduct charges, stemming from alleged incidents on April 15, 16 and 18, 2008, and January 14, 2009, continued today and ended early this afternoon, when the State rested its case about 1:30PM. The jury got the afternoon off and will return on Wednesday for a 10:00AM start.

The State called several people from the neighborhood on Silk Oak Lane in Crystal Lake. Those who testified today were a grandmother, mother, and an adult daughter. I wondered whether an 8-9-year-old girl (grand-daughter) would be called, but the State opted not to put her on the stand. She was 6 years old in April 2008.

The jury is to make its decision based on "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I hope the jury is listening as closely to the facts as I am. After hearing the State's case, I read the police reports for the first time.

A serious alleged incident occurred on April 15, 2008, to which the grandmother, mother, and daughter testified that the 6-year-old granddaughter was threatened by the defendant. The mother of the child testified first and said that she had the grandmother call the Crystal Lake P.D. and that the police came.

So, if the police came, there ought to be a report made for the April 15, 2008 date; right?

Then the grandmother of the child testified and said she didn't remember who called the police. On cross-examination, she was careful to say that she herself had not called the police on April 15 and that she didn't know who had.

Then the great-grandmother of the child testified. She said she had called the police and that the police had come.

Now, here's the problem. The police report for the April 15 alleged incident is dated April 18, about 8:00PM! Threatening a child ought to be a serious crime. In most jurisdictions it is. And I'm sure the Crystal Lake Police Department officers take it seriously. But they did not know about it until three days and six hours later.

The jurors have been asked to listen to testimony and decide whether those testifying are telling the truth. Do they need to hear that the police were not informed until three days later, well after the supposed threat to the child?

Should the defense call the police officer who wrote the report and ask him if he wrote his report truthfully? The police report clearly shows the date and time that the call for service was dispatched and contains statements of some of the persons who testified for the State today.

The defense attorney asked Judge Weech for a directed finding (of not guilty) on all four charges. Judge Weech did grant a directed finding on one of the charges, but not on three of them.

The defense will present its case tomorrow. After closing arguments, the jury will begin deliberations.