Sean Grayson will remain in jail at least another 35 days because of a ruling Dec. 3 by the 4th District of the Illinois Appellate Court.
In an unsigned order, the Springfield-based 4th District said it will give State’s Attorney John Milhiser until early January to appeal the Appellate Court’s Nov. 27 order calling on authorities to release Grayson with conditions.
Grayson’s release could have come as soon as Dec. 5, but the Dec. 3 ruling apparently will eliminate the need for a Dec. 5 Circuit Court hearing to determine his pretrial release conditions.
Related
Sean Grayson likely to be granted pretrial release
Milhiser, through the State’s Attorney’s Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, filed documents Dec. 2 asking for a delay in Grayson’s release while he asks the Illinois Supreme Court for a longer delay so the high court can consider and potentially overturn the Appellate Court’s Nov. 27 decision.
The unanimous Nov. 27 ruling from a three-judge panel of Appellate Court justices said Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Ryan Cadagin erred when he denied release for Grayson in mid-July.
Grayson, 30, a Riverton resident and former Sangamon County sheriff’s deputy, is charged with first-degree murder, official misconduct and aggravated battery with a firearm in the July 6 shooting death of Sonya Massey in her Woodside Township home.
The Appellate Court said in its Dec. 3 decision that it could, but will not, delay Grayson’s release until proceedings in front of the Supreme Court are completed.
Milhiser declined comment on the Dec. 3 ruling.
Grayson had been ordered detained by Cadagin since Grayson was arrested and indicted by a grand jury in mid-July in a case that has received national media attention. Grayson, who is undergoing treatment for colon cancer, is being held at the Macon County Jail.
A unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel from the Appellate Court’s 4th District on Nov. 27 said Cadagin erred in denying pretrial release for Grayson, who was captured on police body-worn video shooting Massey, 36, a Black woman, in the head in the kitchen of her home.
Massey, who was dealing with mental illness, had called police when she suspected a prowler in the neighborhood, prompting Grayson and another white deputy to go to the rental home a short distance from Springfield’s southern border.
Grayson was fired after the incident by former sheriff Jack Campbell, who retired amid multiple calls for his resignation by people who said he overlooked “red flags” in Grayson’s background when hiring Grayson in 2023.
Related
Deputy charged with murder had previous employment issues
The Appellate Court panel’s ruling by Republican justices Eugene Doherty of the Rockford area, James Knecht of Normal and Craig DeArmond of Danville said county prosecutors failed to introduce “clear and convincing evidence” that Grayson would pose a danger to the community, even if he were released with certain conditions.
One of Grayson’s attorneys, Mark Wykoff, said he was relieved by the ruling and said he and co-counsel Daniel Fultz made their arguments for release “based on fact, based on law.”
Wykoff said he was hopeful before the Nov. 27 ruling that “three neutral, dispassionate, objective judges that were unbiased, that weren’t clouded by emotion, that weren’t clouded by public perception, would apply those facts to the law and come to a just conclusion, which they did here.”
Cadagin previously ruled that Grayson, who knew or should have known he was being videotaped, violated his oath as a sworn officer and disregarded his training by shooting Massey, who was unarmed. Therefore, the judge said, Grayson was “not a good candidate to be in compliance” with any conditions of pretrial release.
Cadagin also said Grayson’s conduct leading up to and including the shooting, as well as derogatory language Grayson used in reference to Massey immediately after the shooting, “are such a departure from the basic expectations of civil society that they are evidence of the defendant’s dangerousness and also that he could not comply with conditions.”
In addition, court records indicate an Illinois State Police investigation of the incident determined the shooting of Massey was unjustified.
However, the panel agreed with Grayson’s attorneys who argued that Cadagin determined, in error, that “conditions of release … would be inadequate to mitigate the threat posed to the safety of the community.”
The potential conditions of release, according to the ruling, included “not working as a law enforcement officer, home confinement, electronic location monitoring and the removal of firearms from his home.”
The Appellate Court panel said it was “inappropriate to dwell” on how Grayson allegedly violated his law-enforcement oath in Cadagin’s decision to detain Grayson. That’s because Grayson no longer was a police officer, the panel said.
Massey’s father, James Wilburn of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, called the ruling “a serious miscarriage of justice.”
Ken Pacha, an outspoken supporter of the family and critic of police, said he fears there will be violent reactions in Springfield if Grayson is released.
“This city will burn,” Pacha said after a court hearing on the Grayson case Dec. 2.
Milhiser, a Republican, asked that the Appellate Court delay Grayson’s pretrial release because the case is “high-profile” and his release would create “a high likelihood of societal upheaval.”
In response, an attorney for Grayson asked the court to turn down Milhiser’s request. “All defendants, high-profile or not, are to be treated equally under the law,” the attorney wrote. “Additionally, surely this court was well aware of the ‘high-profile’ nature of the case when it issued the decision.”
Milhiser blamed the Pretrial Fairness Act, which abolished bail throughout Illinois on Sept. 18, 2023, for creating the opportunity for Grayson to be freed while he awaits a trial.
The Pretrial Fairness law was included in the SAFE-T Act, which stands for Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act, and was passed by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker in 2021.
Milhiser has called for changes in the law to give judges more discretion in considering whether to release or detain defendants while they await trial.
“The SAFE-T Act has made it less safe in communities across Illinois,” Milhiser said in a statement. “Under the short time frame required under the act, we filed a petition to detain Sean Grayson, including relevant available information, and made appropriate arguments at the (July 18) hearing. We agree with the Circuit Court’s determination that defendant Grayson poses a threat to the community that cannot be mitigated with conditions, and he should be detained while his case progresses.”
The Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, which supports the SAFE-T Act and backed the elimination of cash bail, issued a statement that said the network is disappointed to see Milhiser blaming the law for Grayson’s potential release.
The network said that before the SAFE-T Act, police charged with murder in connection with their official duties often were able to post bail and be released before trial.
“The Pretrial Fairness Act has ensured that access to money is no longer the main factor determining who can return to the community while awaiting trial,” the statement said. “In order for the court to order detention, prosecutors must prove that an individual poses a risk to community safety or is likely to intentionally evade prosecution.”
Though the statement stopped short of condemning the Appellate Court ruling, the network also said: “It is unfortunately unsurprising that a police officer accused of this heinous act of violence against a Black woman is given the benefit of a careful, thorough review of the trial court’s detention decision. … When police are criminally charged, court systems have always provided ‘more justice’ than that given to the everyday people – disproportionately Black and Latine – who make up the vast majority of people prosecuted.”
Before Illinois abolished cash bail, it was rare in Sangamon County for people charged with murder to be free while awaiting trial. Judges often set bail at $1 million or more, meaning defendants had to post 10%, or at least $100,000, to gain release.
Since the Pretrial Fairness Act took effect, several defendants, including former LifeStar Ambulance employees Peggy Finley and Peter Cadigan, charged with first-degree murder in the suffocation death of Earl Moore Jr. of Springfield in December 2022, have benefited from the law, either by having bail refunded or not having to post bail to gain pretrial release. All of the defendants are white; all of the victims were Black.
Pacha, 42, a retail salesperson, said the Appellate panel appeared to be using the SAFE-T Act and legal technicalities to give preferential treatment to a former member of law enforcement.
“They’re creating a situation that is a powder keg,” Pacha said. “The idea that three Republican, activist judges on the Fourth Appellate Court decided on a technicality to release him is going to infuriate people.”
Pacha and Teresa Haley, former president of the Springfield branch of the NAACP, said they believe the Pretrial Fairness Act needs to be tweaked by the legislature to prevent defendants such as Grayson from being released pretrial.
The act, which Haley supported when it was passed, was intended to benefit poor, Black and other “disenfranchised” people charged with low-level crimes who used to sit in jail for months because they couldn’t afford bail, she said.
“Now it’s being used for everyone, and in a case like this, it’s horrible,” Haley said.
Margarita Fultz, fiancée of one of Massey’s cousins, said members of Massey’s extended family aren’t calling for changes in the law but are upset the Appellate panel interpreted the law in a way that benefited Grayson.
State Sens. Elgie Sims and Robert Peters, and Rep. Justin Slaughter, all Chicago Democrats and sponsors of the SAFE-T Act in their respective chambers, didn’t return phone calls from Illinois Times.
Related Stories
Sean Grayson likely to be granted pretrial release
Deputy charged with murder had previous employment issues
Sangamon County target of DOJ investigation
Massey family to receive $10 million settlement
This article appears in Winter Guide 2024.
The article writes, “The act, which Haley supported when it was passed, was intended to benefit poor, Black and other “disenfranchised” people charged with low-level crimes who used to sit in jail for months because they couldn’t afford bail, she said.”
The idea that low-level criminals were sitting in jail for months while waiting for trial is a total fantasy. I recall when the governor repeated this lie multiple times. The governor would go on TV and say that people would sit in jail for 6 months waiting for trial because they stole bread. It’s too bad that people like Miss Haley believed the democrats’ lies.
According to our own police chief, low-level criminals were almost always immediately released on their own recognizance for less-serious misdemeanors such as theft. They wouldn’t spend one minute in a jail cell even waiting for a bail hearing.
Repeat offenders for low-level crimes might have spent a night or two in jail waiting for their bail hearing. Then they would usually be released on their own recognizance by the judge, or would be given a reasonable bail that almost anyone could make with a bondsman.
Even if a low-level offender had a cash bail set which they could not afford, after a short period of time, that offender would have the opportunity for a bail reduction hearing, and would often be given a “time served” plea deal so they could be released from jail well before several months had passed.
Waiting several months behind bars for trial for a low-level crime NEVER HAPPENED.
The SAFE-T act was created as a knee-jerk reaction to the George Floyd incident and subsequent rioting. It was during the height of the “defund the police” movement and the Illinois democrats wanted to weaken policing and weaken the justice system. Congrats, they have successfully done what they set out to do.
Personally, I vote republican, generally support the police, and I believe that Grayson is going to have a tough time at his trial. I predict it won’t go well for him. But the people who think the SAFE-T act is great idea but are also whining and threatening to riot because Grayson is benefiting from the SAFE-T act are just pathetic.
There are countless police chiefs who tried to warn you about what was going to happen if the SAFE-T act were passed. The Illinois republicans tried to tell you. ZERO republicans voted for the SAFE-T act. This law is in place solely because of the Illinois democrat party.
Maybe Miss Haley, Mr. Pacha, and the democrats should look in the mirror and realize that they screwed up.