Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Afternoon shorts
Posted in:
More craziness at the Ryan trial.
Attorneys for former Gov. George H. Ryan asked a federal judge today not to substitute alternate jurors for any who might be dismissed during contentious deliberations at his corruption trial.“Even if an alternate juror were able to avoid all the substantial press and publicity surrounding deliberations, it is simply not possible to expect that he or she could engage in meaningful, constitutionally required deliberations with jurors who have already spent two and a half weeks deliberating the case in detail,†Ryan attorneys Dan Webb, Bradley Lerman and Timothy J. Rooney wrote.
The move came as U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer huddled with prosecutors and defense attorneys behind closed doors this morning to try to sort out a rapidly escalating mess with the jury.
Pallmeyer spent the weekend investigating whether two of the jurors lied on their applications when they said they’d never been charged with a crime. One of the jurors, a suburban man, has four convictions for drunk driving, including felony. The other juror, a Chicago woman, had been charged with several drug and domestic offenses but was never convicted. […]
“Nor can the original jurors be expected to erase from their minds conclusions (or partial verdicts) they have reached over the past two weeks. Asking them to ‘start delib-erations anew’ is asking the impossible,†Ryan’s lawyers wrote.
I almost never get any comments on Ryan trial stuff, which has always been somewhat puzzling to me.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Afternoon shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Personally I think Judge Pallmeyer sowed the seeds for an appeal when she failed to sever the trial, or at least have a jury for each defendant. This trial is a circus. She has to shoulder some of the blame.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 1:23 pm
He’s gonna walk.
Comment by ProudRINO Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 1:30 pm
It looks to me like this trial came dangerously close to convicting George Ryan.
Comment by Veritas Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 1:33 pm
How can both sides have let it go this far with no one looking into the jurors. Do both sides wait until things look bad, then see if they can get it all tossed.
What makes matters worse is, if a guy can line his pockets and campaign war chest with ill gotten funds which actually resulted in death walks, how can anybody talk about campaign reform with a straight face. I say lock everyone in the courtroom up. Judge, prosecutor, and defendants and counsel. They all will bear responsibility if he walks an this kind of technicality.
This is much worse then a straight forward acquittal. Regardless of what happens, it gives him an appealable issue that will allow him to stay out of jail until he dies.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 2:01 pm
Rich, the suggestion in your earlier post that the Government is leaking this stuff to the tribune is no laughing matter. If, in fact, they did pitch this, the only reason would be they knew these jurors were not going thier way. That is not only wrong, unethical, and lowdown no matter who the defendant is, it’s a crime. When the careers of US Attorneys are at stake, stuff like this seems to happen. Someone should try to FOI the NCIC “National Crime Information Computer” to see if either the defense or the prosecution ran thier records around the time of jury selection.
Comment by MollyOneShoe Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 2:07 pm
I think the Ryan trial is sort of like the Enron trial, going on concurrently. There is just so much outrage that the electorate can muster, especially when new political and financial scandals erupt practically daily. Both trials have become legal curiosities, fascinating to lawyers perhaps, good for an interesting minute or so on the evening news, but hardly a big deal for the citizenry.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 2:13 pm
Actually, I think a mistrial must help the prosecution. They now know Webb’s strategy.
I don’t see how you get an acquital out of this, only a “do over” for the Feds.
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 2:29 pm
ravenswood i agree. dick durbin nominated pallmeyer to the bench in 1997. she was rated qualified and not highly qualified. seems like durbin changes his requirements for qualified judges based on who is president.
Comment by ron Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 3:01 pm
Ravenswood and Ron are both very wrong. I have tried several cases before Judge Pallmeyer and she is an excellent judge - very fair and very smart.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 3:13 pm
Rich, in regards to lack of comments on Trial posts – I think it’s because Democrats aren’t interested in the actual facts, legal developments, or even the outcome of the trial. Just having Ryan under indictment and on trial in itself provides them with all they care about: a weapon against Republicans (Judy in particular) on the issue of ethics. Republicans, on the other hand, are generally and genuinely embarrassed by the whole episode and hope that we can ignore it away.
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 3:14 pm
Well, she may be fair and smart, but next time Durbin wants to block a judge this can be used against him.
After all, Judge Ito didn’t look so good after the OJ case……
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 3:31 pm
I hope that we are still not sitting here 6 months from now, w/o this trial being completed. No judge likes for her courtroom to be a fiasco, but this latest predictament has went on too long.
I wouldn’t want my future resting on the deliberations of this jury. They, no doubt, just want to get home and back to their every day lives. In a best case scenario, deliberatons have to start again. Then, what if they come back immediately with a verdict?
I vote for mistrial and move the whole dang thing out of Chicago.
Comment by guest Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 4:27 pm
This just in. The judge just dismissed two jurors in the George Ryan Case.
Comment by Sweet PEA Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 4:46 pm
If a mistrial is declared and another trial is ordered, how ’bout the chances of a plea bargain? Winston and Webb are doing this pro bono, but they definitely have shot all sorts of holes in the prosecution’s case. Maybe the stakes are too high for a plea, but maybe they’re too high not to try…
Comment by SmartAlek Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 4:54 pm
As commentator said over the weekend, it would be great to be a fly on the wall at the Winston and Strawn partners’ meeting if there is a mistrial. Big Jim is a power at Winston but he is getting on in years and I bet the younger partners are getting a bit restive. Not to mention the public relations downside of being a big deal law firm which appears to the general public to have one client…a probably corrupt Illinois governor.
Are the young turks at Winston up for spending more of their millions on that governor. Probably depends on how many young turks there are and how much clout they have. Maybe Big Jim still has enough clout so it won’t matter.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 6:52 pm
The court is only now addressing the concern that two jurors might have lied on their venire questionnaires. I do not understand this. This is a federal jury trial, wherein the mighty federal government is prosecuting a high-profile defendant who enjoys his own arsenal of top-notch attorneys. Why now? With all of the resources of the court and the parties on both sides of the courtroom, why only now is it discovered that the jurors did not disclose on their questionnaires that which is a matter of public record? Has anyone answered that question?
Comment by Dissenter Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 9:18 pm
GOP - I’m not speaking for all Democrats, but I for one have refrained from commenting for the most part because I’m not in the jury box, so speaking to the verdict is kind of irresponsible. I have said that even though I personally think he’s guilty, based on what I know from outside the courtroom, but from what I’ve read about what’s going on inside, the prosecutors have failed to present a case that meets the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That said, the jury might decide he must’ve done something wrong, but as long as deliberations have taken, I think we’re looking at a hung jury or an acquittal.
BTW, I think the defense’s objection to seating 2 more jurors is a smart one, for psychological reasons. It makes the burden of responsibility heavier for each remaining juror, and anyone who had doubts about whether a jury of 12 should send Ryan to jail is going to say “no way” to a jury of 10.
60-40 he walks on all counts.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Mar 27, 06 @ 9:43 pm