The action in the Jason Van Dyke murder trial on Friday took place behind closed doors and without the presence of a jury, but what transpired could have an outsize influence on whether the veteran police officer is found guilty of the murder of Laquan McDonald.
After the prosecution closed out its case Thursday, Judge Vincent Gaughan opted to send jurors home for a long weekend following four days of testimony. But the break in the trial was filled with discussion on the instructions on the law that will be given to jurors to take into deliberations once testimony wraps up.
Van Dyke’s lawyers and prosecutors huddled in private for about three hours on Friday, and final instructions likely won’t be settled until after the defense rests their case. The trial resumes Monday.
RELATED: 5 things to know about the Van Dyke murder trial so far
Jury instructions, which usually run many pages in length, contain detailed but brief synopses of the law and the factors jurors are supposed to consider as they decide whether someone is guilty of a crime. The defense and prosecution each submit their own versions of the instructions, and will then hash out a final document. Typically, the instructions hew closely to pattern instructions crafted by the Illinois Supreme Court that spell out the elements of various crimes under the law.
But which laws apply in a specific case and how elements of the case relate to them can be the topic of spirited — or at least lengthy — debate, especially in a murder case, said Jeffrey Urdangen, director of the Center for Criminal Defense at Northwestern University’s Bluhm Legal Clinic.
“This in a way provides the script for the closing arguments, because they’re going to pick whatever part of the law they think is most favorable for either side, and each is going to hammer away at it,” Urdangen said.
A crucial decision will be whether to include instructions on second-degree murder — a lesser charge than the first-degree murder counts Van Dyke is officially charged with. First-degree murder has several elements, but mainly that the defendant took an action that killed the victim, knew the action was likely to be deadly, and did so without justification. A second-degree murder conviction must meet those same elements, but also requires a finding that the defendant believed what he did was justified although jurors find that belief was not reasonable.
Including instructions on second-degree murder could be crucial for Van Dyke, if he and his lawyers think jurors won’t buy the argument he was acting in self-defense. That’s because a second-degree murder conviction allows for a probation-only sentence. A second-degree instruction also provides a hedge for Special Prosecutor Joseph McMahon if he doesn’t think he’s likely to get a conviction on first-degree murder.
