Melodie Gliniewicz (left) and Lt. Charles Gliniewicz.

Oral arguments in the criminal case against Melodie Gliniewicz, wife of the late former Fox Lake Police Lt. Charles Gliniewicz, were formally heard in the Second District Appellate Court in Elgin regarding the admissibility of texts and emails found on her cell phone in her Lake County trial. The Oct. 2 session is the first time the petition has been acted upon by the higher court, for an airing, after it had rejected the initial petition.

Gliniewicz is charged with numerous felony and misdemeanor charges stemming from her alleged involvement in the embezzlement of and misuse of funds belonging to the nonprofit Fox Lake Explorer Post 300, in collusion with her husband. Although bank records for several accounts are still not public, it is alleged the couple used the funds for entertainment, personal loans, and household bills.

She was arrested in January 2016, and the case has wound through the courtroom of Lake County Judge James Booras, who ruled that email and text messages found the widow’s cellphone were protected under the laws of spousal privilege and could not be used. Prosecutors have argued that she waived the spousal privilege, when surrendering the phone. Defense attorneys have countered that the privilege was not waived as she had no knowledge of indictable content.

Spousal privilege prevents one spouse from testifying against another, applied as state law by Booras to the texts and email messages between the couple. Prosecutors argue that the laws are not applicable, when one spouse is not being approached to testify against the other, as with the current criminal proceedings pursued against Melodie Gliniewicz. The lieutenant is also deceased.

Charles Gliniewicz committed suicide on Sept. 1, 2015 in such a way to appear as a homicide, according to the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force findings. It was done in an effort to cover up the financial malfeasance that had occurred, as the village’s administrator was conducting an asset audit of Fox Lake holdings, and would discover the irregularities.

Booras had previously disallowed the cell phone data, prompting prosecutors to petition the Appellate Court for a ruling in mid-2016. The Appellate Court’s ruling, issued in May 2017, stated: “Appellant’s motion for leave to reply instanter is granted. Appellant’s Emergency Motion to Remand to Reopen Proofs is granted in part. The case is remanded for the limited purpose of the trial court’s consideration of the State’s request to reopen the proofs on defendant’s motion in limine regarding marital communications and other necessary proceedings pertaining to that motion.”

In returning the case to the 19^th Judicial Circuit Court, Booras again denied the use of the cell phone data, and prosecutors once more petitioned the Appellate Court for a ruling.

The Appellate Court prosecutors David Joseph Robinson, Lawrence Michael Bauer, Michael G. Nerheim, and Richard Scott London were listed for the hearing, although London presented the identical assertion that Gliniewicz waived the spousal privilege when giving authorities her cell phone.

Gliniewicz’s defense attorney, Donald Morrison refuted the argument saying, whether consent was given or not, she was not aware of the data contents and not cognizant of what rights were waived.

Morrison had previously said the 2nd District Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of the court’s consideration of the request by the state to re-open proofs in the defendant’s limine, which is to exclude communications between the defendant and the late Lt. (Charles) Gliniewicz. He also said that state prosecutors had filed the motion to reopen proofs in the trial court while seeking to admit a signed consent by the defendant to search her phone, dated Oct. 8, 2015.

“The concept of ‘limine’ is best explained as a Latin word meaning ‘on the threshold,’ and is used in a motion that is discussed outside the presence of a jury to request that certain testimony be excluded from a particular proceeding,” said Matthew Stanton, an adjunct professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. “The motion involves evidence that could eventually not be heard by a jury, and precludes their presence.”

The criminal proceedings in Lake County are stayed, pending the decision reached by the appellate court.