Defense says rights violated after post-arrest interview in case tied to Joliet mass shooting
Attorneys for a Shorewood man charged in one of the killings connected to the January 2024 Joliet-area mass shooting have told a Will County court that detectives interviewed their client without notifying his lawyers, a move the defense says infringed the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel.
In a court filing Tuesday, the Tomczak Law Group said its client, 26-year-old Jon Hansen, retained attorneys on Jan. 29, 2024, and that the firm promptly informed police and prosecutors about the attorney-client relationship. The filing alleges detectives conducted a video-recorded interview of Hansen on May 31, 2024 after his arrest, without giving notice to — or conducting the interview in the presence of — his counsel.
“[Had] this statement been tendered to defense counsel when the case began, pretrial motions would have been filed, litigated and decided well in advance of trial,” the filing said.
Hansen was arrested by the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force on May 31, 2024, according to the defense filing. He faces charges including first-degree murder for two of the victims killed during the violent spree carried out by Romeo Nance, 23, who later died by suicide after fleeing to Texas. The shooting episodes in January 2024 resulted in eight deaths across the Joliet area and left one person with a nonfatal gunshot wound.
Assistant State’s Attorney Alexandra Molesky told Will County Judge Jessica Colón-Sayree on Tuesday that prosecutors do not intend to introduce or reference the material from Hansen’s May 31 interview at trial. Molesky added, however, that the state is not conceding that any constitutional violation occurred.
Possible effects on trial schedule and motions
Hansen is scheduled to go before a jury on Aug. 3, but the defense motion and related litigation could affect that timeline. Hansen’s attorneys also have asked the court for sanctions against prosecutors, saying the state provided evidence of a 2024 interview to defense counsel on Aug. 7, when the trial originally had been set for Aug. 31.
The defense argues that earlier disclosure of the interview would have prompted pretrial motions to be filed and resolved well ahead of trial, potentially reducing delay. The state’s representation that it will not use the interview at trial lessens, but does not eliminate, the immediate evidentiary dispute, since the defense is seeking consequences for what it characterizes as belated disclosure.
- Defendant: Jon Hansen, 26, of Shorewood
- Charges: First-degree murder in connection with two deaths from the January 2024 shootings
- Alleged incident: Video-recorded police interview on May 31, 2024, after arrest
- Defense claim: Interview conducted without notice to or presence of retained counsel
- Prosecutor stance: Will not introduce the interview at trial; not conceding violation
At Tuesday’s hearing, the court did not resolve the defense’s request for sanctions or any motion to suppress materials stemming from the contested interview. The matter remains pending and another pretrial hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
| Key date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jan. 29, 2024 | Defense says Hansen retained counsel |
| May 31, 2024 | Hansen arrested by U.S. Marshals; alleged video-recorded interview |
| Aug. 7, 2024 | Defense says prosecutors provided evidence of 2024 interview |
| Aug. 3, 2026 | Current scheduled jury trial date |
The larger case stems from a string of shootings in January 2024 that left multiple victims across the Joliet area. Prosecutors have charged Romeo Nance with killings carried out during that period; Nance died by suicide after traveling to Texas. Hansen’s indictment ties him to two of those deaths, according to court filings.
Legal analysts say claims that law enforcement interviewed a defendant after counsel was retained can trigger suppression hearings and, in some instances, seek remedies up to dismissal or sanctions if courts find deliberate or material violations of rights. In this case, the state’s pledge not to use the interview at trial reduces the immediate risk that jurors will hear the contested statements, but the defense’s motion argues the timing and disclosure practices warrant additional court action.
As proceedings continue in Will County, affected families and residents in Joliet and surrounding communities remain attentive to next steps in the case and any rulings that could shape the course of the trial.
