
Palatine man innocent of injuring infant son, but
abuse case looms
April 14, 2010
By Barbara Vitello | Daily Herald Staff
An acquittal should have brought Brian Kalinowski's nightmare to an
end. Instead, it continues for the 33-year-old Palatine man found not
guilty Wednesday of shaking and seriously injuring his infant son.
Kalinowski and his wife, who has not been implicated in any wrongdoing,
still face charges they abused and neglected their son, says defense
attorney Lawrence Lykowski. This despite a finding of not guilty from
Cook County Circuit Court Judge James Etchingham. A spokeswoman for the
Cook County State's Attorney confirmed an abuse case against the couple
is pending in juvenile court.
"I don't for one moment believe Mr. Kalinowski caused great bodily harm
to his child," said Etchingham, who referenced more than a half dozen
cases in his ruling.
Kalinowski, his wife and family members greeted the court's decision
with tears, copious hugs and repeated expressions of thanks to the
court. Still, it offered only a partial victory to Kalinowski, who
expressed his happiness and a desire to see his sons through co-defense
counsel Frank DiFranco.
"We're very fortunate to have a judge that attuned to the facts and the
law," said DiFranco, referencing Etchingham's research on Supreme Court
rulings and relevant case law.
Prosecutors say Kalinowski shook and seriously injured the then
3-month-old in late September 2008 while alone with the infant and his
twin brother. The baby recovered and suffered no residual effects,
which Etchingham noted in his finding. Both boys have been living with
relatives since the incident, with supervised visits from their parents.
Prosecutors failed to prove Kalinowski knowingly caused the baby's
subdural and retinal hemorrhages, said Etchingham, who called the
defendant mild-mannered and credible.
"If anything, the state proved, perhaps, that Brian Kalinowski did not
support properly the little head of (his son) after he put him on his
shoulder. That is not sufficient evidence to convict," Etchingham said.
While the judge court praised Palatine detectives as hardworking and
dedicated, he questioned their decision not to videotape a defendant's
statement in a potential death penalty case. Etchingham also questioned
the lack of a written statement, either by the defendant or a court
reporter, and the decision by police to destroy their notes.
"We are left with the least type of credible statement, an oral
statement of what the defendant told authorities," Etchingham said. "It
would be unfair to convict without benefit of a videotaped statement, a
transcribed statement, written statement or without notes
contemporaneous to an oral statement."
To do so "would constitute a miscarriage of justice," he said.
Ultimately, what happened that Sunday afternoon was a tragic accident,
not a criminal act, Etchingham said.
"Mr. Kalinowski, go back to being a family," he said, "but be ever so
careful in caring for each other."
|