Michael Haller and Cisco's investigations of the juror and Rilz

Michael Haller and Cisco Wojciechowski’s investigations of the juror and Johan Rilz show their partnership at its most consequential and most precarious. Haller relies on Cisco to uncover information beyond the reach of ordinary courtroom procedure: first, the identity and background of an anonymous juror, and then the French police history that could clarify Rilz’s role. Cisco’s work helps turn suspicions into connections, but Haller’s secrecy and the legal risks surrounding jury investigation keep their collaboration under strain.

A confidential assignment

Haller recruits Cisco to investigate juror number seven after the possibility of jury misconduct becomes an immediate concern in the Walter Elliot trial. He makes the request in a secluded alcove at Book Soup, away from the Lincoln and from Patrick Henson, and asks Cisco not to discuss it with anyone, including Lorna Taylor. The setting and the request make the terms of the assignment plain: Haller needs Cisco’s investigative skill, but he also wants to limit how widely the inquiry is known.

Cisco initially meets the tension with a joke about whom he is supposed to kill. They both laugh, briefly releasing the pressure between them. Haller then explains that Cisco must shadow someone and learn everything he can, but warns that if he is caught, both of them could face serious professional consequences. The target is juror number seven. The request is not simply routine background work: Judge Stanton has taken steps to protect the jury’s anonymity, and Haller knows that investigating a juror could itself be interpreted as tampering.

Haller understands the competing legal arguments. An attorney can reasonably investigate a report of jury misconduct, but an effort to identify an anonymous juror may look like interference with the jury. He anticipates that Judge Stanton could complain to the bar and higher authorities, potentially ending Haller’s career. The assignment therefore tests the boundary between defending a client and creating a new threat to the defense.

From the J-sheet to David McSweeney

Cisco’s first findings give the inquiry a concrete direction. When he comes to Haller’s home with news, Cisco identifies the juror as David McSweeney and reports that nearly everything McSweeney put on his J-sheet appears false. The form contains identifying and background information used during jury selection, including profession and area of residence. Haller had supplied Cisco with the available sheet, with the juror’s name removed, as the starting point for the investigation.

Cisco has had little time to pursue the lead, and his initial report is not a complete account. Even so, the discrepancy between McSweeney’s disclosures and the information Cisco has found makes the juror’s identity a serious investigative question. Cisco also recognizes the possible larger implication: Haller may be dealing with a sleeper placed on the jury. Haller declines to confirm or deny that suspicion, saying only that it is better for Cisco not to know yet.

Their exchange establishes a deliberate division of information. Cisco uses the phrase down periscope for the practice of compartmentalizing the investigation, comparing it to keeping a submarine from sinking if one part of the operation is exposed. The method protects both men, but it also makes their partnership asymmetrical: Haller knows more about the suspected conspiracy than he tells his investigator, while Cisco must work from a narrower brief.

The inquiry eventually produces a link with consequences beyond jury selection. Haller tells Judge Holder that his investigator traced McSweeney’s history: McSweeney was arrested for an assault with a deadly weapon and later for fraud, and Mitch Lester represented him in both cases. Haller uses that relationship to argue that Holder, who had access to the jury-selection process, arranged for McSweeney to occupy the anonymous seat. This is Haller’s accusation in a confrontation, not a neutral account of every detail of the investigation; subsequent federal indictments, however, include Holder, Lester, McSweeney, and a jury-office supervisor who provided access to the computers.

Pursuing Rilz’s French connection

The juror investigation is only one strand of Cisco’s work for Haller. Haller also directs him to pursue the possibility that Johan Rilz had served as an informant in a French drug case. The proposed inquiry depends on material already in circulation, including an article about Rilz that names at least three officers involved in the case. Haller asks Cisco to coordinate with a translator and begin calling those officers at midnight, taking account of the time difference with Paris, in the hope of bringing at least one of them to Los Angeles.

This assignment extends their work from the mechanics of the jury to the history of the murder case. If Rilz had been a confidential informant, that background could change how the investigation and the evidence surrounding his death were understood. Haller’s plan is to seek firsthand information from people connected to the French case; the available account establishes the calls he asks Cisco to make, but does not specify what any officer ultimately tells him. The significance of Cisco’s role here lies in building a route to corroboration rather than in a reported final answer.

Trust, concealment, and consequences

Haller’s reliance on Cisco is matched by a guardedness that has practical consequences. He asks Cisco to keep the juror assignment from Lorna, withholds his suspicion about a sleeper juror, and weighs what Cisco’s investigation might cost them if it leaves a trail. At the same time, Haller entrusts him with work that could expose the identity of an anonymous juror and draw scrutiny from the judge. The partnership depends not on complete disclosure, but on Cisco’s willingness to act within the limits Haller sets and Haller’s judgment about what Cisco needs to know.

That arrangement becomes more consequential as the case widens. Haller sees himself as defending a man he believes did not commit the murders, while also recognizing that Elliot was implicated in the reason the crimes occurred. He suspects that the sleeper’s placement is connected to Vincent’s murder and remains uncertain whether Bosch is prioritizing Haller’s safety or the larger investigation. In this atmosphere, Cisco’s discreet inquiries provide Haller with a way to test the trial’s hidden structure without openly disclosing every suspicion in court.

The eventual indictments show that the juror lead was part of a larger network: Judge Holder, Lester, Carlin, McSweeney, and a jury-office supervisor are named for simultaneous federal arrests. Bosch further explains that Carlin had approached Vincent, delivered money, and informed Holder when Vincent began to reconsider the arrangement; Holder and Lester then sent McSweeney to deal with Vincent. These revelations place Cisco’s tracing of McSweeney within the chain of connections that helps expose the conspiracy, without making Cisco the sole source of the case against its members.

The relationship is therefore defined by both cooperation and controlled distance. Haller gives Cisco dangerous, specific tasks; Cisco follows leads that reach from a concealed juror identity to the history of Rilz’s French case. Their compartmentalization reflects the hazards of the work, while the results demonstrate its value: one line of inquiry helps expose the false identity and connections behind juror number seven, and the other seeks outside witnesses who may clarify Rilz’s past. Together, the assignments show Haller using private investigation to challenge the official story without confusing an investigative lead with proof already secured.