The Toothpick and the Goon Squad: Jury Duty Case Info Discovered
Looking over my stats this morning in Google Anaylitcs, I saw a few search strings that brought people to my site. Specifically, someone was searching using “wayne adams” rotkvich as their search terms.
I didn’t recognize the names, and wasn’t sure why anyone would pull my site up searching under those keywords. Weird. And so, being the good detective that I am, I plugged the search into google to see what I could find.
Lo and behold, Wayne Adams was the plaintiff and Jeffrey Rotkvich was one of the many defendants in the case where I was interviewed as a potential juror (to see the whole Jury Duty process from the start, click here).
In looking over my prior entries, I realize I never disclosed what, exactly, the trial was about. Mostly I think, for fear of bias or that I’d somehow misrepresent the facts in a public space, prior the trial itself actually starting.
Interestingly, when answering my interview questions, I mentioned that I maintain a blog. The judge asked me what I blog about, and I described this site as best I could. She made a mention that, were I to be picked for the jury, I would have to hold off on posting about it for the duration of the trial. In talking with my coworkers after I was dismissed, they wondered if my answer about blogging got me the boot.
So. Since the trial’s underway, and since I’m no longer officially associated in any way with it: Adams is accusing several police Des Plaines police officers of false arrest, battery and constitutional violations.
My quick google searches discovered that in 2006, Adams was found “not guilty” of a battery charge against Rotkvich for throwing a toothpick at him. This 2006 trial stems from a 2005 incident where Adams was arrested outside of a Honda dealership at 11:15 PM.
The recent case (the one where I was interviewed as a potential juror) stems also from this 2005 incident. Apparently, not only was Adams a former Des Plaines alderman, he was also a police sergeant. In his opening statement, Adams referred to himself as a victim of “a goon squad.”
It’s weird. In trying to summarize these facts, I’m trying very hard not to weigh in one way or the other. And I’m finding it incredibly difficult to convey just the facts, without potentially influencing how a reader might interpret those facts.
Here are some of the links I found this morning, though I suspect you can find more if you set yourself to Googling. I’ll leave you to come up with your own, impartial conclusions.
‘Toothpick’ Case Ends (Journal Online)
Former Alderman Calls Police ‘Goon Squad’ in Civil Trial Start (Des Plaines Times)
I find it extremely disturbing that someone searching for information about this case pretty easily located you as a potential juror.If this case had been about, oh, I don’t know, organized crime or something — yikes! I would fear for Felix!I was nervous about how much of those jury calls you were including, especially in the first video. There’s a reason they want that information kept private, and it’s primarily for your safety!Had you been selected as a juror, would you have removed all references to the jury duty calls from your site? Even so, those pages might have been cached and thus still searchable….I’m very glad you dodged a bullet — or a toothpick — here. Should you ever get called for jury duty again, please omit many if not all of the information that you provided. You might think you didn’t reveal much, but obviously, it was enough. More than one person found you.
Anonymous (February 2, 2008 at 12:33 am)As someone who sees the inner workings of trial consulting and jury selection, I have to tell you about your “strikes”. 1) You’re smart. 2) You have long hair. Both of these things put you securely in “potential rogue” status. meaning you can solve the case on your own, and visually communicate that you’re a bit of a nonconformist. The attorneys don’t want you to solve the puzzle and sway the other jurors with your brains. They want “reglar folks” who will only decide between the options right in front of them. No system buckers!The blog? Yeah, big MONDO problem. No jury consultant ever would have let you in after knowing that you have a public – especially an internet – persona.
Kent Bell (February 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm)Anonymous: I, too, was worried some about what I might reveal on the blog about my Jury Duty. While people did find my association with this trial, I feel that happened as a result of my posting of the Jury Duty Questions I was given, where the plaintiff, defendants, and judge are all listed by name.Were I to have been selected to serve on the jury, I would have left all the telephone calls up… and I likely wouldn’t have posted anything more during the trial itself. After it was over, I probably would have posted up my notes and thoughts about the experience… but probably not anything regarding my decision-making process.The “organized crime” possibility crossed my mind as well, from the onset. Especially since I learned I was being called in to Federal court. My sense of the whole process is that everything is, technically, public record – that ranges from the names of the people on the jury, to who voted which way. It’s probably not information that’s available during the trial, but I have to believe it’s out there at some point.I’m curious to read the transcripts of the trial I was rejected from, and to see if I can find out why I was dismissed. When the judge and lawyers held their sidebar, the court stenographer took her machine and followed them. So I know their discussions were “on the record” so to speak.Regardless, I wanted to express that I was aware of what I was revealing (and to what degree). I chose my work phone primarily because the numbers all beep using the same tone, preventing someone from guessing my Juror ID from the sounds. But… it’s nice to hear that others are concerned about me as well. Thank you, Anonymous, for taking the time out to express that concern.Kent: Great info! And the blog explanation sounds spot on, as the judge did end up sounding fairly interested in what I blogged about. I know a lot of this info you mentioned to me when we were hanging out… but it’s cool to have your insights here on the blog, for others to see.
avoision (February 3, 2008 at 10:13 pm)Hm. You know… Felix “Potential Rogue” Jung has a nice ring to it.
avoision (February 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm)Um, actually, information about the identity of jurors is an extremely sensitive issue and one that’s been contested in federal courts many times.”A new federal court policy, however, mandates that documents containing identifying information about jurors or potential jurors are no longer included in the public case file and are unavailable to the public, either electronically or at the courthouse.”from http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/secretjuries/pg2.htmland”The following documents shall not be included in the public case file and should not be made available to the public at the courthouse or via remote electronic access:* unexecuted summonses or warrants of any kind (e.g., search warrants, arrest warrants);* pretrial bail or presentence investigation reports;* statements of reasons in the judgment of conviction;* juvenile records;* documents containing identifying information about jurors or potential jurors;* financial affidavits filed in seeking representation pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act;* ex parte requests for authorization of investigative, expert or other services pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act; and* sealed documents (e.g., motions for downward departure for substantial assistance, plea agreements indicating cooperation)”from http://www.privacy.uscourts.gov/crimimpl.htmAgain, you might think your identity or the identity of those you referred to is secret, but — hey, you’re web-savvy enough to know this — it’s pretty easy to figure out the identity of someone who runs a blog… and mentions himself by name… and posts photos of himself… and his neighborhood… and his apartment… and his car… and his place of business… and his friends… and so on, and so on.(by the way, I’m Anonymous from earlier)
juliet (February 4, 2008 at 12:01 am)Ooh, yikes. Looks like my earlier assumption about publicly available juror info was completely wrong. And the courts block info that might identify jurors or potential jurors. Interesting!I don’t think I mentioned this, but during my “interview,” the judged asked all of us what we did in our spare time. When I mentioned I kept a blog, she asked for additional information.After I told her what I did (documented my daily activities), she told me that were I selected for the trial… I wouldn’t be able to “blog” about the trial while it was happening. The way that she phrased it led me to believe that I had to remain mum during the trial itself, but that afterwards… I could blog/post as I pleased.Again, interestingly, that looks like it would not have been the case. Well-documented as always, Juliet. Thanks for the links/info!Regarding my identity, I have no illusions about my privacy. As you said, it’s fairly easy to find anyone who owns a domain, and I’ve gone the extra step of providing a great deal of personal info on here. I, myself, had no problems linking myself directly with a jury duty selection window… or with a specific case were I assigned to one But in reviewing your links, it looks like the courts have a serious problem with that.Intriguing side thought: based on Kent’s assessment, perhaps the blog is what got me the boot. I wonder if my documenting my jury duty window… and readily identifying myself as a potential juror automatically disqualified me as a potential juror?In short – did this blog help get me out of jury duty? And to take it a step further… would anyone who simply had a blog then get out of jury duty?As additional generations continue to cultivate their online personas (Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, Last.fm, Del.icio.us), wouldn’t this become more/less of a problem?
avoision (February 4, 2008 at 6:26 am)For the record, I am now seriously reconsidering my earlier interest in joining Chicago Assassins.
avoision (February 4, 2008 at 6:33 am)Interesting question, about whether blogging might get one excused from jury duty. I looked into it very briefly and found these:Josh Hallett says on his blog that he pretty much decided what you did, which is that blogging about jury duty would automatically get him excusedhttp://hyku.com/blog/archives/000794.htmlThen the folks at Law.com picked up the topicMay jurors blog jury duty?and more of their responses, continued, in which they pretty much agree that no blogging DURING jury duty should be allowed, but afterwards might be acceptable:legalblogwatch.typepad.com linkAnd finally, here’s a potpourri of remarks culled from lots of blogs whose authors had been called for jury duty. It looks like lawyers are starting to make it de rigeur to ask whether a potential juror keeps a blog. But it also appears that it’s not necessarily a guarantee that you would be excused.http://juryexperiences.org/?cat=42If I were a trial attorney, and any potential juror said they kept a blog, I’d give ’em the boot straight away. Otherwise, it seems like you’re just asking for complications you don’t need.
juliet (February 4, 2008 at 9:48 pm)