McHenry County judge won't reconsider dismissing charges against ex-coroner

WOODSTOCK – A McHenry County judge upheld his decision to not dismiss misconduct charges against former McHenry County Coroner Marlene Lantz.

Lantz, 68, was indicted last year on official misconduct and forgery charges after she allegedly failed to properly dispose of two fetuses that prosecutors have said were kept in the coroner's office for more than two decades.

Jim Harrison, Lantz's attorney, filed a motion to dismiss misconduct charges against his client in May, arguing that prosecutors failed to state the offense of the charges and committed prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury. McHenry County Judge Robert Wilbrandt Jr. denied the motion last month.

Lantz and Harrison appeared before Wilbrandt on Thursday to ask the judge to reconsider his decision and provide further clarification.

Assistant State’s Attorney Michael Combs declined to respond to Harrison’s motion or provide further comment, and said in court that he stood on his previous arguments and felt the judge’s ruling was fair.

Wilbrandt said Thursday that he rejected Harrison’s argument and does not believe a coroner has no duty to bury or dispose of unclaimed human remains if the deceased had any relatives. He also disregarded Harrison’s interpretation of the statute that a person should be forced by state legal action to take and pay for a deceased relation’s final disposition.

Wilbrandt said he believes state law intended to, and did, place a duty on county coroners to dispose of or bury unclaimed or unidentified human remains at the county’s expense.

Therefore, Wilbrandt said the state’s attorney’s office did not violate due process by failing to present the defendant’s “erroneous interpretation” of this statute to the grand jury.

In his arguments for further clarification, Harrison brought up a new issue of timing. He said Illinois law does not specify when the coroner is responsible for burying or disposing of the remains, other than specifying that the duty begins sometime “after” the investigation or inquest, which creates a “constitutionally overbroad statute” as a basis for criminal charges.

Both sides will argue the issue on Aug. 5.