Court Opinion

ID: 9725825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:13:35.007017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:20.420269
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the reversal and remand on the issue of the improper use of the polygraph evidence. I do not believe, however, that there is any conflict of interest because the State’s Attorney’s office prosecuted the matter before the Merit Commission. A conflict of interest would exist in the State’s Attorney’s office if an association would diminish or weaken the prosecution. The opposite result obtains here. Because the victim was a member of the State’s Attorney’s staff, the interest in prosecution would be enhanced rather than diminished. Also, the prosecutorial function results in no denial to the defendant of any right. The witnesses were subject to cross-examination and the issue was decided by an impartial panel. It is true that the statute cited in the majority opinion provides authority for the appointment of a special attorney. The language of that statute, however, makes this a discretionary matter. That being so, there is really no reason to find a conflict when the interest in prosecution is not diminished. As to that portion of the majority’s opinion, I dissent.