Editorial: Complaining over the wrong distractions in Van Dyke prosecution

As a nationally watched murder trial gets under way in Chicago, the chairman of the Kane County Board is worried about the wrong distractions involving the trial's prosecutor, Kane County State's Attorney Joe McMahon.

In August, just a month ahead of Monday's opening in the sensitive murder trial of former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke, Kane County Board Chairman Chris Lauzen initiated a combative verbal exchange with McMahon over his handling of the Van Dyke case. Calling McMahon's work a "misappropriation of Kane County taxpayers' money," he renewed the clash on Thursday as McMahon was away - locked in the process of selecting a jury to hear the evidence against Van Dyke.

Lauzen contends the Van Dyke case is distracting McMahon from duties at home and resulting in hidden costs to Kane County. McMahon has responded that Kane County taxpayers are bearing no costs for his handling of the case and says that Cook County is covering any additional expenses it requires.

Van Dyke is facing murder charges in connection with the 2014 shooting death of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald in Chicago. In 2016, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, under heavy political pressure related to the case, asked to be recused and Judge Vincent Gaughan appointed Kane County's McMahon to take over the prosecution under the terms of a state law that allows such arrangements.

This is a well-established practice in Illinois, helping to ensure fairness for defendants and justice for the state when political or personal conflicts threaten to compromise the possibilities for a fair trial. Lauzen, who as a state senator voted in favor of a law governing the process, should know this, and his disruptive political hostility in the weeks ahead of the trial is, to say the least, curiously timed.

Although his complaint is not new - Lauzen expressed concerns about the burden of the case even when McMahon was first named special prosecutor - it comes as an apparent escalation in a long-running feud Lauzen has had with McMahon. That conflict has its own political dynamics. It is unfortunate that it interferes with what should be an obvious compliment to Kane County that its operations are capable of handling a case as complex and delicate as the Van Dyke prosecution. But what's most important is that at a time when the interests of justice to all parties require the full concentration and effort of the prosecutor, the Kane County Board chairman is distracting attention toward a parochial argument that, whatever its merits, can wait.

There may be a time for a more thorough review of the effect of the Van Dyke case on the Kane County state's attorney's operations. Lauzen is surely right technically that no prosecutor's office can simply absorb the work of another without any impact at all. But larger concerns of justice and public service also need to be acknowledged and weighed. Moreover, Kane County prosecutors no doubt will have occasion someday to seek reciprocal assistance from Cook or some other county to protect the integrity of the justice system. It would be a shame to think they would be rejected because of political infighting and the possibility that someone might miss a few meetings.