McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi Replies to Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Assistant’s Northwest Herald Criticism

Today someone other than the Public Information Office of the Illinois State Police have apparently released a report about the incident involving McHenry County Sheriff’s Deputies and Jerome and Carla Pavlin to the Northwest and Daily Heralds.

I have asked for a copy of the report from both the State Police and the Sheriff’s Department. Neither have provided it.

After going to a grand jury on the matter, McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi decided not to indict the Pavlins on the charges sought by the Sheriff’s Department.

Subsequently, the Pavlin sued the Sheriff’s Department.

From the two articles, it does not appear that Sheriff Keith Nygren is in town.  At least he isn’t quoted in what must be considered an important story for his office.

I asked McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi for his response and it follows:

RESPONSE TO UNDERSHERIFF ZINKE’S JUNE 4, 2010 COMMENTS TO THE MEDIA

Lou Bianchi

My duty as the McHenry County State’s Attorney is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

During prosecution of the Pavlins, certain evidence and information came to light.

Based upon that evidence and information, I believe the interests of justice required my office to dismiss the criminal charges against Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin.

I could not wait several months and allow the felony prosecution of the Pavlin’s to continue.

On July 10, 2009, Sheriff Nygren was informed of my decision and the reasons behind that decision.  I continue to stand by that decision.

It is unfortunate that the Undersheriff does not understand our role as prosecutors.

We have a responsibility to all the People, including (but not limited to) the Sheriff, his deputies, victims and the citizens of McHenry County (including defendants accused of crimes).

Undersheriff (Andy) Zinke makes numerous assumptions without knowledge of all the facts.

He references grand jury proceedings and indicates that the “purpose of the grand jury was to pursue criminal charges” against certain deputies.

He overlooks the fact that one of the purposes of a grand jury is to exonerate persons accused of crimes.

Undersheriff Zinke also overlooks that the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office specifically serves as legal counsel to the Sheriff’s Office.

During my tenure in office we have always stood by and alongside the Sheriff and his deputies.

Regardless of the misunderstanding of the Undersheriff, we will continue to do so.

Our record speaks for that.

Our in-house lawyers in the civil division have successfully defended the Sherriff’s office and department during these past years.

To date, we have won almost every case, with few exceptions, brought against the Sheriff, his deputies and his office.

This includes many victories and favorable decisions in both state and federal courts.

Due to that attorney-client relationship with the Sheriff, our office will not and may not conduct a criminal investigation regarding the Sheriff’s Office.

His assumption that my office was pursuing criminal charges against McHenry County deputies is incorrect and is not supported by the facts.

I have read the results of the Illinois State Police’s investigation.

We are pleased that the Illinois State Police found no fault in the actions of the McHenry County Sheriff’s deputies (our clients).

What Undersheriff Zinke does not seem to understand is the investigation of his department is separate from the criminal prosecution of the Pavlins.

Realizing that Undersheriff Zinke is new to the position, we hope that, after he gains some experience, he recognizes the hard work of our assistants who fight daily in the courtroom in support of his deputies who keep our streets safe.

Finally, I should note that I am limited in my discussion of the facts of this matter due to the ongoing civil lawsuit against the county.


Comments

McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi Replies to Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Assistant’s Northwest Herald Criticism — 10 Comments

  1. “Based on evidence and information” Sounds like their is much more to the story than the NWH or DH print.

  2. It seems like only yesterday that Andy was tagging along with Keith, attending court to observe protocol, procedure, defense and prosecution. Look how much our Undersheriff learned.

    Already Andy the Expert is fully prepared to make public pronouncements on legal proceedings of which he has absolutely no background or knowledge. How fortunate we are to have Andy the Expert standing watch while Keith is hiding in the birches of Wisconsin or bamboo of Florida.

    I wonder how many times Andy the Expert has had to take the stand in any courtroom, or how many times he has been in investigative or pre-trial consultations with members of the SAO. To have the State’s Attorney, himself, say that Zinke “does not seem to understand” what is going on says it all: it is clearly time to change the administration in the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office.

    We have the Invisible Sheriff who has made and raised enormous amounts of cash – so much he can maintain three domiciles in three states and who thinks we are all stupid enough to re-elect him, and we have his prince-in-waiting, Andy the Expert, who is obviously clueless on the function of the States Attorney’s role in our government and “has his fingerprints all over every major case in the county” over the past two years, yet has been no where near the Deputy Woods shooting investigation.

    This gets worse by the day…

  3. Bianchi’s statement makes zero prosecutorial sense. Lou Bianchi stated “Based upon that evidence and information, I believe the interests of justice required my office to dismiss the criminal charges against Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin.

    I could not wait several months and allow the felony prosecution of the Pavlin’s to continue.” (End quote)

    Any first year law student knows that as a prosecutor, you do not DISMISS charges in a criminal case, you Nolle Pros. (Nolle Prosequi)

    As long as a jury trial has not been commenced, the entry of a Nolle Pros (prosequi) is not adjudication on the merits of the prosecution, and the legal protection against double jeopardy will not automatically bar the charges from being brought again in some fashion. When charges are DISMISSED, this effectively bars further prosecution and opens a whole new plethora of liability problems.

    Clearly Bianchi fumbled the ball and opened the county to unnecessary liability. He should have waited until the ISP was able to investigate, clarify any issues Bianchi had, as Nygren had suggested. But what political purpose would there be in that, NONE. What harm was there in postponing the prosecution? Prosecution is and would have been well within the legal requirements. Did I suggest political gain?

    Mr. Roberts asks ” I wonder how many times Andy the Expert has had to take the stand in any courtroom, or how many times he has been in investigative or pre-trial consultations with members of the SAO.”

    I suggest that Undersheriff Zinke ,as have most investigators and seasoned police officers of the MCSO have been in numerous trials and have taken part of the process in pre-trial meetings. As I remember Andy Zinke has been front-and-center in several high profile felony convictions that resulted in decades of prison time. I guess he must have been AWOL during these Pre-Trial meetings, or so thinks Mr. Roberts. Now he is uninformed? Twenty years of experience, vanished?

    I have been personally involved as a Police Officer in many high profile pre- trial meetings. During these meetings, the SAO is able to clarify any facts and clear up any loose ends. If necessary, more investigation is performed to tie up issues they may have. Sadly, Bianchi chose to circumvent this process and merely dismissed the charges rather than further investigate. Why not wait for the IL State Police to complete their review as Nygren suggested?

    This is nothing more than fodder for bloggers.

  4. I could not agree more with what the previous commenter said. I am a long time police officer. In the area police community when I meet with fellow police officers it is clear that Bianchi is now well respected. In fact I will say he is disliked. I don’t know if this case being dismissed was a blunder by one of his poorly trained and unknowledgeable assistants, or if he personally dismissed the charges. In any case it was a critical mistake.

    I must also state my belief that Charles Roberts must be a shill for Gus Philpot or Zane Seipler. (Maybe Zane himself) The Woods issue is not an issue except in the imagination of the likes of these people that are using these non-issues to attack Nygren. Woods has even come out with a statement that it was an unfortunate accident. Since he was the victim, I must believe him.

    Ever notice the similarities in writing style between some of these repeat poster on the NWH . I think Zane is posting under numerous screen names.

  5. Yup sure was. Thanks for catching it. Sometime my little laptop keys don’t cooperate with my big fingers.

    In my humble opinion Bianchi is NOT VERY WELL RESPECTED.

    In the area police community when I meet with fellow police officers it is clear that Bianchi is not very well respected. In fact I will say he is disliked.

  6. Maybe Mr. Bianchi is disliked (if he is), because he won’t take many of the B.S. cases that are taken to him. For that, he has the respect of law-abiding citizens who believe that justice comes first.

  7. Gus, as I travel the area I meet with officers of different departments at training classes and normal functions. YOUR name is well known as , can I say…A NUTCASE? You opinion matters little. I have found that this particular blog spot does allow other views and Cal does not comment negatively on each and every comment as your blog does. Actually Cal’s blog has news and information often not found in other sources. Sure Cal has a bias, but he does not editorialize incessantly.

    To reply directly to your assertion of BS cases, it is much deeper than that. Police are tired of the incompetent way cases are handled, lack of cooperation and yes, failure to be sensitive to the investigative requirements the police are under. Bottom line, Bianchi is not trusted.

    You cite the Pavlins. Here is a case where the cops did everything lawfully yet his office tried to get the police indicted and let the offenders walk free. What message does this send to the cops that risk their lives and at the very least risk serious personal injury, only to be prosecuted?

    You have a perverted idea of justice and I refuse to post to your blog due to your idiotic ramblings.

    Thank you Cal for allowing my soapbox.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *