Thanks to our sponsors:

View all sponsors

Legal Analysis of Van Dyke’s Guilty Verdict


It took the jury in the murder trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke about seven hours of deliberating to reach its verdict.

Jurors who spoke to the media after delivering their verdict said they found Van Dyke’s testimony on the witness stand rehearsed and hard to accept, especially after what one juror said was “many, many” viewings of the now infamous dashcam video showing teenager Laquan McDonald being shot 16 times.

Joining us with their legal analysis of the jury’s decision are:

Richard Kling, a clinical professor of law at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law and a defense attorney. He regularly gives lectures to lawyers and judges on the Illinois Rules of Evidence.

Nancy Marder, also a professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law where she is the director of the Justice John Paul Stevens Jury Center. She has written and taught extensively about jury instructions, juror questions and jury deliberations.

Sharone Mitchell, deputy director of the Illinois Justice Project. Previously, Mitchell served as a trial attorney in the Cook County Public Defender’s Office from 2009 to 2016.


Related stories:

Jason Van Dyke Found Guilty of Second-Degree Murder

Activists Respond to Van Dyke Verdict: ‘We Got Closer to Justice’

As Jury Deliberates Van Dyke’s Fate, a Closer Look at the Charges


randomness