What a mess - UPDATED
Thursday, Apr 20, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
So, if the Chicago Tribune was really delving into the pasts of jurors on its own instead of just taking some friendly directions from prosecutors, why did they miss all of these people? From the Sun-Times:
FIVE WHO STAYED
KEVIN L. REIN
48, of unincorporated Glen Ellyn
On March 30, lawyers for Larry Warner argued unsuccessfully for a mistrial because Rein and other jurors failed to disclose arrests. Rein was arrested in 1980 for allegedly striking his pregnant 17-year-old sister in an argument over cats. The state dropped the charges because his sister wouldn’t prosecute. He bought newspapers during the trial, but the court warned jurors against media exposure, the defense said.
CHARLES P. SVYMBERSKY
42, of Westmont
Svymbersky, an alternate, served on the jury after Evelyn Ezell and Robert Pavlick were kicked off. He was listed in Warner’s March 30 mistrial motion. He failed to disclose a 1983 guilty plea for buying a stolen bike in Peoria. He bought newspapers during the trial, the defense said.
JILL DIMARTINO
55, of Itasca
She admitted her daughter, friends and co-workers questioned her about the case after the original deliberations began, according to Warner’s attorneys, who argued those discussions were prejudicial. She stayed on the jury.
SONJA CHAMBERS
38, of Bolingbrook
After the guilty verdict, lawyers for Ryan unsuccessfully sought a mistrial after learning Chambers, the foreperson, was involved in several civil court cases she failed to disclose on her jury form, including a 2004 divorce petition, filings for orders of protection and a lawsuit a furniture business brought against her in 2003. She also was divorced in 1991.
RAUL CASINO
65, of Palos Hills
On March 28, George Ryan’s defense team gave the court records showing Casino was arrested in 1962 on a charge of driving under the influence. The records did not show how the case was resolved. Casino did not disclose the arrest. He stayed on the jury.
And then there’s this very good point at the bottom of the story:
After two more jurors were removed, Ryan’s lawyers sought a mistrial. They argued that jurors believed the feds were investigating their backgrounds and it tainted their deliberations.
“It has now been widely reported on TV and in the newspapers that the U.S. attorney could potentially prosecute jurors for perjury for lying on their questionnaires,” they wrote. Jurors would then vote in favor of the feds for fear of being prosecuted, the defense contended.
As she heard news of other jurors’ problems with the law, Ezell, tossed from the jury because she didn’t disclose her own background, wondered whether she and fellow juror Robert Pavlick, 55, of Buffalo Grove, were targeted. Pavlick, who could not be reached, was dismissed for not disclosing criminal convictions.
“That’s all I can do is wonder. Why did they do that?” said Ezell, charged but not convicted of a crime.
Indeed. [emphasis added]
UPDATE: I’ve noticed a trend in comments, so let me just intervene now. This is not about whether a juror had any run-ins with the law, it’s about whether they disclosed it on their juror forms.
UPDATE 2: Mary Mitchell:
I don’t know whether Chambers, an African-American female, would have been excluded from the jury because of her past involvement with the court system, but the judge and the lawyers had a right to know the truth.
UPDATE 3: So, let me get this straight. Forewoman Chambers didn’t disclose her repeated involvement with the legal system on her jury form, testified under oath that she didn’t talk to “Dennis the drycleaner” while it looks like she might have done so, said at a press conference that there were no pro-Ryan holdouts that she could recall, when there was at least one, now has hired a lawyer and won’t talk to the press, and yet she was still qualified to judge Ryan on perjury charges? I don’t get it.
- Leroy - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 7:13 am:
Why?
Because you need a card to play in the event the trial doesn’t go your way. Dig up dirt like a stolen bike plea bargin 25 years ago and use that to claim the juror pool was tainted, and the trial wasn’t fair.
This story is in line with the recent trend of stories about people doing their homework *after* the fact.
- NIEVA - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 7:36 am:
What this whole thing says is that most people have had a prolbem of some sort or another that they have had to go to court or call the police to their home. Should this cause a potiental jurior to be disqualifed? If this is the case then the only people on a jury would be eighteen year olds that would vote to aquit or convict on the grounds of lets get this over with I have a date tonite.
- SalukiDog - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 7:55 am:
Part of the issue is the fact they did not answer questions truthfully on their forms.
This is very troubling. The feds were desperate to have a guilty verdict. These ideas are certainly not out of the realm of possibilities.
I say, if he’s guilty, he’s guilty. However, the process should be fair.
Question: How would a re-trial affect the gubernatorial race?
- The original Bill - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 8:33 am:
They should have kicked off all of the jurors who committed perjury on their forms not just the ones who were pro acquittal. The only fair thing to do now is set aside the tainted verdict and declare a mistrial.
Is it worth all the fed time and money to re-try?
With what they have already spent prosecuting this case, they could have built 10 schools in Iraq and bought all new textbooks for them.
- Backyard Conservative - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 8:55 am:
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2006/04/
new-questions-about-ryan-jurors.html
- THE TRUTH - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 8:58 am:
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR JURY SYSTEM IS AT STAKE…THESE JURORS HAD THE UTMOST RESPONIBILITY OF FULL DISCLOSURE RE: THEIR BACKGROUNDS…
ITS A SIMPLE REQUIREMENT…TELL THE TRUTH ON THE QUESTIONAIRRES AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS TODAY. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR FEELINGS ARE RE: THE DEFENDANT’S BEING GUILTY OR INNOCENT, GOV RYAN AND LARRY WARNER DESERVED A “FAIR” TRIAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH. QUITE FRANKLY, THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY…THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ESPECIALLY AFTER PAT FITZGERALD & PAT COLLINS PUT-UP AN INCREDIBLE CASE. THE JURORS DISHONESTY IS UNFAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED - JUDGE, PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE ATTYS, DEFENDANTS, TAXPAYERS, THE WARNER FAMILY, THE RYAN FAMILY & MOST IMPORTANTLY…THE WILLIS FAMILY.
DUE PROCESS PEOPLE…DUE PROCESS. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL…ITS THEIR CONSTITIONAL RIGHT.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY CAN BE CONVICTED BY A BUNCH OF LIARS…I MEAN C’MON THE ONE JUROR PUNCHED HIS PREGNANT SISTER…ANOTHER JUROR FAILED TO DISCLOSE 2 DUI’S…ANOTHER FINALLY, THE FOREMAN - SONJA CHAMBERS - ALEEGEDLY TALKING TO A COFFEE KIOSK OPERATOR, WHO IN TURN BLABS HIS MOUTH ALL OVER THE RADIO “DURING” COURT PROCEEDINGS UNDER AN ALIAS…THERE’S MORE ACKGROUND BSCRUTINY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A JOB AT STARBUCKS…GIMME A BREAK.
PREDICTION - VERDICT OVERTURNED - RYAN AND WARNER ARE FREE MEN - AND PRECEDENT IS NOW SET FOR FUTURE CASES WHERE JURORS FAIL TO DISCLOSED MATERIALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION. THIS SHOULD HOPEFULLY LEAD TO TRIAL REFORMS AT BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL.
- Anon - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 9:02 am:
Why don’t they do background checks on the jurors after they’ve completed the required forms and BEFORE the trial actually begins??? Then both legal teams can look at everything to start trying to say certain jurors shouldn’t be used for that particular trial & why.
- Goodbye Napoleon - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:33 am:
The possible intimidation by the feds of jurors worried about having perjured themselves is a great point Rich. You are doing some great coverage on this story.
While these will be good issues to raise for the Ryan lawyers, the public at large doesn’t care because 85% of people still believes he is guilty, despite the possible jury issues.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:37 am:
Anon,
Because it would cost $$. If they did that for every federal trial it would be prohibitively expensive. Now, for high profile cases they probably could and it’s beginning to look like they should. Maybe they just need to clarify the questionnaire to specifically spell out what they’re looking for (like examples of court proceedings are divorce, law suits…, crimes are DUI, shoplifting…). And maybe a bold print statement on the form that intentionally lying is illegal.
- Mike Flannery's "what?" - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:40 am:
So… did anyone ever think to do backround checks on potential jurors to know if they are lying? This is not only the jurors fault, but the fault of the judge and the prosecution. As much as I believed George Ryan was guilty, I think this situation is unfair to him and the people of Illinois. There should have been a mistrial and Ryan should have been tried again under fair circumstances. Unfortunately, it looks like he has many valid reasons to appeal and will probably get it overturned. It really looks to be a culture of corruption in our judiciary.
- Bob - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:57 am:
I don’t remember much from my pre-law classes in college but one thing I do remember is the saying “hard cases make bad law.†That is true of the George Ryan trial. Now posted in print for all to see are the most embarrassing legal matters of jurors whose only crime is not divulging information they feel is private.-i.e. Constitutional right to privacy-
Do you really believe that a DUI from 1962 is of any consequence to this trial? Does it matter that someone bought a stolen bike 25 years ago? How about having to publicly air dirty laundry from an ugly divorce? Can any reasonable person believe that this was not a fair trial? These people did not volunteer to be on this jury; they were chosen without any say in the matter. Why are they being publicly branded as liars? Why is this public information at all?
Our court system is terrible. Most judges are elected without anyone having any idea who they are voting for. High profile judges who should be elected are appointed because they are alderman’s spouses or have other connections. Lawyers back log the system with motions, continuances and frivolous law suits. High fees, bureaucratic requirements and clerk incompetence make it nearly impossible for most individuals to receive fair recourse.
Now we come to humiliating and criminalizing jurors because they did their job. Serving on a jury seems to be quite an inconvenience and risk. I have a better idea. When you get the jury notice, throw it away. When you get the warning letter throw that away too. When you get the second notice, pitch that in the pale as well. They need to personally serve you with a summons to compel you to appear. Just say you never received the previous notices. When the columnists and moral police write and talk about what an honorable and civic duty it is to be a juror, remember they will be the ones throwing you under the bus to make headlines.
Okay, that is my rant and I don’t really believe that is what would be best for our judicial system, however, the inevitable outcome of humiliating citizens because they have not led perfect lives or desire to protect their privacy is scrapping the jury system entirely. Clearly George Ryan is not a perfect person and he got what he is entitled to; a verdict by a jury of his peers.
- Wumpus - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:58 am:
They lied, point blank. Had they been honest (assuming all didn’t honestly forget), they would have stayed on most likely. My favorite is the guy who hit his pregnant sister over some cats! Anywho. maybe we could start a new tv show. Big Brother Federal prison or Real World Federal Lock-up. Maybe Georgie can get some roomates.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 10:59 am:
Bob, they didn’t do their jobs if they lied on their questionnaires. Period.
- Mr. Ethics - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 11:02 am:
Come on already - jury duty is a required service and these people are not to blame for all Ryan’s woes. It has to be pretty hard to impossible to find 12 perfect jurors. The defense had their chance during selecton. Why no objection then?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 11:05 am:
Mr. Ethics, Ryan perjured himself and is heading to jail - sent there by five people who may have perjured themselves. That doesn’t seem odd to you?
- The original Bill - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 11:24 am:
Mr. Ethics,
The defense did challenge during selestion on some of the liars to no avail.
George and Larry get a pass.
- DOWNSTATE - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:13 pm:
Name, birthdate or Social Security number run thru NCIC,which any local policeman can do,will give a persons crimnal history.Only takes about 3 minutes.
- Mr. Ethics - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:33 pm:
Rich and Bill - I agree with your statements. My fear is that if Ryan walks because of this, the politcal arrogance and pay to play in this State will only get worse.
- Slash - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:36 pm:
If I understand correctly, the current rule is ‘ask a juror if they’ve been arrested, and take their word for it. Do no further investigation on said juror’
There are probably a million jurors a day that say they have no record, but probably do. Heck, there are at least five in this case alone.
This isn’t an issue in every trial of us ‘common folk’…if it were, the rule would be changed. We’d be verifying what the juror said.
Since it is not as issue with us ‘common folk’ why should it be an issue with Ryan?
Is he somehow special? Does he get afforded different rules than the rest of us?
- Bob - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:42 pm:
Rich,
Here is some info for you.
Bill of Rights
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Definition of “impartial”
having no direct involvement or interest and not favoring one person or side more than another
The old crook got a fair trial.
Period.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:47 pm:
Bob, I think you’d better wait until tomorrow before you make up your mind.
- Bob - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:53 pm:
Wow, that is cryptic. Ok, I’ll wait.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 12:56 pm:
One way to cut down on future cases of jury members’ rmisrepresenting their past would be to have them fill out the questionnaire with the understanding that a background check (see Downstate 12:13) WILL be performed after the questionnaire is answered, and any misrepresentation of criminal history subjects the juror to removal from the pool and a fine.
This work should all be taken care of before the jury is seated.
And I don’t think you can distinguish between a “high profile” case where this is done, and a “low profile” case where this is not done. Equal protection of the law, and all.
- Sporty 41 - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:04 pm:
What is the real problem here is the inference of the removal of two jurors and not others who failed to disclose past problems.
Does a divorce or a purchasing a stolen bike 30 years ago make any difference in how you will likely rule . . . probably not, as everyone has some skeleton.
What the Judge did was screw up royally by opening up this pandora’s box. Once she opened it up for two, the other parties are prejudiced if don’t do the same for George.
What will be interesting is seeing how the 7th Circuit tap dances around this to ensure the verdict is upheld . . . with the additional information coming out it is becoming more and more difficult.
- Ragin RINO - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:10 pm:
Mr. Ethics, if George walks because the jury was tainted, that doesn’t mean politicians in Illinois are going to believe that excuses what George did.
- Anon - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:36 pm:
It’s not that any of the things found out about these jurors is something that would not make them impartial to the case, nor do you have to have a squeaky clean record to be a juror - it’s signing something you filled out saying it was a true/accurate account of your background & that not being the case. I truly think the background checks should be done instead of just taking their word for it. If we just take their word for it - then the jury should just be taking everyone’s word on the stand & there wouldn’t be a need for any evidence to contradict what the people are saying. How can people be put in place to decide someone else’s fate by weighing in things & having to figure out who’s telling the truth or not when they haven’t been truthful to be selected as a juror?
- SalukiDog - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:38 pm:
Rich,
As someone above said you are doing a great job of covering this stuff. Further, I agree with you. The fact that jurors who lied can convict another of perjury is troubling.
- Papa Legba - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:47 pm:
If you want honesty from the jurors make it a mandatory fine and a week in the lock-up for contempt. I’ll bet that would refresh a bunch of memories.
- Papa Legba - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:49 pm:
Or order them to spend a day corresponding with “the original Bill.”
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 2:50 pm:
Having a gut feeling that someone did something wrong and being able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt are two different things, folks.
There’s another disturbing thing about this whole “lying to get on the jury” thing for me. Most people dread the thought of jury duty, and will say or do anything to get out of it. Especially what’s being billed as a six-month trial.
What kind of person lies to get onto a jury? A high-profile jury? People with an axe to grind, and people looking for celebrity. And you don’t get a book deal by acquitting somebody.
The jury may well have gotten the verdict right, but the overall integrity of our courts is much more important.
It’s a Mulligan.
- Pat C (soon to be me again) - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 4:29 pm:
And you don’t get a book deal by acquitting somebody.
Plenty of OJ books out there……
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 5:18 pm:
Rich, I read or heard somewhere it’s pretty common for jurors to fail to completely disclose. Why should they? Most are gonna be bounced without hearing a case. Why try to recall every legal run in? The $18 per day?
If the prosecutors cherry-picked jurors by bouncing holdouts the case is clearly tainted. Since the review of legal run-ins seems to be onesided, it seems highly likely that someone with the motive and opportunity fed the info to the Tribune.
Who would have access to the juror questionnaires? Who would have insight into who needed to be bumped to deliver a verdict?
Who seems the most likely suspect?
* the judge’s staff
* a juror
* the prosecutor’s staff
* someone connected to the case as a victim or witness
Here’s a conspiracy theory:
Someone under investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald fouled-up the case to impugn Fitzgerald’s credibility or to cause his office to waste time on a retrial instead of preparing a case against someone else.
If the case has to be tried again, presumably this would delay investigations of Daley and the Blagojevich administration. If Fitzgerald loses credibility, it would help Bush and Cheney.
If the jury pool was tampered with, it’s kinda an interesting “who done it?” because the suspects range from the average people on the jury to the President of the United States and includes the U.S. Attorney everyone wants to believe is the ultimate straight shooter.
- Bob - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 6:49 pm:
The salvation of our judicial system is criminal background checks. We can thank George Ryan for exposing this glaring weakness and helping us to find the solution. But wait, the questionnaire was huge and criminal history is only a fraction of the information needed.
Criminal background checks will not always show information regarding driving violations including driving with a suspended, expired or revoked license, speeding ECT. This is vital when determining a fit jurist.
We will need to get their accident reports from the insurance Clue system. This information is vital to determine if the jurist has ever been sued for bodily injury or property damage.
Come to think of it, we better check to see if he has any unpaid parking tickets, city sticker violations or run ins with municipalities which might influence the jurist decisions. Let’s not forget about building code violations. Those can really prejudice a jurist.
There are financial questions regarding judgments, bankruptcies and collections etc. so we better do a credit check. Of course we will have to hire a firm to analyze this data.
With these medical questions we will need his health and life insurance reporting history. That information is usually incomplete, however, so ordering his medical records will be vital to determining truthfulness and fitness for service.
Employment questions will need to be verified by an outside firm but we can save money by having the same firm verify education statements.
I know this can be touchy but we will need to determine the mental health of the jurists. This can be difficult because many times this is not reported. A qualified private investigative firm can interview family, friends and neighbors to determine any unusual behavior. If a jurist is suspected of being mentally unstable a qualified analyst will determine truthfulness and fitness.
We will need to verify foreign born citizen’s historical information which will be quite costly and we should possibly consider only allowing US born citizens to serve.
I am pressed for time so I will have to list other verification procedures at a later date.