Yesterday I visited Woodstock's Administrative Adjudication Court. It meets one day each month and usually starts at 9:30AM. Two sessions are scheduled now (9:30AM and 11:00AM), with the intention, I expect, to reduce the waiting time for those at the end of the docket. It didn't quite work out that way yesterday.
Upon arrival the first thing I noticed was a different appearance to the court docket. At the time of my last visit to this court, sometime in 2011, the names of the offenders were listed on the docket. Now the Violator Name column is empty.
Whoa! Wait just a minute! This is a public court with a public docket. Citations are a public record. The initial explanation to me was that names had been removed to eliminate the names of juveniles. Well, okay; so what about all the other names?
And if the privacy of juveniles is to be so highly regarded, what about the calling out of the juvenile's name before court, so that the City Attorney can try to swing a deal.
Court didn't start until almost 10:00AM. I couldn't tell whether the delay was due solely to efforts of the City Attorney to work deals with defendants, in order to present a "Liable" negotiated deal and avoid a hearing. More on that to follow.
The Northwest Herald was there yesterday, and a story appears in today's paper. See www.nwherald.com/2012/06/11/a-little-trouble-a-little-help/akw2ifx/
There were 19 cases on the 9:30AM Docket and 13 on the 11:00AM. Court was not over until almost 1:20PM.
On the 9:30AM Docket were 14 Truancy cases (WHS -4; WNHS - 10; Marian Central - 0; all other Woodstock schools - 0); Vehicle Impound - 1; Minor in possession of tobacco - 1; disorderly conduct - 1; furnishing alcohol to minor - 1; diagonal parking - 1.
On the 11:00AM Docket were cases involving Vehicle Impound - 9; loose animal - 1; minor possession of alcohol - 3; of tobacco -1.
In future articles some of the cases will be discussed, especially those in which the defendants were found Not Liable by Judge David Eterno.
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
1 comment:
The City of Woodstock explains the omission of the Violator Names from the court docket in this way: "The docket as printed meets statutory requirements as presently constructed."
Post a Comment