Tim Scannell
St. Louis County District Court Judge Shaun Floerke heard arguments from defense and prosecution attorneys on March 27, regarding the grand jury indictment of Cook County Attorney Tim Scannell on two felony charges of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. On April 11, 2014, Floerke issued a ruling—the indictment stands and the matter will proceed to trial.
Scannell has been in the public eye for several years, first gaining national attention when he was critically injured in the December 15, 2011 shooting in Cook County courthouse. Scannell had been shot by a defendant he had successfully convicted of criminal sexual conduct with a teenaged girl.
Scannell came under public scrutiny again on December 4, 2012, after a Cook County family asked for and received a harassment restraining order that called for him to refrain from having any contact with their 17-year-old daughter. That action led to an investigation and the eventual indictment by a grand jury convened in St. Louis County on October 22, 2013.
Scannell has been on a medical leave of absence from his county attorney position since October 15, 2013.
At the hearing, Cook County Special Prosecutor Thomas B. Heffelfinger argued that Scannell had intentionally engaged in sexual contact with the minor victim, who was, “at least 16 but under the age of 18 years of age,” and that Scannell was “more than 48 months older than the minor victim, and the defendant was in a position of authority over the minor victim.”
The age of consent in Minnesota is 16, but prosecutors can bring charges in special circumstances where the victim is younger than 18 and the adult is more than four years older.
Joseph Tamburino of Caplan & Tamburino, Scannell’s attorney, argued that any position of authority Scannell had over the teen ended months before the alleged sexual contact. Tamburino said a position of authority had to exist at the time of the acts, which he argued, did not exist in August 2012.
Heffelfinger rebutted the assertion by reminding the court that Scannell had known the girl since she was in third grade. He had been her soccer coach, tennis coach, taught her guitar lessons, helped her with her homework and most recently, gave her advice on college planning.
Heffelfinger noted that in the girl’s grand jury testimony, which has not been released to the public, she said she and Scannell had been discussing college options in Scannell’s van when the alleged sexual contact occurred.
Tamburino also asked the court to dismiss the grand jury indictment on the grounds that the harassment restraining order (HRO) had been presented to the grand jury. Tamburino said the HRO was “incompetent evidence” and that “it has so far influenced the grand jury that an indictment would not have been returned without it…No probable cause exists to indict defendant and, therefore, the indictment should be dismissed.”
Judge Floerke did not agree. He wrote, “‘Position of Authority’ includes but is not limited to any person who is a parent or acting in place of a parent and charged with any of a parent’s rights, duties or responsibilities to a child, or a person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare or supervision of a child, either independently or through another, no matter how brief, at the time of the act.”
Floerke said grand jury testimony affirmed Heffelfinger’s list of ways that Scannell and the teen had interacted and expanded on that, noting that Scannell sent the girl information about extracurricular courses or camps she should participate in that could be added to her college applications. Scannell attended many of her high school athletic events with the only reason being to watch her play. He led the Great Books program at school for her class and was a guest teacher for a Values and Choices class.
Floerke acknowledged that Scannell was no longer the girl’s tennis coach at the time of the alleged sexual contact, however, Floerke pointed to a November 2012 email from Scannell to the teen while she was studying abroad. In the email, submitted as evidence, Scannell referred to himself as “a mentor and a parental figure.”
“The grand jury transcript shows that the defendant was in a position of authority at many different times in [the teen’s] life,” wrote Floerke.
And while it is unclear how much of a position of authority Scannell was in with regard to the August 2012 incident, Floerke wrote, “…the legislature expanded the protection of potentially vulnerable minors by removing the requirement that the accused had to actually use their position of authority to commit the sexual act.
“Case law indicates that ‘position of authority’ is not magically turned off when the accused has no formal authority over the victim,” wrote Floerke. Floerke said the grand jury’s decision is supported by the facts alleged.
Regarding the introduction of the HRO, Floerke said the restraining order was introduced as the “trigger for investigation,” no different than a 911 call. “There is no reason to believe that the grand jury considered the HRO as anything other than background information when it returned the indictment. Therefore, even if improperly introduced, the HRO was not prejudicial and had no effect on the grand jury’s decision.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment is denied,” said Floerke in the order.
No date has been set yet for the pretrial hearing.
Leave a Reply