CHICAGO _ Former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke is scheduled to return Friday to a Cook County courtroom for just the second time since his historic conviction as his lawyers attempt to win a new trial against long odds.
Judge Vincent Gaughan could set a sentencing date for Van Dyke, who was taken into custody following his conviction Oct. 5 for the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. He is being held in isolation at a Quad Cities-area jail.
The arguments for a new trial could be extensive, but in the end Gaughan would have to find he had himself erred for Van Dyke's legal team to prevail. The next step for Van Dyke after his sentencing would be an appeal to a higher court.
The defense is challenging nearly every major ruling by Gaughan before and during the trial, perhaps most prominently the judge's refusal to move the trial outside Cook County because of extensive pretrial publicity.
In its most surprising allegation, the defense says that two undisclosed jurors concealed their own criminal records _ marijuana convictions in both cases _ during the jury selection process, raising questions about their bias toward police.
The verdict, the protests, a family's relief: How day of Officer Jason Van Dyke's conviction unfolded �
The defense also argues that the jury's acquittal of Van Dyke on a charge of official misconduct was inconsistent with its conviction on second-degree murder and aggravated battery charges, requiring the entire case to be thrown out.
Van Dyke, 40, became the first Chicago cop in half a century to be convicted of murder in an on-duty incident.
Police dashboard camera video showed the white officer opening fire within seconds of exiting his squad car as the black teen walked away from police with a knife in his hand, contradicting reports from officers at the scene that McDonald had threatened officers with the weapon. McDonald was shot 16 times.
The graphic video, released by court order more than a year after the October 2014 shooting, has rocked the Police Department, leading to a scathing U.S. Department of Justice report and a consent decree _ overseen by a federal judge _ that will guide police reform.
The post-trial filings by Van Dyke's legal team, led by Daniel Herbert, allege a cavalcade of errors by the judge and jury.
In written responses, special prosecutor Joseph McMahon's team argues that the split verdict wasn't inconsistent, the judge's decisions were legally sound and the jury selection process ensured a fair trial.
The defense attempt to move the trial outside Cook County was one of the most extensively argued issues before the trial. In recent paperwork, Van Dyke's legal team also decried the unusual game of legal chess that preceded the trial.
Gaughan delayed ruling on the so-called change of venue until after jury selection, leading the defense to hold off on its decision whether to let a jury or the judge decide Van Dyke's fate.
What lies ahead for Jason Van Dyke _ a complicated sentence, an appeal, a distant jail �
After all but one of the jurors had been sworn in, Gaughan called on the defense the next morning to declare its choice while continuing to delay ruling on moving the trial.
In a surprise move, Van Dyke then opted for a jury trial. Just before opening statements, Gaughan formally refused to move the trial.
That unusual sequence of events denied Van Dyke "the opportunity to knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial," said a defense filing.
Prosecutors, though, contended that the way it played out, in fact, worked in Van Dyke's favor, giving the defense a sneak peek at jurors before needing to decide on a jury or bench trial.
Van Dyke's "conduct gained him the tactical advantage of being able to test the waters to first gauge the composition of the resulting jury before making the election as to bench or jury," prosecutors wrote in a recent filing.
The defense also leveled the unusual charge that two jurors who decided Van Dyke's fate had been "dishonest" while filling out extensive questionnaires and answering questions during jury selection, failing to disclose past convictions.
Officer Van Dyke speaks out for the first time since shooting Laquan McDonald 16 times �
Asked about any arrests for "a crime other than a traffic ticket," Juror A acknowledged a DUI but failed to disclose a guilty plea for possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia in 2016, the defense said.
Juror B omitted a 10-year probation sentence in Texas for a 1995 third-degree felony conviction for marijuana possession and may still be under court supervision for a more recent DUI conviction, according to the defense. That same juror has used four separate birth dates and did not disclose at least two arrests of a son or that a son-in-law is serving prison time in Texas, the defense said.
If those details had been divulged, Van Dyke's legal team said it would have questioned both further and might have sought their dismissal from the jury.
"Additionally, with both jurors having had contact with the criminal justice system, a high probability exists that either or both may have an implicit bias against police officers," the defense filing said.
The argument could be a hard sell for Gaughan, who praised jurors repeatedly through the trial for their attention.
Before the verdict was read, he warned spectators against any outbursts.
"I don't want anybody second-guessing (the jurors)," he said. "They've done an outstanding job."
