{ "id": 3583348, "name": "In re SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (Jerome Gholson, Appellee, v. Alan C. Downen, State's Attorney of Hamilton County, Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "Gholson v. Downen", "decision_date": "1987-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201487\u20140071", "first_page": "183", "last_page": "190", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 183" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "405 N.E.2d 1230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1234" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 873", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3202756 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0873-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 N.E.2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469982 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 N.E.2d 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" }, { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 859", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3194695 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "865" }, { "page": "865" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/85/0859-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 N.E.2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "415 Ill. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2684689 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/415/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 N.E.2d 156", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3505120 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/156/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" }, { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3350236 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "704" }, { "page": "704" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 N.E.2d 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Ill. App. 3d 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3628131 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/119/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199" }, { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640676 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182" }, { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 N.E.2d 273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "131 Ill. App. 3d 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3438419 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/131/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 N.E.2d 307", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2926455 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0666-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.E.2d 1137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1143" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2892031 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "751" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 971", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5666122 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0971-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 38", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6170862 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 N.E.2d 646", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "651" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5393812 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/52/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 N.E.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "445" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 2d 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5786822 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/25/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 N.E.2d 1230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1234" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 873", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3202756 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/84/0873-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 N.E.2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 2d 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5469982 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/85/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 N.E.2d 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. App. 3d 859", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3194695 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "865" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/85/0859-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 N.E.2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 3d 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3350236 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/60/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2640676 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/42/0176-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 780, "char_count": 17438, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.484333226789155e-08, "percentile": 0.44575494555860207 }, "sha256": "4789e53809bb9d9cf3250e3fcf5a3c515b78f014671b230114058d9aec03503e", "simhash": "1:2b3818742d770822", "word_count": 2883 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:25.181183+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (Jerome Gholson, Appellee, v. Alan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney of Hamilton County, Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HARRISON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAlan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney of Hamilton County, appeals from orders entered by the Hamilton County circuit court which (1) appointed a special prosecutor to impanel a grand jury to investigate possible violations of the law which may have occurred during the prosecution of Jerome Gholson for solicitation to murder Downen, (2) denied Downen\u2019s motion to vacate the order appointing the special prosecutor, and (3) refused to grant Downen\u2019s request for a change of venue. For the reasons which follow, this appeal shall be dismissed.\nThe action giving rise to Downen\u2019s appeal commenced when Jerome Gholson petitioned the circuit court of Hamilton County to appoint a special prosecutor pursuant to section 6 of \u201cAn Act in regard to attorneys general and state\u2019s attorneys\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 14, par. 6) \u201ccharged with plenary power to investigate potential violations of the Criminal Code\u201d in connection with Gholson\u2019s prosecution in Crawford County for solicitation to murder Downen. Gholson was acquitted of that charge following a jury trial.\nIn his petition, which was verified, Gholson set forth specific and detailed factual allegations suggesting that various criminal acts may have been committed in connection with the unsuccessful attempt to secure his conviction. These included:\n(1) official misconduct arising from the State\u2019s payments to an informant who was called to testify as part of its case, aiding the informant and his wife in avoiding prosecution for passing bad checks and favorably disposing of criminal charges against the husband of a potential witness in exchange for that witness\u2019 cooperation with the State\u2019s case;\n(2) compounding a crime by making the payments to. the State\u2019s informant, who was not called as an expert witness;\n(3) violation of State law governing eavesdropping devices and official misconduct and obstruction of justice associated with those violations; and\n(4) obstruction of justice, perjury and official misconduct involving an inaccurate report prepared by a criminal investigator for the State and testimony adduced regarding the contents of that report.\nAccording to Gholson\u2019s petition, Downen was personally involved, directly or indirectly, in various of these alleged criminal acts. Because of this, involvement, Gholson asserted that appointment of a special j prosecutor, \u201cfree of potential conflict or interest,\u201d was necessary.\nGholson\u2019s petition was presented to the circuit court by his attorney on January 15, 1987. An ex parte hearing was then conducted, no notice having been given to Downen. Following the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. At the same time, the court ordered the case file sequestered and directed the court reporter not to discuss the matter with anyone.\nThe next day, January 16, 1987, the court granted Gholson\u2019s petition. It issued an order appointing Richard Aguirre as special prosecutor \u201cto impanel a grand jury in Hamilton County with plenary power to conduct all necessary investigations\u201d into the matters raised by Gholson\u2019s petition and \u201cunsequestered\u201d the file. Thereafter, on January 20, 1987, Downen filed motions for a change of venue, requesting that the case be assigned to a different judge, and to vacate the order appointing the special prosecutor. Downen subsequently amended both of these motions. Both motions, as amended, were denied by the circuit court on January 26, 1987, after hearing arguments by counsel. This appeal followed.\nAs grounds for his appeal, Downen asserts that the circuit court\u2019s order appointing the special prosecutor is void because it was granted ex parte without affording him prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, that the court abused its discretion in issuing that order because \u201cthe State\u2019s Attorney was not given the notice he was entitled to\u201d and the court had \u201cordered the court file sequestered to keep the public and the State\u2019s Attorney from finding out about the petition,\u201d that insufficient evidence was adduced to support issuance of the order, that the petition itself was insufficient as a matter of law, and that the circuit court was prejudiced against him. Accordingly, Downen urges this court to set aside the order appointing the special prosecutor and to remand the case for a new hearing before a different judge. After careful review of the record and the applicable law, however, we have concluded that we are unable to consider the merits of Downen\u2019s arguments, for his appeal is not properly before us.\nSection 6 of \u201cAn Act in regard to attorneys general and state\u2019s attorneys\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 14, par. 6) authorizes the appointment of a special prosecutor if the State\u2019s Attorney \u201cis interested in any cause or proceeding, civil or criminal, which it is or may be his duty to prosecute or defend.\u201d This statute, by its terms, authorizes such appointments only in pending cases. (In re Appointment of Special State\u2019s Attorneys (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 176, 182, 356 N.E.2d 195, 199.) Here, there was no case yet pending at the time the petition was filed. Nevertheless, the law is now settled that circuit courts possess the inherent power to also appoint special attorneys \u201cwhen the regular officer is absent or disqualified, in order to prevent a failure of justice\u201d even before a suit or proceeding has commenced. 42 Ill. App. 3d at 182, 356 N.E.2d at 199; see also People ex rel. York v. Downen (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 29, 31, 456 N.E.2d 286, 287.\nThere are no statutory provisions governing the procedure to be employed in bringing to a court\u2019s attention the possible need for appointment of a special prosecutor. (In re McNulty (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 701, 704, 377 N.E.2d 191, 193.) Rather, this is a matter which has been developed as a matter of common law. Three methods have been recognized. The court\u2019s jurisdiction to consider appointment of a special prosecutor may be invoked either (1) by the court upon its own motion, (2) through a petition filed by the State\u2019s Attorney, or (3) as in this case, upon the petition of a citizen. 60 Ill. App. 3d at 704, 377 N.E.2d at 193; Baxter v. Peterlin (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 564, 566, 509 N.E.2d 156, 157; People v. Howarth (1953), 415 Ill. 499, 513, 114 N.E.2d 785.\nWhere, as here, a citizen petitions for appointment of a special prosecutor, but seeks no injunctive relief against the State\u2019s Attorney to force him to do or stop doing something (compare People ex rel. York v. Downen (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 29, 456 N.E.2d 286 (citizens sought to enjoin State\u2019s Attorney from proceeding with grand jury investigation in addition to requesting appointment of special prosecutor)) there is no requirement that the State\u2019s Attorney be joined as a party. The State\u2019s Attorney was not, in fact, named as a party in this case, and he made no effort to formally intervene in the proceedings. He apparently just began filing motions attacking the circuit court\u2019s order granting the petition, and the court, in turn, apparently disposed of those motions without ever considering its authority or obligation to do so. Downen may have believed that the court\u2019s actions constituted an implicit grant of leave to intervene, but Illinois law recognizes no doctrine of intervention by implication. To the contrary, section 2 \u2014 408 of our Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 408) expressly requires that a \u201ctimely application\u201d be made before intervention can be allowed. Downen therefore comes before us as a nonparty.\nSupreme Court Rule 301 (107 Ill. 2d R. 301) has been construed to allow even a nonparty to appeal. (Metropolitan Sanitary District ex rel. O\u2019Keeffe v. Ingram Corp. (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 859, 865, 407 N.E.2d 627, 631, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 458, 426 N.E.2d 860.) To have standing to bring an appeal, however, a nonparty must have a \u201cdirect, immediate and substantial interest in the subject matter, which would be prejudiced by the judgment or benefited by its reversal.\u201d (Marcheschi v. P. I. Corp. (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 873, 878, 405 N.E.2d 1230, 1234.) A nonparty to an action \u201cis prejudiced or aggrieved in a legal sense when a legal right has been invaded or a pecuniary interest is directly, not merely indirectly, affected.\u201d Metropolitan Sanitary District ex rel. O\u2019Keeffe v. Ingram Corp. (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 859, 865, 407 N.E.2d 627, 631, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 458, 426 N.E.2d 860.\nThe record before us fails to establish how Downen would suffer such prejudice if the orders from which he now appeals were to be affirmed. The only pecuniary interests which might be directly affected by appointment of a special prosecutor here are those of the county, which will be subject to liability for the special prosecutor\u2019s expenses, but Downen has not brought this appeal in the name of the county. He is apparently proceeding on his own behalf or, at most, on behalf of the office of State\u2019s Attorney.\nWhile Downen argues that payment of a special prosecutor might deplete county funds which would otherwise be available to his office for future prosecutions and investigations, he admits that these effects are merely indirect. From the record before us, they also appear to be entirely speculative.\nTo be sure, Downen does possess,a personal \u201cinterest\u201d in the subject matter of this case to the extent that he is alleged to have been personally involved in the criminal acts set forth in the petition. That is, after all, the very reason for which Gholson sought and the circuit court ordered appointment of a special prosecutor. Such an interest is not, however, sufficient to confer standing on Downen for the purposes of appealing the orders at issue here. If those orders were to be affirmed, Downen\u2019s guilt or innocence of the criminal acts alleged would not be affected. All that would happen is that Downen would not be able to conduct the investigation of those allegations himself. Downen argues that this would constitute, an infringement of his lawful prosecutorial discretion as the elected State\u2019s Attorney. We disagree. In our view, no State\u2019s Attorney can possibly claim a legally cognizable right to investigate his own possible wrongdoing in a criminal case where he, himself, was the intended victim. Accordingly, we must conclude that Downen is without standing to challenge the circuit court\u2019s decision to appoint a different attorney to conduct the investigation here.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nEARNS, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HARRISON" }, { "text": "JUSTICE WELCH,\ndissenting:\nI disagree with the majority because Alan Downen, acting in his official capacity as State\u2019s Attorney.of Hamilton County, was at all times, and is in this appeal, representing the interests of Hamilton County, Illinois. Further, Hamilton County was a proper party to intervene in this action in the trial court and is a proper party to bring this appeal.\nA State's Attorney is authorized, and required, by statute to \u201ccommence and prosecute all actions, suits, indictments and prosecutions, civil and criminal, in the circuit court for his county, in which the people of the State or county may be concerned,\u201d and to \u201cdefend all actions and proceedings brought against his county, or against any county or State officer, in his official capacity, within his county.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 14, pars. 5(1), (4).) The State\u2019s Attorney has the right to represent the county, and in any action where the county\u2019s interests are involved, he is the only officer entitled to represent the county. (Boghosian v. Mid-City National Bank (1960), 25 Ill. App. 2d 455, 462, 167 N.E.2d 442, 445.) It is presumed that the State\u2019s Attorney, while acting in his official capacity, performs his duties in accordance with the law. (People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 37, 43, 284 N.E.2d 646, 651, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1972), 409 U.S. 38, 34 L. Ed. 2d 47, 93 S. Ct. 30.) Thus, where a State\u2019s Attorney acts in his official capacity, it is presumed that he is representing the interests of his county.\nIn Southland News Co. v. People (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 971, 493 N.E.2d 398, the State\u2019s Attorney of Winnebago County filed a petition with a commission established by the county, alleging that a certain movie theatre had violated certain county ordinances regulating the showing of films. The petition was brought in the name of the People of the State of Illinois rather than in the name of the People of Winnebago County. The movie theatre argued that this rendered the proceedings void. The appellate court held that, because the State\u2019s Attorney clearly had authority to bring the action, the caption of the pleading, though technically incorrect, did not require reversal.\nIn this case, the State\u2019s Attorney filed pleadings in the trial court in the name of \u201cAlan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney of Hamilton County, Elinois.\u201d The notice of appeal was filed by \u201cAlan C. Downen, in his official capacity as State\u2019s Attorney of Hamilton County, Illinois.\u201d It is presumed that the State\u2019s Attorney, when acting in his official capacity, is representing the interests of the county. Although perhaps technically incorrect, these pleadings were sufficient to give notice that they were being filed by Hamilton County and that it was the county\u2019s interests which were being represented.\nFurthermore, Hamilton County is a proper party to this action. In order to be a proper party, one need not be a necessary party, nor need one be interested in all relief requested. (Lynch v. Devine (1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 743, 751, 359 N.E.2d 1137, 1143.) I express no opinion on whether Hamilton County is a necessary party to this action, but find that it is at least a proper party. Hamilton County has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of this action, because it will be liable to pay the fees of the special prosecutor. See People ex rel. Barrett v. Board of Commissioners (1973), 11 Ill. App. 3d 666, 297 N.E.2d 307; In re McNulty (1978), 60 Ill. App. 3d 701, 377 N.E.2d 191.\nThus, Hamilton County was a proper party to intervene in this action in the trial court. (In re Appointment of Special State\u2019s Attorneys (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 176, 179, 356 N.E.2d 195, 197.) Admittedly, Hamilton County, through the State\u2019s Attorney, did not file a formal petition for leave to intervene in the trial court. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 408(e)). However, such a formal petition is not required where an oral motion to intervene is made, an intervening pleading is filed and the party seeking to intervene will clearly be affected by any judgment entered in the action. (W. H. Lyman Construction Co. v. Village of Gurnee (1985), 131 Ill. App. 3d 87, 98, 475 N.E.2d 273, 281.) Here, the State\u2019s Attorney filed intervening pleadings upon which a hearing was held. The trial court considered the merits of the pleadings, and ruled upon them, despite opposing counsel\u2019s claim that the State\u2019s Attorney was not a party to the action. Thus, the trial court proceeded as though a petition to intervene had been presented and granted.\nIn any event, Hamilton County is a proper party to bring this appeal. Even a nonparty may appeal if it has a direct, immediate and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit which would be prejudiced by the judgment or benefited by its reversal. (Marcheschi v. P. I. Corp. (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 873, 878, 405 N.E.2d 1230, 1234.) A nonparty is prejudiced or aggrieved when a legal right has been invaded or a pecuniary interest is directly, not merely indirectly, affected. (Metropolitan Sanitary District ex rel. O\u2019Keeffe v. Ingram Corp. (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 859, 865, 407 N.E.2d 627, 631, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 458, 426 N.E.2d 860.) As pointed out above, Hamilton County has a direct, immediate and substantial pecuniary interest in the subject matter of this action, as it will be liable for the fees of the special prosecutor. It is therefore a proper party to bring this appeal.\nThe petition to appoint a special prosecutor was granted by the trial court ex parte, without notice to the county. The county\u2019s motions to vacate the order and for substitution of judge were summarily denied. Thus, the county was effectively unrepresented in the trial court despite its efforts to be heard.\nBecause Hamilton County has a direct and substantial interest in whether a special prosecutor is appointed, and because the county was effectively unrepresented in the trial court, I would remand this cause for a full hearing, before a new judge, for a determination as to whether there is sufficient cause, and sufficient conflict of interest on the part of the State\u2019s Attorney, to justify the appointment of a special prosecutor.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE WELCH," } ], "attorneys": [ "Alan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney, of McLeansboro, pro se (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Kim G. Noffke, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for appellant.", "Clyde L. Kuehn, of Kuehn & Rhein, of Belleville, for appellee.", "Fred Foreman, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of Waukegan, for amicus curiae Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (Jerome Gholson, Appellee, v. Alan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney of Hamilton County, Appellant).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201487\u20140071\nOpinion filed December 21, 1987.\nWELCH, J., dissenting.\nAlan C. Downen, State\u2019s Attorney, of McLeansboro, pro se (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Kim G. Noffke, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for appellant.\nClyde L. Kuehn, of Kuehn & Rhein, of Belleville, for appellee.\nFred Foreman, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of Waukegan, for amicus curiae Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association." }, "file_name": "0183-01", "first_page_order": 205, "last_page_order": 212 }