A judge will hear arguments May 15 on a defense motion asking for a more detailed explanation of the charges filed against a former Carroll County sheriff’s deputy in connection with the 2024 death of a Mount Carroll teen.

Matthew Herpstreith, 45, of Savanna was charged March 24, 2025, with reckless homicide, reckless conduct and obstructing justice – all felonies – as well as one misdemeanor count each of attempted obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident in the death of 18-year-old Jackson Kradle of Mount Carroll. Herpstreith pleaded not guilty to all charges at his arraignment April 23, 2025.

Kradle’s body was found at 3:30 a.m. July 28, 2024, on state Route 78, less than a mile north of Mount Carroll’s city limits. Kradle was the victim of blunt force trauma, which a forensic pathologist ruled was the result of a vehicle/pedestrian crash.

Herpstreith and a Carroll County dispatcher, who were off duty at the time, alerted the Carroll County dispatch center via a nonemergency call that they had found the body on the highway. Herpstreith’s arrest came eight months later.

Ogle County Associate Judge Anthony Peska was appointed to the case in May 2025. On June 13, 2025, after hearing testimony by Illinois State Police special investigator Matthew Kipping, he ruled probable cause exists and the case would continue toward trial.

[ Attorney of former deputy accused of reckless homicide hints Carroll County teen’s death could be suicide ]

On Friday, Feb. 20, Herpstreith and his attorney, Joseph Nack, appeared before Peska for a status hearing.

Nack told Peska he filed a motion for a bill of particulars Feb. 9.

“My understanding is he’s going to file a response,” Nack said, referring to special prosecutor Charles Colburn, an attorney with the Illinois State Appellate Prosecutor’s Office.

A bill of particulars is a formal request for a more detailed explanation of the charges filed against a defendant. It’s a tool attorneys can use during discovery, which is a standard pre-trial process in which both parties exchange information about the case.

Colburn had that response ready and filed it with the court at the hearing.

Nack’s motion lists each charge against Herpstreith and asks prosecutors to respond with detailed information about the evidence and arguments they intend to present at trial, court records show.

Some of the requests are for basic information, such as when and where prosecutors allege each offense occurred and the specific acts, omissions and conduct by Herpstreith prosecutors allege to warrant each charge, according to Nack’s motion.

Colburn’s motion objects to providing that information, arguing that it’s available in the charging document and materials provided in discovery, court records show.

Colburn’s motion says that information is “more than sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare his defense.”

Nack’s motion also asks specific questions related to how the prosecution intends to present its arguments for each charge.

For example, under the reckless homicide and reckless conduct charges, it asks the state for its “theory of causation” and “whether the state alleges the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton,” Nack’s motion says.

For the reckless homicide and conduct charges, Colburn’s motion objects to providing information on “causation”, arguing that it’s irrelevant because it’s not an element of either offenses and is also not required by law, court records show.

Colburn’s motion also argues that the “willful or wanton” conduct request for both charges is “irrelevant as such conduct is only an element of the offense of reckless driving for which the defendant has not been charged,” court records show.

Under the failure to reduce speed charge, Nack’s motion asks for specific information about Herpstreith’s alleged speed, such as the posted speed limit on the road he’s alleged to have been driving on, the method used to determine alleged speed at the time of the offense and the specific type of any speed measuring device used to determine that, according to Nack’s motion.

Colburn’s motion objects to providing that information by referencing a 1989 Illinois court case to support his argument that “a defendant’s speed and any speed limit are not elements of the offense of failure to reduce speed,” court records show.

At Friday’s hearing, Colburn and Nack agreed to address those motions at the next hearing, which Peska scheduled for 3 p.m. May 15.

Nack also said two documents filed in the case are sealed and asked Peska to unseal and release those to his team.

Colburn did not object to releasing the documents. He said that he believes it’s just the return of search warrant paperwork that was issued for Herpstreith’s cell phone.

It shouldn’t contain any information the defense is not already aware of as the information that was retrieved from the cell phone should be in the discovery that was given to Nack, Colburn said.

“By agreement those can be unsealed and turned over to council,” Peska said, referring to Nack and Colburn.

Nack said he’s still in the discovery phase and is waiting to receive a report from an accident reconstructionist that he expects to be done in March.

Peska ruled that the case be continued and that the conditions of Herpstreith’s release remain in place until the next hearing.