indictment, or any other person, and to obtain or examine any docwnents or transcriptsrelevant to the matter being prosecuted by the
State's Attorney.
725 ILCS
511
12-4
(emphasis added).In this matter, the Petitioner's motion
to
appoint her as a special prosecutor failsfor several reasons. First, the Petitioner has failed
to
make any showing that voter fraudhas occurred in the State
of
Illinois.
In
order for a Special Prosecutor to be appointed, thePetitioner would have to provide a factual basis for this Court to believe that a matterwould, or could be, pending before it.Second, the Petitioner has failed to make any showing that the State's Attorney
is
interested in this alleged action. For the purposes
of
the appointment
of
a specialprosecutor, the state's attorney must be interested as
"(1)
a private individual, or (2) aparty
to
the action."
Id.
Although the Petitioner claims that "this voter fraud potentiallyreaches into all elected offices in the County", the Petition fails to state one specific factto support that argwnent. Because the appointment
of
a special prosecutor infiinges upona state's attorney's exclusive powers, "the appointment is only warranted
if
based uponspecific factual allegations
of
'interest' within the meaning
of
the statutes allowing suchappointments."
McCall
v.
Devine,
334 Ill.App.3d
192,205,267
m.Dec. 602, 777 N.E.2d405 (2002). Furthermore, "speculation and suspicion are insufficient bases on which to"infiingeupon these exclusive powers.
Id.
"Rather, the petitioner must present sufficientevidence to support a conclusion that the putative personal conflict is so great that itwould influence the State's Attorney's discharge
of
his duties."
People
v.
Arrington, 297
Jll.App.3d
1,4,
231
IILDec. 658, 696 N.E.2d 1229 (1998). Sufficient evidence has notbeen presented in this case, and therefore the request should be denied.
Add a Comment