Judge irked over waste of time animosity caused

While they may be adversaries in the courtroom, the relationships between prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys around the McHenry County courthouse typically are congenial, if not downright friendly.

The proceedings surrounding two former police officers recently convicted of beating a man during an off-duty fracas two years ago is not one of those cases.

The rancor between the McHenry County State's Attorney's office and the ex-cops' lawyers has been growing steadily since the case first was indicted in June 2005.

It reached new heights late last year when, about a month after the officers were found guilty, their lawyers filed court papers asking for a special prosecutor to investigate allegations authorities tampered with evidence.

Now the county's chief criminal prosecutor is firing back with a surprisingly harsh rebuttal that claims the defense team for Ronald Pilati and Jerome Volstad are fabricating the evidence-tampering claims to cover for their own lousy work.

"Throughout this case, defense counsel has demonstrated a pervasive pattern of falsely accusing (me) of prosecutorial misconduct in an attempt to conceal their inadequate and inept preparation," Nichole Owens writes in a nine-page response. "Defense counsels' motion for a special prosecutor is frivolous and wholly without merit and should be denied."

The response sets the stage for a courtroom showdown, possibly this week, between the two sides that have grown to dislike one another intensely over the past two years.

Pilati and Volstad, both former Spring Grove police officers, were convicted after trial in October of aggravated battery, unlawful restraint, mob action and obstructing justice charges. The allegations stemmed from a February 2005 incident in which prosecutors said they and a third ex-cop handcuffed and then beat a man outside a Fox Lake bar.

Each faces up to five years in prison when sentenced later this month.

In late November, defense lawyers formally asked for a special prosecutor to look into their claims authorities tampered with recordings of 911 calls Volstad made during the altercation that led to his arrest.

The suspected tampering, they say, may have eliminated portions of the recording beneficial for their clients' defense and that prosecutors withheld an unedited version of the calls until the end of the officers' trial.

That, the defense claimed, was part of an ongoing effort by county prosecutors to trample the ex-officers' constitutional rights to the point where they could not receive a fair trial.

But in her response, Owens provides documentation showing that the defense team had been given access to the original, unedited recordings more than two years before trial. If the defense was unaware of them, she says, it's because they didn't do an adequate job of reviewing the evidence.

The judge set to hear the defense request for a special prosecutor appeared to agree with Owens' stance during the trial. Transcripts from a closed chambers meeting between the lawyers indicate Judge Joseph Condon listened to all the recordings then brushed aside claims that the one turned over to the defense was different from the original.

"We spent hours yesterday spinning our wheel-spinning on this," Condon told the defense, according to the transcript. "It was a complete waste of time. Don't ever do it to me again."