Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Screaming about the wrong thing… Again
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** From Natasha Korecki’s Twitter feed…
Blagojevich jury leaves courthouse, ending day 9 without verdict. They’re back Monday.
* From Natasha Korecki’s excellent Blago Blog…
Some thought yesterday would be the day. Some thought it would have been last week, others were saying next week.
But this morning, I’ve heard several people give the same reaction: “I’m done guessing.”
Here we are, day 9 of deliberations in a case that prosecutors took 11 days to present and no sign from the Rod Blagojevich jury. No note since last Thursday.
We will mention that last year’s jury sent out two notes right away, then went eight days without making a peep. On day 11, the panel sent a flurry of notes before concluding they could not come to a consensus on 23 of the 24 counts.
In the retrial, there are 20 counts the jury of 11 women and one man must ponder. And significantly different this time: Blagojevich was on the witness stand for parts of seven days.
So they’re not only weighing witness testimony, transcripts, tapes and documents — but the defendant’s own words.
* It’s not quite the same, of course, but I’ve been through enough overtime sessions involving deadlocked leaders’ negotiations to have come to a simple conclusion long ago: Never try to guess when it’ll be over. Just go with the flow. Guessing will only drive you crazy.
I’ll never forget my first overtime session, in 1991. It lasted 19 days, but it seemed like forever. I didn’t have the sources that I do now, so I was pretty much in the dark about what was going on behind those closed doors. Some days, it looked to me like it was about over. Some days, it appeared that everything had completely fallen apart. I was almost tearing my hair out after two weeks.
* It’s always fun to speculate about things like whether 11 women on the jury will make a difference, or how this stacks up to the last Blagojevich deliberation, or how it compares to the George Ryan trial. The Ryan jury was a freaking mess, and it took them 10 days to reach a conclusion after the judge replaced two jurors and ordered everything be restarted. Nine days is really no big deal in that context.
It’ll happen when it happens and there’s nothing anybody can do about it.
* Meanwhile, Jim Krohe isn’t all that pleased with the way Blagojevich was charged…
Former presecutors, interviewed as experts during the first trial, explained to Chicago TV viewers that conspiracy is a crime if there’s evidence that two or more people take action to effect a criminal act, and that doing something as simple as picking up a telephone to bully a subordinate qualifies as such an action.
I cannot agree with some of the more fervent Blago backers, who insisted that the case was a setup. I do wonder whether a law that defines otherwise inconsequential talk as “action” reaches too far. Laws that make mere talking a crime are familiar weapons in government attempts to silence dissidents of all types. They have a long and inglorious history in Illinois, where they have been widely used by government agents to hunt down socialists and trade unionists and “Reds” in the 1880s, during World War I and again during the Cold War.
We don’t hunt Reds in Illinois, at least for the moment. We do hunt politicians. Corruption trials of the sort in which Illinois officeholders have figured so gloriously often have relied on laws that thoughtful Illinoisans might regard as dubious. A good example is the 1988 federal statute that made it a crime to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” It was widely used to punish self-dealing and conflicts of interest by government and corporate officials even, or rather especially, when those officials could not be shown to have received a direct quid pro quo in exchange for their actions. In effect they were charged with having committed what we might call (with apologies to Jimmy Carter) “bribery of the heart.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Screaming about the wrong thing… Again
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s only idle speculation, but: so far the notes from the jury consisted of questions regarding paperwork (I.e., do we have the rights evidence). It seems to me that the lack of notes indicates that they are still reviewing the evidence, in other words listening to the tapes as suggested by the prosecution. If the jury were deliberating and having disagreements, we probably would be seeing notes coming in seeking guidance or clarification about jury instructions.
But, as Rich points out, who knows.
Comment by The Other Anonymous Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:45 am
Maybe Blago is inmocent?
Comment by deadon Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:46 am
Krohe goes a farther than I would, but the power of the Justice Department is immense. Who can compete with those resources?
I would be a whole lot more comfortable in the Blago case if they could show some money changed hands.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:54 am
I have a theory about the Blago case that may seem a bit out there….so bare with me. The prosecution contends that they jumped in and arrested Milorad hours before he was going to name his choice for the Senate. In that scenario the Feds stopped an illegal act from taking place. Much of their case against Milorad centers around sensational conversations Rod had about what he could “get” in exchange for the Senate appointment.
Lets imagine a slightly different explanation of events and then tell me what you think of Milorad’s behavior. What if the Feds stepped in and arrested Rod not becasue he was about to commit a crime but becasue they thought he might not? If Rod had named Burris or Madigan or some other candidate not discussed in Rod’s various bizarro schemes all those tapped conversations would have been worthless…..they would have been exaclty what Rod claims they were the grandiose musings of a seriously out of touch politician. Maybe the Feds were much more afraid that Rod WOULD NOT commit a crime than they were that he was about to sell the Seante seat to the highest bidder. In the eyes of the Feds it would have been preferable to go to trial without the appointment being made but having some very damning tapes than an appointment being made that does not explain the numerous scheming phone calls. In any case, the Feds would have had a much stronger case today if they just let Rod commit the crime. We will never know for sure but it is something to think about as the jury ponders Milorad’s fate. Just sayin is all.
Comment by Just Sayin Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:56 am
Don’t let it kill you baby, don’t let it get to you.
The waiting is the hardest part.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:56 am
Does Fitz leave the US attorney’s office is Blago is acquitted? I wonder when Rezko is going to get sentenced. Who knows…at the same time, did anyone see that Whitey Bulger was captured. Who in Illinois does that family remind you of? Whitey’s brother was the one time President of the Massachusetts state senate.
Comment by Fat Pitzgerald Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 10:56 am
Good for Jim. Scalp-hunting prosecutors and their marriage to the papers are not good for our civic life. The honest services law was far too broad and the amount of discretion placed in prosecutors’ hands to enforce an inherently broad law is unhealthy.
One of the reasons lots of voters believe that the government is somehow inherently corrupt is because our prosecutors keep telling them that it is so. And our papers pick up the meme.
Political reform too often means empowering prosecutors. That breeds a fundamental distrust in our government. And that is not healthy.
Comment by Dan Johnson-Weinberger Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 11:05 am
Lou Reed, member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and noted legal analyst, said it best: First thing you learn is you always gotta wait
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 11:29 am
The question is whether the distrust is justified.
The fundament distrust in government comes from the eternal litany of self enrichment that is paraded in front of the voters every day. Outrageous compensation, pension irregularities, double dipping salaries, double, triple dipping pensions, extravagant additional personal services, cars, security details the list goes on.
IMHO, the prosecutors are not nearly empowered enough. I am familiar with an appointed official, who is reported to be regularly driving a publicly owned vehicle while intoxicated. The local police and Sheriff give this person a pass, municipal and county prosecutors then have no evidence for a trial. What message does that send the public. Another case of ‘too important to prosecute’ in Illinois.
Imagine the corruption in Illinois if the politicians did not look over their shoulder to see if Pat Fitzgerald is looking in to their activities.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 11:34 am
Conspiracy to commit crimes is a crime itself because otherwise we’d have to wait until someone was robbed, extorted or murdered before we could charge them. It’s also not just talk but taking a step or steps toward the furtherance of the deed - signifying indeed that the plan is real and not just talk.
Comment by Steve Rhodes Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 11:37 am
Mr. Rhodes,
I recognize all that, but the reality is that jurors want to see something concrete transpire. Your analogy about murder doesnt work here because it would never be appropriate for someone to discuss murdering someone whereas it is perfectly legal for politicians to ask for money. So, in politics talk can actually just be talk….sometimes.
Comment by Just Sayin Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 11:46 am
how many days of actual testimony were there, prosecution did 11 (?), defense did (?). some use a standard of one hour of deliberation per day of testimony for state court trials. there must be some federal building guesstimation in this manner? maybe we double the number for the feds?
Comment by amalia Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:01 pm
I’ve worked in government offices for politicians, at different levels (city, fed, etc.). I’ve worked on campaigns for elected officials. I’ve seen the fundraising up close and personal. In more than twenty years of this work, one thing has always been crystal-clear: you don’t mix official business with fundraising. Never.
The line can be gray and somewhat mobile, but it exists and all of the players know exactly where it is at all times. Do you reward supporters? Yes. But there should never, ever, be anything remotely approaching a quid pro quo.
Rod blew way past the line. It’s is clear from the evidence and it is clear to me from my observations of his administration that he didn’t think the rules applied to him.
You can say it’s just talk, but anybody who’s been there knows Rod broke the law and violated the public trust. I know it. He knows it, and I hope the jury sees it as clearly as I do.
I worked for someone once who ignored the rules, and when I spoke out, I was ignored. So I quit, and he went to federal prison, and for much less than what Rod is accused of.
Rhodes is right. Crimes were committed and the evidence proves it.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:05 pm
Hey 47th Ward,
I have worked on dozens of campaigns and advised many an elected official. I understand the rules. In my experiece it is incredibly unusual for electeds to seperate the two conversations. It happens all the time. Re we going to prosecute everyone that “crosses the line”? I think that is incredibly unrealisitic and likely very destructive to the democratic process.
Comment by Just Sayin Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Well, then you’re part of the problem.
Just Sayin.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:17 pm
con-spire: v., defn: to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king.
If two people plot to kill the king, and then one of them goes out and buys a vial of poison…they are guilty of conspiracy to commit treason.
The reason for conspiracy laws is pretty simple: if we waited until they actually killed the king, or only charged the man who put the poison in his chalice, justice would not be served.
The defense against conspiracy charges is to never “brainstorm” doing something illegal.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:39 pm
The Jury will retunr a verdit friday at 2:37pm
I asked a fortune teller.
So no need to guess anymore, we have a confirmed answer.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 12:50 pm
Jury doesn’t work on Fridays so the verdit is unlikely to come in then.
And the “fundamental distrust in government” stems from the adversary-based popularity contest we use every two years to decide who gets power. If Santa Claus had to run in a swing district 42% of the people would hate his guts and 31% would honestly believe he was the anti-Christ.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 1:53 pm
Blago the persecuted dissident. James Krohe must gohe. (Actually not, he’s a great guy, but jeez).
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 2:08 pm
@Just Sayin: here’s the flaw in your scenario. Presumably, the only way that the government would know that Blagojevich would appoint someone without regard to personal gain would be because they got that information by listening to the wiretap. Well, if that conversation was recorded, it would have to be turned over to the defense. The defense would have played the conversation.
They didn’t. The only evidence of a deal to appoint LMadigan to the Senate as part of a political deal is Blagojevich’s testimony. Prosecutors may have a lot of power, but they have yet to gain the power to read minds.
Comment by The Other Anonymous Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 2:21 pm
> Presumably, the only way that the government would know that Blagojevich would appoint someone without regard to personal gain would be because they got that information by listening to the wiretap. Well, if that conversation was recorded, it would have to be turned over to the defense. The defense would have played the conversation.
Unless the judge suppressed exculpatory wiretaps, which he is allowed to do under federal rules of evidence. Judge Zagel had prodded the governor to testify to allow more evidence into the case and then reneged when the governor took the stand. The defense asked to play about 30 tapes, including direct discussions about the alleged deals. The judge disallowed a defense wiretap discussing the Madigan deal, calling it a “red herring” even though the governor did not know he was being wiretapped. How can any conversation that directly involved these allegations not be allowed in a U.S. court to ensure a fair trial? This case is a railroad. “Just Saying” is right on the money with the concern that the feds would not have had a case if they had waited longer. No campaign contributions would have been asked of contractors after the change in law at the end of the year. The Senate seat was a one-time appointment for the governor, mandated by the Illinois Constitution, and the talks were getting close to high-profile politicans for which Fitzgerald would have taken a lot of heat for incriminating them with word games on private conversations. The feds cut the case short with the deliberate wiretap leak, piled on the charges after an additional five months of investigation, convicted the defendant in the court of public opinion, tied in Judge Zagel using the Cellini case, and so on. The feds have a thousand levers to turn against a defendant. This case is a railroad, and the governor deserves nothing less than a full acquittal.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 3:01 pm
===even though the governor did not know he was being wiretapped===
Yes, he did.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 3:07 pm
> Yes, he did.
There were conversations from early November involving the Madigan deal, not just in the days after the Tribune exposed the wiretaps. So no, he did not know he was being wiretapped, and yes, relevant tapes are being suppressed by the government.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 3:12 pm
This tape was disallowed by Judge Zagel, calling it a red herring, as if the governor knew he was being wiretapped:
> Blagojevich confirmed Dennis Hastert called him Nov. 5, 2008 to offer advice and suggestions on who to appoint to the Senate. Hastert suggested possible trades, Blagojevich testified, including one where Hastert said “get your quid pro quo and make it a two-fer.” Hastert suggested appointing Secretary of State Jesse White to the Senate because then Blagojevich would get to appoint a new secretary of state.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/rod_blagojevich/rod-blagojevich-testimony-testify-day-four-former-gov-retrial-senate-seat-shakedown-20100601
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 3:30 pm
That’s not exactly exculpatory Dave. What else you got?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 3:54 pm
47th Ward, it may not be exculpatory but definitely shows reasonable doubt about the feds’ tightly wound case and supports the defense’s contention that a Madigan deal was not a mere ruse.
From the Rahm tape (unallowed as well), we can see how easy it would be for the feds to indict virtually any policitian by using isolated quotes pulled out of context from 5000+ wiretapped conversations, assisted by an army of FBI agents with trained ears listening for verbal violations.
The link below questions Judge Zagel’s fairness:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/June-2011/Expert-Defense-Lawyer-Blago-Has-Grounds-for-Retrial/
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:09 pm
Dave - The Federal Rules of Evidence allow a judge to suppress exculpatory evidence? What rule is that? I have my copy handy.
Comment by Liz Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:16 pm
W/ or w/o Blago, I’ve been harping on the abuse by the feds of “honest services” and criminalization of politics on this blog and elsewhere for years. I agree w/ Jim and w/ Dan above. Going back to the Ryan case, these crimes that are only crimes after the Feds make it up are appalling.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:22 pm
The time the Jury is taking simply indicates that they are being very,very thorough. Likely to present their verdict the first of next week.
There is lots of documentation to go through. When everything is said and done, these Jurors want to be certain to get it right, and I am confident Blagojevich will be getting his next haircut in the big house.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:23 pm
I think he should be acquited….for some reason they have went to an awful lot of trouble to convict and he did nothing…..
Comment by Roger Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:26 pm
===and he did nothing===
You must’ve just arrived from Pluto.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:28 pm
Dave, the problem with your theory is that the defense has all of the tapes. If there really was exculpatory evidence in them, they’d be allowed. Just because the Blago legal team says they are proof of his innocence in no way makes that so.
Second, it isn’t just the tapes that incriminate Rod. Lon Monk, John Harris and others testified. They said, in effect, Rod was trying to get the best deal for himself, not the best deal for taxpayers. The tapes also back up those contentions.
The defense says it was all a bunch of talk. But what you are saying is that the judge is intentionally preventing Rod from playing tapes that prove his innocence, and that is more than a little bit off the mark.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:30 pm
This video contains a defense attorney talking about the federal rules of evidence, in relation to the Blagojevich trial (starting at 8:10 in the video):
http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,80,32,1&category=WTTW Blago Trial 2
If the link above does not work, the video can be found on the WTTW site from the June 1 coverage of the trial.
In summary, the federal rules of evidence give great leeway to the judge in disallowing relevant evidence.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 4:36 pm
In another WTTW interview (June 13), the Blagojevich defense attorneys explicitly say that the unheard tapes prove that the governor is innocent and every attempt to get those tapes admitted were shut down.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 6:26 pm
The Madigan gambit only happened because Rod was tipped to the wiretaps and wanted to plant his excuse in the record. You can;t allow that into evidence, any more than you can allow the back-pedaling comments of someone AFTER they find out that the person they’ve been insulting behind their back on the phone, happens to be on speakerphone with a third party just then.
Me: “oh, Dave, I’ve had it up to HERE with Doris; that lady is driving me nuts!”
Dave: “Um, Gregor, Doris is here with me on speakerphone…”
Me: “….. um….. Like I said, she drives me nuts because she’s just so NICE all the time! How ARE you, Doris???”
Dave: “Great save, Gregor.”
See, that’s all of what Rod’s Madigan Gambit was, after the Trib spilled the beans about the wiretaps. Once he knows he’s being listened in to, you can;t trust that he is still speaking his mind, instead he’s speaking to a potential judge and jury, trying to undo the crime he’s been conspiring on.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Jun 23, 11 @ 6:31 pm