Defense requests special prosecutor in ex-Will County deputy’s child sexual assault case

A defense attorney claims that a conflict of interest with the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office means a special prosecutor should be assigned to the case of a former sheriff’s deputy charged with sex crimes against children.

A motion for a special prosecutor was filed Tuesday by defense attorney Neil Patel in the case against Daniel Herod, 41, of Elwood.

The next court date is May 13 before Will County Judge Vincent Cornelius.

Herod is a former Will County sheriff’s correctional deputy charged with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and possession of child sex abuse images.

Patel’s motion argued that an “actual conflict of interest” exists in Herod’s case because of the “close working relationship” between the state’s attorney’s office and the sheriff’s office.

“The state’s attorney’s office relies on the [sheriff’s office] for investigation, evidence gathering and witness testimony in virtually all criminal cases. This inherent interdependency creates a conflict of interest when the state’s attorney’s office is tasked with prosecuting an employee of the [sheriff’s office],” according to Patel’s motion.

Herod was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, a federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Herod’s employment with the sheriff’s office was terminated about two weeks before Patel filed his motion for a special prosecutor.

Patel’s motion contends that the state’s attorney’s office prosecution of Herod could “jeopardize the working relationship” between the state’s attorney’s office and the sheriff’s office.

Patel’s motion argued that even if the state’s attorney’s office is capable of prosecuting Herod fairly, the “mere appearance of impropriety” is sufficient for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Patel’s motion argues that the state’s attorney’s office has an “inherit duty” to represent employees of the sheriff’s office.

“A special prosecutor is necessary to remove the appearance of impropriety in the prosecution of the defendant,” according to Patel’s motion.