February 17, 2025 ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS RELEASE – Illinois Appellate Court will hear two criminal appeals at Illinois State University on March 25th

By Ashleigh Feger  |  February 17, 2025

The Fourth Judicial District Illinois Appellate Court will hold oral argument for two cases in the Bone Student Center Prairie Room on March 25 at 10 and 11 a.m. This event is co-hosted by the Department of Politics and Government and the McLean County Bar Association.

The first case at 10 a.m. is the People v. Barton McNeil. McNeil, convicted of killing his 3-year-old daughter, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his actual innocence claim.  Evidence was presented showing that McNeil’s ex-girlfriend committed the murder, confessed to the crime, and invoked her Fifth Amendment rights. The state contends that the trial court’s decision was proper.

The 11 a.m. case is People v. James Snow. Snow is appealing the denial of his request for DNA testing and fingerprint analysis. He was convicted in 2001 of killing a gas station employee in 1991. Snow is seeking new evidence to establish his innocence. The prosecution claims that none of the requested testing would significantly advance Snow’s claim of actual innocence.

Doors open at 9 a.m. No one will be admitted to the first argument after 9:55 a.m. Doors open for the second case at 10:45 a.m. All spectators must go through metal detectors. Backpacks and large purses will not be permitted. Cell phones must be turned off.

Members of the media with electronic equipment will not be permitted access without prior approval. If an individual employed by a media outlet wishes to attend the oral argument and take manual notes without any electronic recording equipment the Media Access Request form is not necessary. Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Order M.R. 2634, media coverage of an appellate oral argument requires prior approval. The media representative shall, not less than five court days prior to the date the appellate argument is scheduled, make a request for access to the proceedings by filing a media access request form. The link to the media access form can be found by visiting pol.IllinoisState.edu and scrolling down to Legal Studies.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Fourth District Appellate Court hears approximately 1,500 cases per year. About one third are requested to have oral arguments before the judge’s. Barton’s legal team requested oral arguments. Of the 500 cases that have oral arguments, the court selected these two cases to bring to the public to show the judge’s at work and bring transparency to the system. The room that is prepared at the Bone Student Center will be similar to a court room except it can hold 100 persons. There will be the three judges at a table and two counselor’s tables. State Appellate Prosecutors from the 2nd District will be promoting that Barton’s conviction was just and therefore this position takes the further position that Misook had no culpability in the crime and as Judge Yoder famously ruled Misook strangling her mother-in-law Linda Tyda in 2011 was just an “interesting fact”. See his below ruling for when he systematically ruled against almost every new piece of evidence that he felt would not have swayed a single jurist to even consider casting a vote of innocence toward Barton. This is the threshold. Not that new evidence would change a jurist’s mind. But that it would be evidence that would rise to the level that it be “considered”. Never mind the fact Barton had a bench trial in the first place so he was never before twelve jurists. But was denied an ability to even utter the name “Misook” to a jury due a Motion in Limine that the bench trial judge ruled positively for the State in March 1999 just months before Barton’s trial was scheduled that disallowed him to invoke the Alternative Suspect theory, e.g. I didn’t do it, this person (Misook) did!

Following the below disastrous ruling, Judge Yoder was however compelled due to prior court precedent to hold a 3rd Stage Evidentiary Hearing in November to hear confession related evidence as Misook had confessed to murdering Christina to her former husband (the son of victim Linda Tyda, Misook’s mother-in-law). Judge Yoder in the end ruling against this new evidence as well with Misook during that hearing pleading the Fifth Amendment. This one of the matters contained in the appeal in that the Judge did not weigh Misook pleading the Fifth Amendment in the properly.

Read the entire Judge’s ruling regarding dismissing Misook having plead the Fifth, and the appeals related documents filed by Barton’s legal team and the State’s response by clicking here that will take you to a post where these documents exist on the FreeBart.org website.

About Author