The defense attorney for a Chicago woman accused of falsely reporting a shooting in Ogle County during a rodeo near Rochelle last year argued Tuesday that the charges were filed in retaliation over controversy about such events and should be dismissed.

Jodie Wiederkehr, 56, the campaign director of SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness, was charged in June 2025 with two counts of false reporting, a Class 4 felony, and one count of harassment by telephone, a misdemeanor. She pleaded not guilty on Aug. 20, 2025.

SHARK has been advocating for the closure of a rodeo holding steer-tailing events called Rancho La Esperanza, south of Rochelle, but it has continued to operate under a permanent land-use permit issued by county officials, county records show.

[ Northern Illinois counties struggle to regulate Mexican-style rodeos, steer-tailing events in their area ]

Steer tailing, or coleadero, is when a horseback rider chases a running steer, grabs onto its tail, and wraps the tail around the rider’s leg to slam the animal to the ground. It’s banned in Nebraska and in parts of California and Colorado.

The charges against Wiederkehr stem from May 25, 2025, when prosecutors allege she repeatedly called 911 and told an Ogle County dispatcher that she saw someone get shot at 16989 Ritchie Road, the location of the rodeo, when she knew what she was telling the dispatcher was not true, court records show.

Wiederkehr’s attorneys have argued that context is important, and the intent of those calls was to report animal cruelty actively occurring on the property. In a court filing, they said that day five steers had their tails severed, one had its leg broken, and witnesses didn’t see any veterinary care provided at the rodeo.

The trial was set to begin in February, but Wiederkehr’s attorneys filed three motions to dismiss the charges, arguing that they’re a result of vindictive prosecution and violate Wiederkehr’s constitutional right to free speech.

On Tuesday, Wiederkehr appeared before Ogle County Associate Judge Anthony Peska with her attorneys, Brad Thomson of Chicago and Chris Carraway of Colorado. Peska did not make any rulings and said he would take all arguments under advisement.

Carraway said the charges against Wiederkehr arose “out of, frankly, a public controversy.”

Wiederkehr “publicly criticizes” Ogle County State’s Attorney Mike Rock for not prosecuting the rodeo, Carraway said. He added that Rock “equally criticized” Wiederkehr, and referred to Rock’s statement in a Shaw Local article that “what [SHARK does] is they go after the local prosecutors.”

Carraway said Wiederkehr and Rock have implied the other is a liar, referring to a county committee meeting on May 13, 2025, when they each made conflicting statements about the rodeo and got into an argument.

After that meeting, Wiederkehr and others sent hundreds of emails to his office demanding an investigation into the rodeo, Carraway’s motion says.

Carraway also said Rock blocked Wiederkehr from his official social media account that represents him in his elected position, which Carraway’s motion argues violates her First Amendment rights.

“Evidence shows animus on behalf of Rock,” Carraway said, and cited other Illinois cases to argue that it is a qualifying factor of vindictive prosecution.

Ogle County Assistant State’s Attorney Matthew Liesten disagreed.

Liesten’s motion cites a federal case to explain that vindictive prosecution occurs when charges are filed to “punish a person” for doing “what the law allows him to do.” It also says the defense must show motive, such as animus, and evidence that, without the motive the prosecution would not have occurred, court records show.

Liesten said the defense did not meet that burden of proof.

His motion also includes a timeline that shows the charges were filed June 17, 2025, after a June 10 county committee meeting when Wiederkehr spoke, and a sheriff’s deputy identified her voice as the caller.

Liesten said Wiederkehr is charged for actions on May 25, 2025, and the court should limit its analysis to the known facts of that day.

Rock, who was not at the hearing, told Shaw Local he couldn’t comment on specific facts of the case, but “a prosecutor has a duty to seek justice”, which is what they’re doing, he said.

Carraway argued that the state focused solely on the timeline and didn’t consider the “full panoply of evidence”, which, he said, is mostly “uncontested.”

Carraway also said Rock decided to “embroil himself.”

“That’s something that frankly is very unusual for the head DA [district attorney] of a county,” Carraway said.

Carraway’s motion also included a request for a list of records from the state related to their argument in case Peska doesn’t dismiss the case.

Liesten said the list of items is broad and burdensome for the state, questioned why it’s needed if the motion is to dismiss and argued that it shouldn’t be ruled on until after a ruling is made on dismissal.

,

Defense’s motions to dismiss for free speech violation

Carraway cited a federal case related to false claims to argue that the First Amendment includes false statements and the court must look at other factors, such as the alarm caused.

“It’s the context. It’s the nuance,” Carraway said, explaining that Wiederkehr was reporting animal cruelty and asked, hypothetically, if they would respond differently if she said she saw someone get shot.

“This is not a federal court,” Peska said.

Under Illinois law, making a false report is considered disorderly conduct, which is committed when a person reports a crime to law enforcement “knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the offense” has or will occur.

Carraway cited two Illinois cases to argue that disorderly conduct requires some alarm to be caused.

In Wiederkehr’s case, Carraway said, dispatchers did not take the reports of a shooting seriously.

One deputy went over, did not investigate the shooting or animal cruelty reports and was heard on body camera footage saying they knew there was no shooting before entering the property, Carraway’s motion says.

Liesten said that any amount of resources “expended by law enforcement” for a false report “is not what law enforcement is meant to do.”

Peska asked Carraway if Illinois law requires a police response.

“The fact that it doesn’t is what dooms it in a constitutional analysis,” Carraway said.

Liesten argued the defense “should not be able to control the context” of a false report. He said it becomes dangerous if reports can be made as a joke or to test police response and “should never be protected.”

As for the harassment charge, Carraway said, “calling to report a crime is petitioning the government”, which is “fundamentally different than calling a private person.”

Illinois law says one way a person commits harassment is by “making repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number.”

Carraway said Wiederkehr called police at their office during regular business hours to report what she believed to be a crime and continued calling when police refused to take the report.

Someone is asking, “help me, help me,” he said. “At what point does that become harassment?”

Liesten said that ”amount of calls should not be protected” by the First Amendment or “any legal defense.”

Liesten’s motion says the state intends to present evidence that Wiederkehr made 27 calls calls that day, and that those calls took up the dispatchers’ time and prevented them from answering “any other potentially legitimate emergency calls.”

Peska also heard arguments for the defense’s motion requesting a long list of additional information from the state, but said that it may become irrelevant if the case is dismissed.

Liesten said the case is about the day the calls were made, and any information outside that is irrelevant.

“This did not happen in a vacuum,” Thomson said, explaining their defense goes beyond that day.

Peska scheduled a hearing for his ruling for 2 p.m. on May 13.