The Death of David Koschman - Report of the Special Prosecutor

169 Pages·2014·0.99 MB·English

The Death of David Koschman

Report of the Special Prosecutor
Dan K. Webb

Winston & Strawn, LLP
September 18, 2013
Note To The Reader

On September 18, 2013, this Report was submitted to the Honorable Michael P. Toomin
and was placed under temporary seal by the Court until the case of People v. Vanecko concluded.

On January 31, 2014, Mr. Vanecko waived his trial rights and pled guilty to the charge of
involuntary manslaughter in connection with the death of David Koschman. Thereafter, the
Special Prosecutor moved the Court to lift the temporary seal of the Report, and on February 3,
2014, the Court granted the Special Prosecutor’s motion.

The Report was publicly released on February 4, 2014.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Mandate of the Special Prosecutor ......................................................................................1
II. Summary of Final Conclusions of the Special Prosecutor’s Investigation ..........................2
A. Issue One: Whether Criminal Charges Should be Brought Against Any
Person in Connection with Koschman’s Homicide .................................................2
B. Issue Two: Whether, From 2004 to the Present, Employees of the Chicago
Police Department and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Acted
Intentionally to Suppress and Conceal Evidence, Furnish False Evidence,
and Generally Impede the Investigation Into Koschman’s Death ...........................2
1. Applicable State Law Crimes ......................................................................2
2. Burden of Proof............................................................................................3
3. Background on the Law of Criminal Intent (Scienter) ................................4
C. The Events of 2004: Evaluating Whether Employees of CPD and SAO
Violated Illinois Criminal Law ................................................................................5
1. Prosecution is Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations ..................5
D. The Events of 2011-2012: Evaluating Whether Employees of CPD and
SAO Violated Illinois Criminal Law .......................................................................5
1. The Events of 2011-2012: Prosecution Is Not Barred by the
Applicable Statute of Limitations ................................................................5
2. The Events of 2011-2012: Insufficient Evidence to Prove Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt the Element of Criminal Intent (Scienter) .....................5
E. Evidence Supporting the Decision to Appoint a Special Prosecutor .......................6
III. Overview of the Special Prosecutor’s Investigation ............................................................6
IV. Detailed Discussion of the Evidence ...................................................................................9
A. Overview of the 2004 Incident on Division Street ..................................................9
B. The 2004 CPD Investigation of the Incident .........................................................13
1. Early Morning Hours of April 25, 2004 ....................................................13
2. The Area 3 Investigation ............................................................................17
a. Assigning the Koschman Matter ....................................................17
b. Investigative Steps Taken by Det. O’Leary and Det. Clemens
on April 25, 2004 ...........................................................................19
c. Certain Issues Stemming from Area 3’s Initial Work ...................24
i. Assignment of Detectives on Furlough..............................24
ii. Canvass for Additional Witnesses and Evidence ...............27
d. Koschman’s Death and Assignment of Detective Yawger ............29
e. Detective Yawger’s Investigation ..................................................32
f. Certain Issues Stemming from Area 3’s Continuing Work ...........45
3. May 20, 2004 (the Lineups) .......................................................................46
a. Timing and Need for Lineups ........................................................46
b. The Lineups ...................................................................................48
4. May 20, 2004 (Felony Review Visit) ........................................................51
a. SAO Felony Review Unit Contacted .............................................53
b. O’Brien’s Interviews of Witnesses ................................................56
c. The Charging Decision ..................................................................58
i. O’Brien’s Standard for Approving Charges ......................58
ii. Issues Allegedly Preventing Charges .................................60
(A) Supposed Lack of Witness Identification of
the Offender ...........................................................60
(B) O’Brien’s Evaluation of Self-Defense ...................61
d. Felony Review Folder ....................................................................66
5. Press Inquiries ............................................................................................69
6. Det. Yawger Meets with Nanci Koschman and Her Lawyer .....................71
7. Det. Yawger Submits His Reports .............................................................72
C. The 2011 CPD Re-investigation ............................................................................74
ii
1. January 4, 2011, Sun-Times FOIA Request ..............................................74
2. Reassignment to Area 5 Detectives ...........................................................76
3. Area 5’s Investigation ................................................................................80
4. Draft Reports ..............................................................................................88
5. February 28, 2011 ......................................................................................94
6. Case Officially Closed .............................................................................101
7. The Missing CPD Koschman Homicide File...........................................105
a. Creating and Maintaining Homicide Files at Area 3 ...................105
b. The Various Versions of the Koschman Homicide File ..............107
i. Commander Yamashiroya’s Credenza File .....................107
ii. Original Koschman Homicide File (Blue Three-Ring
Binder) .............................................................................108
iii. Det. Yawger’s “Working File” ........................................114
iv. Det. Clemens’ Discovery .................................................117
v. Det. Gilger and Det. Spanos Review the Homicide
Files “Discovered” by Lt. Walsh and Det. Yawger .........119
D. CPD 2011 Re-investigation and the Mayor’s Office ...........................................120
E. SAO’s Involvement in 2011 and 2012.................................................................128
1. Press Inquiries ..........................................................................................128
2. March 3, 2011 Meeting with CPD ...........................................................132
3. State’s Attorney Alvarez Calls for an Independent Investigation ...........133
4. State’s Attorney’s Office’s Response to the Petition for the
Appointment of a Special Prosecutor ......................................................141
V. Legal Analysis .................................................................................................................143
A. Three Levels of Scienter (State of Mind): Recklessness, Knowledge, and
Intent ....................................................................................................................143
1. Recklessness ............................................................................................143
iii
2. Knowledge ...............................................................................................144
3. Intent ........................................................................................................144
B. Scienter (State of Mind) Requirements of Relevant Criminal Statutes ...............144
C. Prosecution of Conduct Committed in 2004 is Barred by the Statute of
Limitations ...........................................................................................................146
1. Public Misconduct ...................................................................................147
2. Out-of-State Residency ............................................................................147
3. Continuous Conduct.................................................................................147
4. Conspiracy ...............................................................................................148
a. Evidence of a Conspiracy in 2004 with a Limitations Period
Tolled by Subsequent Overt Acts ................................................149
b. Evidence of a Conspiracy Spanning Both 2004 and 2011 ...........150
D. The Events of 2011-2012: Evaluating Whether Employees of CPD and SAO
Violated Illinois Criminal Law ............................................................................151
1. Prosecution is Not Barred by the Applicable Statute of Limitations .......151
2. Summary of the Evidence from 2011-2012 Which Was Thoroughly
Reviewed for Potential Criminal Charges ...............................................151
a. Whether CPD’s 2011 Determination that Vanecko Acted In
Self-Defense Was Criminal Misconduct .....................................152
i. Det. Gilger and Det. Spanos ............................................152
ii. Dept. Chief Andrews, Cmdr. Salemme and Sgt.
Cirone ...............................................................................154
iii. The Special Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Seek
Charges Against Det. Gilger, Det. Spanos, Dept.
Chief Andrews, Cmdr. Salemme, and Sgt. Cirone ..........154
b. Whether the Facts and Circumstances Surrounding Lt.
Walsh’s 2011 Discovery of the Missing CPD Original
Koschman Homicide File Amount to Criminal Misconduct .......156
i. Lt. Walsh’s Discovery of the Original Koschman
Homicide File (Blue Three-Ring Binder) ........................157
iv
ii. The Special Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Seek
Charges Against Lt. Walsh ..............................................158
c. The Special Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Seek Charges
Against Any Employee of SAO ...................................................160
VI. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................160
VII. Winston & Strawn Investigative Personnel .....................................................................162

v
I. MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
On April 23, 2012, Judge Michael P. Toomin appointed Dan K. Webb, Chairman of
Winston & Strawn LLP, and former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois,
as the Special Prosecutor in the Matter of the Death of David Koschman.
In doing so, Judge Toomin ordered that the Special Prosecutor investigate two distinct
issues related to the Koschman matter:
Issue One
[W]hether criminal charges should be brought against any person
in connection with the homicide of David Koschman in the spring
of 2004[.]1

Issue Two
[W]hether, from 2004 to the present, employees of the Chicago
Police Department and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office
acted intentionally to suppress and conceal evidence, furnish false
evidence, and generally impede the investigation into Mr.
Koschman’s death.2
Judge Toomin further ordered that “at the conclusion of his investigation, the Special
Prosecutor shall submit a final report to this Court and for the benefit of the Cook County Board
of Commissioners detailing the progress and ultimate results of the investigation and any
criminal prosecutions commenced.”3
Therefore, the Special Prosecutor, having concluded his investigation, submits this report
to the Court which, in the pages that follow, describes in detail the ultimate results of the
investigation undertaken pursuant to the judicial mandate set forth above.

1 See Special Grand Jury Exhibit 5 (Order by J. Toomin (Apr. 23, 2012)).
2 See Special Grand Jury Exhibit 5 (Order by J. Toomin (Apr. 23, 2012)).
3 See Special Grand Jury Exhibit 5 (Order by J. Toomin (Apr. 23, 2012)).
II. SUMMARY OF FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S
INVESTIGATION
A. Issue One: Whether Criminal Charges Should be Brought Against Any
Person in Connection with Koschman’s Homicide
On December 3, 2012, the Special Prosecutor, after having thoroughly investigated
whether criminal charges should be brought against any person in connection with the homicide
of David Koschman in the spring of 2004, sought, and the special grand jury returned, an
indictment against Richard J. (“RJ”) Vanecko charging him with involuntary manslaughter in
connection with Koschman’s death. According to the trial court, the Vanecko trial is expected to
commence in early 2014. With the indictment of Vanecko, the Special Prosecutor has satisfied
the Court’s mandate to determine whether criminal charges should be brought in connection with
Koschman’s death.

B. Issue Two: Whether, From 2004 to the Present, Employees of the Chicago
Police Department and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Acted
Intentionally to Suppress and Conceal Evidence, Furnish False Evidence,
and Generally Impede the Investigation Into Koschman’s Death
1. Applicable State Law Crimes
The Special Prosecutor, while conducting his assessment as to whether employees of the
Chicago Police Department (“CPD”) and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”)
acted intentionally to suppress and conceal evidence, furnish false evidence, and generally
impede the investigation into Koschman’s death, first had to determine what Illinois criminal
state law violations could potentially stem from such conduct, assuming the evidence could
ultimately substantiate such a charge.4 With that in mind, the Special Prosecutor primarily
evaluated the following four Illinois criminal violations: (1) official misconduct; (2) obstructing
justice; (3) conspiracy; and (4) tampering with public records – each of which has a three-year
statute of limitations.5 Under Illinois law, no prosecution can be commenced against any

4 The Special Prosecutor emphasizes that his evaluation was limited to Illinois state law violations
only, as he lacks jurisdiction in connection with potential federal criminal law violations.

5 Official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3) (West 2013); obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4) (West
2013); conspiracy (720 ILCS 5/8-2) (West 2013); and tampering with public records (720 ILCS 5/32-8)
(West 2013). The Special Prosecutor further evaluated the potential for “organizational” criminal liability
against state and municipal law enforcement agencies, such as CPD and SAO, in connection with failing
to properly investigate a criminal matter, but found no applicable state law statutes.
2
individual under these statutes if the final act in commission of the crime occurred more than
three years ago.6
2. Burden of Proof
Constitutional due process rights require that a person may not be convicted of a crime
unless the prosecution meets its burden of proving all the elements of the charged offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, including the applicable criminal intent (also known as “scienter”).7
In Illinois, the prosecution’s burden is explained to jurors as follows:
The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charge against
him. This presumption remains with him throughout every stage
of the trial and during your deliberations on the verdict and is not
overcome unless from all the evidence in this case you are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
The State has the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden remains on the State
throughout the case. The defendant is not required to prove his
innocence.8
The burden of proving all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is widely
recognized as a “heavy” burden of proof.9 Additionally, under applicable ethical standards, a

6 The applicable statute of limitations, 720 ILCS 5/3-5 (West 2013), requires that prosecution for
the offenses listed above “must be commenced within 3 years after the commission of the offense if it is a
felony, or within one year and 6 months after its commission if it is a misdemeanor.”

However, under Illinois law, and as more fully described in Section V., in certain factual
situations there can be exceptions to the statute of limitations, although, based upon the Special
Prosecutor’s investigation and legal analysis, none were deemed applicable in this instance.

7 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84, 89 (1949) (“An essential part
of a procedure which can be said fairly to inflict a punishment is that all the elements of the crime shall be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt”); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Davis v. United States, 160
U.S. 469 (1895); People v. Hernandez, 2012 WL 997363 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2012); Speiser v. Randall,
357 U.S. 513, 525–26 (1958); see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 369–72 (1970); Morissette v. United
States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952); People v. Anderson, 473 N.E.2d 1345, 1351 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1985)
(“State must prove scienter”).

8 Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 2.03.

9 See, e.g., People v. Antoine, 676 N.E.2d 1374, 1378 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1997); People v.
Kozlowski, 639 N.E.2d 1369, 1373 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1994); People v. Sanchez, 546 N.E.2d 268, 271
(Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1989).
3