Woodstock Adm. Adj. Court - Part 2

Rules of evidence in Administrative Adjudication (AA) Courts (in Illinois) are a little on the loose side in some areas.

For example, a defendant may find that it is not easy to confront his accuser, a basic tenet in any trial.

How does it work in Woodstock's AA Court?

You'd better know how to represent yourself and what to expect. More on this in another article.

You won't see your accuser in court. Let's say you want to "fight" your ticket (citation). When you get to court, you should refuse the City Attorney's "call out" before court. Proceed to a Hearing, when your case is called. As the judge will tell you when court starts, the City Attorney is not your friend. He is there to prosecute you.

But you don't know that when you hear your name called before court. He will tell you that he is the City's attorney, but do you really undestand what that means?

The police officer's report will be the City's evidence in its effort to convict you. When your case is called, the City Attorney will give you a copy of the police officer's report to read. You are immediately at a disadvantage because of the pressure you are under to read that report quickly and understand it. Read it before your case is called, or ask for your case to be "passed" to allow time to read it. The judge may agree and will call your case a little later.

The police officer will not be in court to testify. He is not required to be there, under the rules set for operation of the AA Court. His report is his testimony, and you don't get a chance to cross-examine him. If you can blow enough holes in the officer's report, the officer won't have a chance to "explain". If you want the officer in court to testify against you (and be cross-examined by you), then you'll have to say so. Ask the judge for the officer to be subpoenaed into court and for your case to be continued to the next month.

Now here is an extremely unfair provision in how court is conducted. In the case of a Truancy complaint, the officer did not witness the truancy. It was reported by a school administrator. That person is then a third party.

What would happen if a defendant in a truancy case asked for his case to be dismissed, because the Complainant (the school administrator) was not in court to testify and be cross-examined?

If a police officer witnesses an violation, I can understand that the court would accept his report, because his report should state exactly what he would say if he were standing in court. But to accept a third party's report to an officer, without the third party's being present to testify and be cross-examined, is wrong.

Unfortunately, defendants who are representing themselves don't know to question that.

Caveat: I am not an attorney. The above is my personal opinion. If you need legal advice, get it from an attorney who knows what he is talking about.