Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn vs. Brady is deja vu all over again
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* When we first learned that the Rod Blagojevich jury was deadlocked, I was silently hoping that the holdout wasn’t an African-American juror because I knew we’d end up with commentary like this…
It was no surprise to learn that Jo Ann Chiakulas, the juror who refused to convict Rod Blagojevich of selling a U.S. Senate seat, was an African-American. When Blagojevich was governor, blacks were his strongest supporters. By the end of his governorship, they were his only supporters. In late 2008, Blagojevich’s approval rating was 13 percent. Among African-Americans it was 32 percent.
The headline on that piece was: “How Blagojevich Really Tainted the Jury Pool (Hint: Black Folks Like Him!)”
Nevermind that there were four African-Americans on that jury and only one was a lone holdout on some charges. Nevermind that a poll taken the day after his arrest showed 68 percent of black respondents thought Blagojevich should go to prison, about the same level as all respondents 65 and older. There were other retirees on that jury, and the holdout was also retired, but retirees aren’t the object of attack here. And nevermind that the same poll found that black people and males were just two points apart on whether Blagojevich should resign. The holdout was a female, but there were lots of males on that jury. Also, nevermind that the same poll found that almost half of Illinois Republicans - 46 percent - believed it was somewhat or very likely that President-elect Barack Obama was somehow involved in the alleged Blagojevich crimes. And, finally, nevermind that the poll referenced in that above story showed that barely over half of Democrats disapproved of Blagojevich’s job performance near the end of his career.
No. It’s Chicago, so the race card is obviously going to be played by somebody.
And this is just stupid…
Chiakulas was also a state employee, a toxic combination of liberal leanings that made her inclined to support the governor who signed AllKids and tried to pass the Illinois Covered universal health care plan.
Anybody who wrote that doesn’t know much about state employees during Blagojevich’s reign of error. They despised him. Also, the coverage isn’t clear whether she was a state employee under Blagojevich for very long, if at all.
All that having been said, it is no secret that Blagojevich heavily targeted the black vote while he was governor overtly targeted black jurors after his arrest. His choice of lead defense counsel was probably no accident. But, again, three out of four black jurors voted with the overwhelming majority to convict on numerous counts. Tarring an entire race (or religion, or whatever) for the actions of one person seems more than a bit extreme.
But if you really want to read something extreme, stupid and bizarre, click here. Yeesh.
* Meanwhile, this caught my eye last week…
Defense attorney Terry Ekl, who represented Blagojevich chief-of-staff John Harris, said he was surprised Blagojevich wasn’t found guilty on all counts. “What the defense did was really jury nullification. It was not about following the law,” Ekl said. “They said, ‘Well, it was just talk. He’s broke.’ But, that’s what conspiracy is. Even if he just intended to get something, he’s guilty. You probably had two or three jurors who didn’t understand that even just talking is still a crime.”
I agree. But John Banzhaff, a Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School says it’s perfectly OK…
Although many do not realize it, and judges usually refuse to let defense attorneys argue — or even mention — it to members of the jury, jurors have a legal right, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, to refuse to convict for any reason and all, or for no reason at all. Indeed, under the doctrine of jury nullification, jurors may disregard a judge’s instructions and return not guilty verdicts even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
If a jury finds a defendant not guilty because they believe that the law is unjust, there was governmental overreaching, or simply out of sympathy for the accused, that verdict cannot ever be overturned or even reviewed, and the defendant can never be recharged, even if overwhelming evidence eventually comes to light.
* Related…
* Blagojevich on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace. Transcript
* Blagojevich to juror: Thanks
* Roeper: Blagojevich too batty even for Comic Con
* Blagojevich pulls in $50 an autograph at Comic Con
* Blago’s Elvis statue now in Sugar Grove
* Kadner: Elvis found inside Blagojevich vault
* Hair-raising drama: Opening of the Blagojevich Vault
* Blagojevich won’t rule out return to politics
* Others in Blagojevich probe await fate
* Blagojevich show on the road again
* Marin: Forget TV: Tell it to the jury next time
* McQueary: My layman’s view: Don’t retry Blago
* Erickson: Blagojevich trial reveals the man’s warts
* Finke: Blagojevich remains a political albatross for Illinois Democrats
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 11:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn vs. Brady is deja vu all over again
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I seem to recall the lone holdout was a public health administrator from 1991 - 2002 (or at least the early days of 2003). Who lives in the suburbs.
My impression all along was that she was Republican.
Comment by George Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 11:46 am
It seems to be getting easier for some to play the race, religion, sexuality, etc. card when something doesn’t go their way.
In the case of Blago, who cares? He’ll be re-tried. He’s old news; lots of more important stuff on our plates. You’ll find that if you ignore him, he goes away.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 11:56 am
Rich, you may not like it but this is the worst kept secret being talked about the most in political circles. The commentary is spot on. Hell, Blago even admitted it on tape when he said he wouldn’t appoint Lisa Madigan because she did “nothing for his base.” Furthermore, as practical matter, if you were his attorney for the next trial–knowing what you know now and given that it’s your job to keep him out of jail–you would spend all your time on jury selection and try to get another Jo Ann Chiakulas on the panel. Fair or not, we both know where that search would begin.
That is the reason this retrial of Blago is so important and why this has implications on a much broader level. If politicians start to believe that if they just give enough a large enough group enough money/freebies to the point that if they were ever indicted for crimes that this group would “repay” them, then we will lose all control. This is a license to bribe, cheat and steal that has no end.
it was absolutely Blago’s strategy from the beginning.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 11:57 am
oh, Mr. Ekl, we are so shocked to learn that a defense
attorney used the old jury nullification tactic. like
that doesn’t happen all the time.
spurred on by Cincinnatus, and courtesy of Rich Miller’s
handy links, we can find that it was easy to convict
on one count. it involved a minimum of testimony
about the veracity of what Rod said on or about
March 16, 2005 , an interview held in the offices
of Winston and Strawn…yikes.
so who testified that the jury believed? re newspaper
articles, Gerald Krozel re meetings on the tollway
(where’s Jack Hartman?) and Danielle Stilz and
Kelly Glynn, former FOB employees. the article
had pretty clear information. this one was easy,
though the other part of the count was 6-6!!!!!!
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:04 pm
It bears repeating–had the U.S. Attorney’s office presented an effective prosecution there probably would have been no holdout juror. The evidence for this is the conviction for lying to an FBI agent, the one slam-dunk count in the prosecution’s case.
Comment by Quiet Sage Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:08 pm
The George Ryan jury was initially deadlocked. The holdout juror in the Ryan case, until she was removed for concealing her criminal background, was also a black woman. Coincidence?
I suspect the defense will be more eager than the prosecution to put black women on the next jury.
Comment by cicero Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:22 pm
The black caucus in the Chicago area carries a lot of votes. Blago did in fact play to that base. Quinn is following Blago’s lead. Why do you think Quinn won’t fire Randle. Quinn’s Chief of staff resigned over a couple of e-mails that he admittedly sent on a state blackberry and did the right thing and turned himself in. I’m just saying the race thing is there.
Comment by downstater Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:24 pm
I wouldn’t have guessed that so many commenters would openly suggest that the biggest problem with the Blagojevich prosecution was allowing black folks to serve on the jury.
[Profanity]
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:33 pm
What this lone hold out did was pop the plug on Rod Blagojevich news we thought was stopped up in time for the Midterms.
Now Blagojevich is on television spreading new lies and grasping at any other famous Illinois politician so that he can stay in the news. Although he has clearly proven that he is a congenital liar and has no plans to ever face a jury with his own testimony, that just doesn’t stop national media jamming a microphone into his nasty face and recording Rod’s every statement, the reporting on what our Impeached Felon Governor has to say about current White House personnel, and a certain congressman with a very famous father.
Rod Blagojevich is loose, convicted, and loving every moment he appears on television, doing what he does best - charm viewers with lies.
What month is this? Almost September, and we got this guy blathering and making news? Kill me now!
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 12:33 pm
I suspect the same people characterizing the hold out juror on the basis of her race are the same people attacking the Muslim Center in NYC for being too close to the WTC site and claim same sex marriage is the downfall of civilization–reason and rationality have nothing to do w/it.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 1:10 pm
I too am surprised at the comments justifying the idea that because the holdout was black that she was part of some Black Blagojevich Block that is incapable of looking at evidence and being impartial. The stats have already been debunked, it’s not true that black people as a whole have a continuous orgasm for the guy,so why is everyone joining in on this racist and ludicrous assessment of one woman?
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 1:39 pm
Anon, three out of 11 is about what I’d expect. You just can’t convince some people.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 1:45 pm
What is there to convince?
Rich, you said it yourself in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of this post:
***”I was silently hoping that the holdout wasn’t an African-American juror because I knew we’d end up with commentary like this”***
Why did you KNOW that would be the case? Was it your common sense? Experience? Hunch? What was it?
Look, you can’t blame everyone else for using logic and common sense when things turn out the way they do.
As a Sox fan, I hate losing to the Twins (certainly 4 losses in the last 6 games hurt more) and I really hate reading the same crap articles after we lose. The Sox have lost 21 of the last 28 to Minnesota and won just 1 series in the last 10. I have grown tired of the same “they grind….play fundamental baseball…have the Sox number….they get pumped up for the Sox” articles that appear after every loss. But you know what? As much as I dislike it, they are absolutely correct.
Blago pandered to a very specific audience. We kept hearing “all he needs is 1.” Well he got it. If that lone holdout would have convicted on the charges where SHE WAS THE ONLY ONE, we wouldn’t be having these conversations right now and the whole media circus Rod is self-creating would have a whole different tone. Keep remembering that for the next 6-12 months as we go through this again.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 1:55 pm
===Why did you KNOW that would be the case? ===
Because I KNOW people like you.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 1:59 pm
Not being surprised by racist attitudes and agreeing with racist attitudes are two very different things.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 2:14 pm
IMO, the best reason NOT to retry Blago is that the sentencing would be immediate and with his lack of remorse for his one conviction perhaps Judge Zagel would give him the max of 5 years.
Then we would not have to listen to/hear about Blago.
Maybe, Blago might learn in prison that he did do something wrong– lying to the FEDs is illegal and it shows remarkable stupidity by an elected official (Blago) that he thought he could lie and get away with it.
Comment by just wonderin Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 2:15 pm
Ekl is upset that his rep will surely take a hit. He cut a deal for Harris (who surely was as sympathetic as Rob Blago)for 3 years in jail, convicted felon for life and loss of law license. How on Earth does he not get immunity for his testimony? He didn’t get a dime unlike Blago’s real inner circle. Oh and please tell me Chris Chelios was not really drinking and driving either.
Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 2:39 pm
Nice for people to blame an afican american for Blago getting off. I would prefer to blame the whole democrat party for putting him into office. Look at the numbers. Even knowing he was under federal investigation, he still won over 49% of the vote in a 3 person race. That is a lot. I can’t find the stats, but I believe he was well over 50% in Chicago. Knowing he was following George Ryan to jail, democrats and especially those from Chicago, put him back in the Governorship. Now they want to blame one person who had a different perspective. Shame on you all. Mike Madigan knew what this guy was when he supported him in 2006 and the rest of the democrat party sat by for years as the republicans asked for impeachment.
I just hope african americans will see this for what it is from democrats. They want your vote, but as soon as something goes wrong, it is your fault, not theirs.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 2:54 pm
FREE RODDY,
It’s like Free Willy only with better hair…
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 2:56 pm
Okay, seriously,
We have all heard that retrials are generally favorable to the prosecution. Of course, we also heard that the Feds had a 95% conviction rate, so any improved chances of conviction provide a statistically insignificant increase over the initial prosecution rate.
We can further assume that the jury polling allows the prosecution to identify their best counts, at least in front of this particular jury. So, one is led to believe that the Feds would drop the number of counts and concentrate their case on the best performing counts the first time around.
BUT,
Doesn’t the same logic hold true for the defense? Are not Rod’s attorneys able to focus more on the same charges as they prepare?
So the question is:
Given a reduced number of charges, will Rod’s guys be more or less likely to garner doubt on a given charge during retrial?
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:03 pm
every juror has an obligation to go into a trial with the presumption that the defendent is innocent and they should stick to that stance with all of their guts until evidence proves he is guilty. Every person on the street should feel the same way. But right now this is totally backwards and has been since the day of his arrest by everyone, the ordinary person and the media. Can they even find a jury that is totally capable of doing this next time around?
Comment by Diane S Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:19 pm
Why does there always have to be a nefarious explanation?
It’s America. People are free to be screwballs.
Comment by Bubs Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:21 pm
That isn’t Fran Eaton. Don’t take the bait. It will be deleted soon enough.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:37 pm
“a black”?
Wow. Just wow.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:49 pm
IP address of that deleted moron is 205.212.73.38
$100 reward for anyone who tracks the idiot down.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:52 pm
Rich,
My sympathies for your loss. But, I do have to say your reluctance to go after the juror now because you know her race is puzzling. Last week, you were ready to blame the one juror before you knew her identity. Your post was “Some Blagojevich trial mysteries solved, but one remains
Wednesday, Aug 18, 2010
* I would really like to know who this lone holdout juror is…
Obviously blaming one race or religion for the questionable actions of some is un-American. But so is giving someone a pass based upon their race or religion as well.
Comment by phocion Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:56 pm
I didn’t give her a pass. I said we can’t blame all black people. Sheesh.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 3:57 pm
Here’s a good one from the latest Economist (p. 22). Hope its OK to quote. States that Sam Jr.s “courtoom style resembled that of an opoplectic cabbie trained by Maria Callas.” Exactly. About the Blago decision to present no defense, “conspiracy theories abound, but the most realistic explanation is that the lawyers conluded that further testimony would only help the prosecution.”
Comment by Liz Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 4:16 pm
Tomorrow’s discussion should dwell on the media continuing campaign to nullify themselves by reporting and rereporting every sliver of slop from Blagoof and company.
None of it is news
He lies about every step he takes
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 4:40 pm
What, nobody going to blame the fact she’s a woman had something to do with this? Perhaps she was swayed by his hairdo? Jeez…
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 5:10 pm
I think most people truly do not give a rip what color this juror is or gender. But the early reports that the juror had been discussing the case with acquaintances, and that she had announced how she planned to vote even before the trial was over concerns people a great deal– including many here in the legal community. Until this allegation is run down and proved with evidence or definitively shot down once and for all (with facts), there is going to be continuing interest and speculation about this juror and her motives. Leaving it to fester does not serve either this lady’s reputation or the integrity of the judicial system.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 5:36 pm
What a weird couple of summers. Remember last year, with the town hall meetings? This year, with the mosques?
Where do some folks get off rejecting basic civility, reason and fairness? You can scream your head off because you disagree with someone? You can tar a third of humanity because 19 lunatics claim to be the same religion?
I’m not afraid of Americans losing anything except their guts. This generation needs to stop bawling and passing the buck, and start taking care of our current business.
“I’m scared, it might be hard?” That’s what she said.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 6:42 pm
While I do blame one person on the 11-1 votes, when I look at the 6-6 and 7-5 votes on the children’s hospital stuff (which I thought was a slam dunk along with the lying charge), I reluctantly have to conclude the government must not have done a good job of making their case. But I still want someone to get to the bottom of the story about her deciding before the case was completed …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 7:00 pm
I’ve heard too many people of too many demographics defending Blagoof.
Comment by Quizzical Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 7:04 pm
Rich’s central premise is excellent. This bad decision, my view, is hers and not any demographic group.
As a point of information, she was a Democrat who left several years before Blago took office.
Regardless of her motivations, I feel that she has performed a disservice to the citizens of this state. A disservice that we’ll be reminded of everytime Blago spews his venom to the media.
Comment by Anonymous tonight Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 8:38 pm
Anonymous tonight wrote: “As a point of information, she was a Democrat who left several years before Blago took office.”
When did she leave? State documents you can find online show her still there in 2000 … so, at most, it was 2 years, not several.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 9:06 pm
So her “disservice” was voting “not guilty” when she thought he was not guilty? That seems a service, not a disservice.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 9:08 pm
No, the “disservice” is she apparently had her mind made up prior to hearing ANY of the evidence. She came in without an open mind and was reportedly bold enough to tell others.
That, under no circumstances, is a service to the honest citizens of IL.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Aug 23, 10 @ 9:10 pm
Yes, I think she did a disservice to the state of Illinois. It takes a simple look in the dictionary for conspiracy to see that Blago was guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. I feel her analysis was lazy at best to not have found Blago guilty of plotting to get personal gain from filling Obama’s seat … not to mention the other charges. I have no idea what her thinking was but can only conclude she was NOT THINKING enough.
▸ noun: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
Comment by springpatchproud Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:04 am
If the juror felt like the evidence did not give her a reasonable doubt, she had every right to keep her presumption of innocence in tact.
Comment by Diane S Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 2:35 pm