Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: DGA up with new TV ad bashing Brady
Next Post: Special election would double the caps
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 2 *** It’s gonna drag into tomorrow…
Judge James Zagel interrupts Michael Ettinger, asking how long he has left in his closing. The attorney for Robert Blagojevich says he has about 30 minutes to go.
We’re clearly behind schedule. The judge wanted to finish all the closing arguments in one day, but with Sam Adam Jr. and the government wrap-up to go, that’s looking increasingly unlikely.
Instead, Zagel says, closings will carry into tomorrow. Ettinger will wrap up for Robert Blagojevich this afternoon and then Sam Adam Jr. will present about half of his argument for Rod Blagojevich. He’ll finish up in the morning, to be followed by the government’s final argument.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The prosecution has wrapped up…
Niewoehner finishes his argument around 2:05 by calling on the jury to find the defendants guilty on “each and every” count.
“(Rod Blagojevich) knew exactly what was happening,” the prosecutor says. “And now you do, too.”
When the prosecutor finished, Rod turned to his daughters, smiled, and mouthed something to his youngest daughter, Annie, as Patti passed her hand over the 7-year-old’s hair.
And Robert Blagojevich’s defense has begun…
Robert Blagojevich, the one-time head of the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund, did not mix politics and fund-raising, his lawyer said as the defense began presenting its two-pronged closing arguments this afternoon.
Michael Ettinger, the defense attorney for the ex-governor’s brother, described Robert Blagojevich as a “person of honor, a person of character” during his four-month stint heading Rod Blagojevich’s campaign fund.
Ettinger said Blagojevich gave up a successful business career in Tennessee in 2008 to help revive his brother’s depleted campaign fund and to help lessen tensions with his brother - and was unaware of any illegal activity.
Ettinger dwelt on Robert Blagojevich’s background in the military and business and raising funds for the YMCA and the Red Cross. Initially, he was reticent about answering his brother’s call for help running his struggling fund-raising operation.
“Robert didn’t want to do it, but he did. When Robert gives a commitment to do something, he keeps his word,” Ettinger said.
* The Sun-Times’ Blago Blog made an important point this afternoon…
Perhaps nearing the conclusion of his closing argument, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Niewoehner again tackles what has been a key idea of the defense — that Rod Blagojevich was unsuccessful in carrying out any of the alleged schemes and is therefore not guilty.
Niewoehner takes the allegations surrounding Jesse Jackson Jr. as an example. He argues that even if the ex-governor didn’t really plan to appoint the congressman to a vacant Senate seat, he is still guilty of trying to accept a bribe of $6 million in campaign cash from his supporters.
“What is bribery?” Niewoehner asks the jury. He says a key point is that the bribery can be “indirect” — “It does not have to be ‘x’ for ‘y.’”
“You do not have to say to (Jackson supporter) Raghu Nayak, ‘I will give you a Senate seat only if you give me $1 million,” he says. “People do not talk that way. You flip $1 million on the table, wink and say ‘I’d like to be senator.’ Is there any doubt what you mean?”
The government doesn’t have to show that Blagojevich actually intended to appoint Jackson, Niewoehner says — just that he tried to convince Jackson’s supporters that he did, so they would give him the money.
“These bribe attempts don’t have to work. Attempts are fine,” Niewoehner says.
“Again, you don’t have to be a successful criminal to be a criminal,” he tells them.
* More…
Niewoehner pointed to hundreds of thousands of dollars that Patti Blagojevich was paid by Tony Rezko to allegedly do nothing in real estate deals.
“How many dimes are there in hundreds of thousands of dollars?” Niewoehner said.
Early on, Niewoehner took on Sam Adam Jr.’s opening statement promise that by the trial’s end, jurors would know in Rod Blagojevich was innocent.
“You were going to know in your gut that Rod Blagojevich is as honest as the day is long,” Niewoehner said. “Now is the time to answer those questions.”
While Adam in opening statements criticized prosecutors for charging a man who is broke, Niewoehner said the reason he was broke: the federal investigation cut off the former governor from Tony Rezko. Rezko’s payments to Patti Blagojevich stopped in 2004, when state board member Stuart Levine was interviewed by the FBI, he said.
* And the prosecution dropped a charge against Robert Blagojevich today…
Prosecutors dropped Count 13, Wire Fraud, against the head of the Blagojevich fund raising arm. The charge related to a December 4, 2008 phone call in which both brothers allegedly schemed to receive political donations from Jesse Jackson Jr. in exchange for an appointment.
It’s unclear why the prosecution dropped this count against Robert, but not for Rod.
…Adding… The prosecution is a bit behind schedule…
Last week, Niewoehner said he’d take about two hours for his closing argument. At this point, accounting for breaks, he’s going on 2-1/2.
Judge James Zagel wanted to get through all the closing arguments today. If that’s still the case, we may be in for a long day.
Attorneys for the defendants said they would need 2-1/2 hours for their two closing arguments, and once they’re done, the prosecution gets a last shot to address the jury. That’s supposed to take an hour.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:04 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: DGA up with new TV ad bashing Brady
Next Post: Special election would double the caps
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Prisons are full of unsuccessful criminals. If they were truly successful, they wouldn’t be in prison.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:31 pm
It’s about time to start the predictions…is there anyone that’s been following the trial that thinks he has a prayer of walking?
Comment by Oskee WowWow Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:54 pm
If Rod does walk (I don’t think he will)or beat some of the more the serious charges, I wonder how Monk and Harris will feel?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:57 pm
I hope that when he’s found guilty he goes straight into custody…no house arrest until sentencing…do not pass Go, directly to the pokey.
Comment by Oskee WowWow Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:58 pm
You don’t have to successfully carry out a plot in order for the planning to be illegal. How many terrorist groups have been arrested because of the plotting they were doing? The government doesn’t have to wait for them to actually kill people before they arrest them.
Comment by Really?? Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:07 pm
Oskee WowWow - Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:58 pm: , AMEN!!!
Comment by Dan S, a taxpaer, a voter and a Cubs Fan Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:07 pm
Earlier, he got a chuckle from his client, too.
From the Blago Blog. This is hilarious:
“Let’s start in the 1950s,” Ettinger said of Robert Blagojevich early on in his closing. “He graduated from Lane Tech.”
Robert Blagojevich, who’s 54, smiled over to others on his defense team at the date. He actually graduated decades later.”
The defense can’t even get the basics right, much less lie effectively…
Comment by Tanman Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:13 pm
- Really?? - Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:07 pm:
“You don’t have to successfully carry out a plot in order for the planning to be illegal.”
As I understand the conspiracy laws, you must take a first step toward accomplishing the conspiratorial aims other than chatting about it on the phone. The prosecution must show that the conspiracy was actually moving along.
I would love to see our attorney readers hop in here. Is my understanding correct? (The question is not meant to inquire whether or not the Feds did their job, just to clarify my understanding of the law.)
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:18 pm
A few years back, a friend of mine was waiting at a busstop when kid came up to him and pointed something through his pocket, possibly a gun, and asked my friend to hand over his wallet. At that moment, a bus pulled up, so my friend jumped on. He saw a cop at the next stop, got off, and told the cop what happened. They circled back, found the kid, and arrested him for attempted robbery. When the case came to trial, it naturally turned out that the kid had a rap sheet; the kid’s defense was that it wasn’t a crime because he didn’t get any money. The judge got really annoyed that the defense even tried to use that argument.
Bottom line: attempted robbery is a crime, attempted murder is a crime, and I’ll bet attempted bribery is, too.
Comment by lakeview Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:35 pm
Just heard on WLS that Sam Adam, Jr. started his closing arguement and tried to bring up the fact that the prosecution never called Rezko and Levin (even though the judge told him Friday that he could go down that road.) So Adam said he was prepared to go to jail to make his point. The judge sent the jurors home. Wow, where’s this headed?
Comment by And I Approved This Message Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:30 pm
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:18 pm:
There is a difference between 1) inchoate crimes, like conspiracy, where the act of preparation to commit a crime X combined with specific intent to commit crime X is a criminal act in itself; and 2) bribery, or the like, which actually makes it a crime to attempt to solicit something of value in return for an official act. So when the prosecutor said “you don’t have to be a successful criminal to be a criminal” he really could have been, and likely was, referring to both the conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud charge and the bribery charge. The nuance, which will be reflected in jury instructions, is that for conspiracy the ‘attempt’ language refers to the incomplete underlying crime of honest services fraud, whereas for bribery the ‘attempt’ refers to the actual actus reus of the crime.
Comment by Bacon Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:59 pm
Cincy-
To add to Bacon’s post, I would also point out that the act of preparation or “overt act” need not be discussed in any detail prior to the actual step taken.
So, in essence, A, B & C can agree to go bribe D, and if B makes the phone call to set up the meet, even without telling A & C the specifics of his intention to set up the meet, then both A & C are guilty if they didn’t withdraw from the conspiracy prior to the first step being taken.
Comment by Son of Ben Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 5:25 pm
Here’s another story of brotherly love to report as well. Here’s top brother’s everywhere-CHEERS!
PORTAGE | Portage police said two brothers drank alcohol at a bar, got into a physical fight with each other and then got in their vehicles and rammed each other.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/article_2a486eae-63de-5f15-87aa-7a4efc174ec8.html
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 5:44 pm
I predict he will be found guilty on the lesser charges and do 20 years as a hair stylist at We Care Hair!!
Comment by Nieva Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 5:50 pm
so, the prosecution mentions the names of Rezko and others
who did not testify and Blago’s Defense cannot mention
those names? can a lawyer please explain?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:04 pm
The prosecution’s definition of bribery, in this case, would seem to create an awful lot of bribery in the realm of campaign fund-raising! In fact, it seems to me that this theory would make a sigjnificant portion of campaign financing illegal.
Comment by Drzlecuti Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:24 pm
To follow up on the idea of “acts in furtherance” necessary to satisfy the elements of conspiracy, it should be clear by now they don’t have to be much or in themselves illegal. If the goal of the conspiracy itself is illegal, any overt act in furtherance will do.
To borrow Judge Zagel’s own example, John Harris, Blago and others discussed soliciting a bribe in return for appointing someone to the Senate seat. In furtherance of that illegal goal, Harris researched the value of various government positions and presented the results to Blago, allowing him to set the parameters of the request. That research was in furtherance of the collective effort to solicit the bribe and hence satisfies the overt act aspect of the charge.
It may not seem like much, but people have been convicted on terrorism charges where the only acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were looking up stuff on the Internet or taking photos.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:25 pm
Amalia, mentioning Rezko as a person and his involvment is fine. Trying to claim that the government didn’t call him specifically because his testimony would not have been helpful to the government is not. The problem is in the inference the jury is asked to make - which is only permissible when one side could call the witness, the other couldn’t (because they couldn’t be subpeonaed to testify, for example) and the side that could didn’t. Here, as Zagel made clear last week, both sides could have called Rezko. Neither did, so neither can argue that the jury was prevented from getting this testimony.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:29 pm
I predict that Rod will do the closing statement himself tomorrow.
Comment by VM Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:33 pm
By the way, Adams, Jr. won’t get to make his point in front of the jury. If he doesn’t change his stance by tomorrow morning, he won’t be permitted to make the closing argument - no way Zagel let’s him get in front of the jury with the announced intention of acting in contempt of court.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:38 pm
Is Sam trying for a mistrial here with this stunt?
Comment by Gregor Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:17 pm
“Is Sam trying for a mistrial here with this stunt?”
Either that, or setting up a situation whereby Blago will “have to” step in and do his own closing argument, just like he did at the impeachment trial. (Although it would make more sense for Sam Adam Sr. to be the pinch hitter.)
Comment by Bookworm Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 8:17 pm
Sam Adam Jr: “I have this trial thing, it’s F’in Golden” Let me really make a name for myself and grandstand as much as Blago–the clients will be knocking down my door. Let me also make sure I dont have to start my close today and I can get my argument in through the press. The “suprised” (Zagel made it clear last week–don’t even try and make that improper agrument)and “indignant” act is getting a bit overused and tiresome.
Comment by Two Peas in Pod..... Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 8:35 pm
Also, in a case going further south, how does Sam Adam spell mattress?
Comment by Two Peas in Pod..... Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:09 pm
Rod doing his own talking didn’t work out too well in the Senate impeachment trial. Don’t think he will try again with his a** on the line.
Comment by Eileen Left Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:27 pm
Junior made his name on R. Kelly. It wasn’t his dazzling closing: it’s hard to get a conviction when the alleged victim says she’s not the alleged victim.
How that happened is probably any interesting story.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:38 pm
To: Bookworm - Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 8:17 pm:
“setting up a situation whereby Blago will “have to” step in and do his own closing argument, just like he did at the impeachment trial”
WOW! I didn’t entertain that angle! Makes some sense. I think that closing arguments are like soliloquys and not subject to cross-examination. That would give Blago the platform he seeks. The ability to orate without having to answer questions!
Comment by HatShopGirl Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:09 am
Also, Adam’s stunt is similar to that which Rod pulled at the impeachment trial — he WAS offered a chance to call defense witnesses, let that chance pass and didn’t call any, didn’t even bother testifying in his own defense, then came in at the last minute all indignant about being “denied” the opportunity to call said witnesses.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 7:36 am
Although there is one very big factor which I think could weigh against Blago doing his own closing: it won’t be televised live the way the impeachment closing was. If it’s not on TV, and people across the nation are not hanging on his every word, he may not want to bother.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 7:39 am
B. Bear, thanks!
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:35 am
Drzlecuti - Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 6:24 pm:
This is not the prosecution’s definition of bribery, it is Congress’(18 U.S.C. 201). As for legal vs. illegal fundraising, the distinction hinges on the word “corruptly” (corruptly demands, seeks, accepts, receives…) Corruptly basically means quid pro quo. This for that. Which most skillful politicians steer far clear of when fundraising. Most ethical and intelligent pols won’t even talk about fundraising and official acts in the same conversation/venue/day. Those that do risk the attention of the Feds.
Comment by Bacon Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:34 pm