People v. Dereadt, 997 N.E.2d 802

Defendant, Robert P. Dereadt, was convicted by a six-person jury of disorderly conduct (720 ILCS 5/26-1(a)(1)).
Trial proceeded after defense stated defendant preferred a six-member jury; the court did not secure a personal waiver of a 12-person jury.
Two 13-year-old girls alleged a threatening encounter with a man in a black pickup truck and identified defendant as the driver in court or in photo lineups.
Witnesses described the truck’s appearance, the driver’s general features, and the interaction; photo lineups occurred within hours of the offense.
Deputies stopped a matching truck a short time later; defendant was found in the area, admitted being there but denied contact with the girls, and identified in subsequent lineups.
Judgment merged two disorderly conduct counts and imposed 30 days’ jail; defendant appeals alleging plain error and insufficient identification evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there plain error for proceeding with a six-person jury without a personal waiver of a 12-person jury?	Dereadt argues no personal waiver; Matthews requires waiver.	Dereadt contends the court failed to secure his personal waiver.	Waiver valid; counsel’s discussion implied active participation, satisfying Quinn/Barrier.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict based on eyewitness identification?	The girls’ positive identifications, opportunity to observe, and corroboration by the truck stop support guilt.	Vague, uncertain identifications and inconsistencies undermine reliability.	Yes; the identifications, viewed in totality with Biggers factors, support conviction.
Did the identification evidence rest on substantial, reliable eyewitness testimony despite inconsistencies?	Cross-checks show reliability; early lineup identifications admissible.	Discrepancies in hair, eyes, and truck details raise doubt.	Identification credible enough to sustain verdict under Biggers.

People v. Matthews, 304 Ill. App. 3d 415 (1999) (defendant may waive right to jury of 12; valid waiver implied by counsel’s discussion and defendant’s participation)
People v. Barrier, 359 Ill. App. 3d 639 (2005) (defense counsel’s stipulation in defendant’s presence implies awareness and acquiescence to fewer jurors)
Quinn v. Illinois App., 46 Ill. App. 3d 579 (1977) (record must show defendant’s awareness of right to 12; lack of objection supports implied waiver)
People v. Scudieri, 363 Ill. 84 (1936) (full panel unavailable; trial with fewer jurors not error if understood by defendant)
People v. LaFond, 343 Ill. App. 3d 981 (2003) (after deliberations begin, jury may continue with fewer than 12)