|
Zagel’s big decision
Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller * This is, almost without a doubt, the most important ruling that Judge Zagel will make in Bill Cellini’s upcoming trial…
Tony Rezko’s attorneys were able to bring up much (but not all) of Levine’s past, which included seemingly constant cocaine use and drug-filled parties with young men in the Chicago area and, on at least one occasion, Springfield. Rezko’s defense was, essentially, that Levine had made the whole thing up. There was no attempt to shake down investor Thomas Rosenberg for a $1.5 million campaign contribution because the plan never existed, except in Levine’s drug-addled mind. The jury agreed. Rezko was acquitted of these Levine-related charges. Judge Zagel disallowed this particular line of questioning in the Blagojevich trial, but Levine was never called to the stand. The alleged shakedown attempt wasn’t part of that trial. * If the proseuction wins on this point, Levine’s testimony will be almost golden. If Cellini’s lawyers win the round, then Levine will once again be forced to reveal his lurid past and the prosecution will be at a distinct disadvantage. Keep in mind that the prosecution’s entire case against Cellini is built on this alleged shakedown attempt and that Rosenburg has already testified that Cellini never asked him for a dime. If the shakedown scheme is seriously undermined once again, then Cellini may have a decent chance at winning here. The rest of the Cellini legend will be a factor, of course, but the centrality of the case is this alleged shakedown, which was already found once to be a fantasy. * Read the prosecution’s filing by clicking here.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- shore - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 9:38 am:
Is this the first time in 17 years the u.s. attorneys office in chicago hasn’t had an open investigation into a man who was either an Illinois governor, former illinois governor or future illinois governor?-
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 10:12 am:
Wait a minute. Isn’t that how the federales flipped Levine to begin with, by threatening to reveal his secret life (not secret enough, apparently) to his family and colleagues? Now, after they leaked it anyway, they want to keep it out of the trial?
There are no White Knights in this tale. Just a lot of raw ambition.
I’m fascinated by the relationships in play here. It’s surreal. Cellini was the major Illinois GOP player for decades. Zagel was a major GOP player in state government for years. Webb, Cellini’s lawyer, was Tonto to Big Jim Kimosabe for decades.
I mean, these guys all know each other, right? Maybe downed a few cocktails together at Big Jim’s crib, now and again? They probably all knew Levine, too. And they all probably know a lot more about each other than any of us can guess at or will be revealed in public.
Geez, has any TV station tried to sign up Big Jim for commentary on this trial? That would be must-see TV.
- Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 10:26 am:
Big Jim won’t do commentary on this trial because his firm is defending Cellini.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 10:29 am:
–Big Jim won’t do commentary on this trial because his firm is defending Cellini. –
LOL, I know. But with Cellini, Zagel and Webb in the starring role, you could say, in a sense, that Big Jim’s “firm” is the whole show. A reunions special, so to speak.
- Kyle Hillman - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 10:48 am:
The purple hotel looks so peaceful now. Hard to believe it’s shady past.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 11:05 am:
If Zagel grants the motion in limine he seriously undermines the fairness of the trial and risks overturning any verdict of guilty…especially given the Rezko verdict.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 11:16 am:
@word. — word!
- Bessie - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 11:19 am:
“Irrelevant”??? I don’t think so….Stuart Levine has admitted under oath using cocaine, crack, meth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of 30 years..This level of drug abuse will leave profound effects on the memory and at his age can have symptoms of alzheimers and parkinsons…which doesn’t make for an ideal witness…To leave this out would give cause for an appeal, wasting more tax dollars but what do the feds care they have plenty…
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 11:40 am:
You would think the defense would be able to build a jury that has never heard of Bill Cellini, which would make his legend irrelevent.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 11:53 am:
I’m not privvy to the inside accounts, but it is my recollection that both Levine and Cellini were key GOP fundraisers and operatives going back at least until the Thompson administration, if not longer. Not only did they know each other, and work ,if not closely, at least in the same circles, but their history of insider wheeling and dealing overlaps.
I don’t know, but I’m guessing Cellini knew about Levine’s personal life long before the rest of us found out about it. Levine is a criminal, an addict, and probably a liar, but that doesn’t mean the prosecution can’t put him on the stand and have him detail 30 years of pay to play politics. Sure, Cellini’s lawyers can destroy him on cross examination, but that’s a lot of mud to throw at a jury.
And while Rosenberg testified that Cellini didn’t ask him for anything, the feds have enough evidence to get this to a trial. So they have something, and the more Cellini’s lawyers hammer Levine’s credibility, the more the jury might wonder why they’re dragging up all of this wild stuff.
On the other hand, it seems like if Zagel says Levine’s personal life is out of bounds, Cellini won’t be getting a fair trial. Levine’s a scummy character, so take his testimony for what it’s worth coming from a guy like that.
But then ask yourself, what was Cellini doing getting mixed up with this guy?
- Leave a Light on George - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
=But then ask yourself, what was Cellini doing getting mixed up with this guy?=
Duh! For the money.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 1:18 pm:
I know several people who knew Levine for years, and nobody had an inkling about how bad his problem was. Also, I, for one, never once heard anything on the grapevine about him.
- unclesam - Wednesday, Sep 21, 11 @ 3:17 pm:
I’m not a lawyer, so please forgive me if this question seems simplistic: Can’t Cellini’s defense team use Levine’s previous testimony from the Rezko case? I’m trying to see how the prosecution wins this argument — as Levine’s past would likely come to light from his testimony during the Rezko trial.