Prosecution witness slams alleged victim
Tuesday, Oct 18, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* There was an interesting turn of events today at Bill Cellini’s corruption trial. Star prosecution witness Stu Levine under cross-examination by defense attorney Dan Webb dumped all over the alleged victim in this case, Tom Rosenburg. From Natasha Korecki’s Twitter page…
Webb to Levine: “you don’t believe a word (Rosenberg) says?” Levine:”Correct.” Rosenberg may testify tomorrow. […]
Levine on tape about Tom Rosenberg: “He has clean hands all over the place.” Levine says he’s referring to ‘dishonest acts.”
So, according to the prosecution’s big witness the alleged victim is a lying crook?
Perhaps our experienced attorney commenters can tell us what this means, but I’m not sure it’s so great for the prosecution. If the victim was also allegedly hinky, then running a game on him might not be so bad. Then again, Rosenberg testified at Tony Rezko’s trial that Cellini never asked him for any money. Webb has referred to that testimony time and time again. Federal prosecutors allege that Levine attempted to extort Rosenberg on behalf of Rezko, Chris Kelly and the Blagojevich campaign. The feds also allege that Cellini participated.
* From yesterday’s cross examination…
Levine testified that he had, in fact, initially launched another extortion approach on Rosenberg — one that did not involve Cellini at all. He also told the jury that Cellini had early on actually helped Rosenberg.
Webb also spent considerable time exploring the relationship Levine had with Rosenberg.
Levine testified that Rosenberg had in 2001 allegedly agreed to another, unrelated bribe scheme with Levine but then failed to pay up. This angered Levine, he acknowledged.
* Meanwhile…
The defense at the trial of a clout-heavy Illinois businessman has sought to punch holes in prosecutors’ claim their client is heard on wiretaps admitting he delivered part of an extortion message to a Hollywood producer.
The issue took center stage Tuesday as William Cellini’s attorney tried to convince jurors that Cellini’s words were, at the very least, ambiguous. Defense attorney Dan Webb was cross-examining star prosecution witness Stuart Levine. […]
But Levine conceded Cellini never said he told the Hollywood executive that he must donate money to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s campaign or risk losing state pension funds for his investment company.
* Done by Friday?…
Federal prosecutors [yesterday] afternoon said William Cellini’s trial could be headed for closing arguments Friday.
Defense lawyer Dan Webb is likely to conclude his questioning of star witness Stuart Levine on Tuesday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Niewoehner said the government will put on the stand an out-of-state witness (presumably the victim of the alleged extortion, Tom Rosenberg) Wednesday and could be finished with its case by Thursday at the latest.
Webb said he gave a list of defense witnesses to Niewoehner. Still, Niewoehner said closings could happen by Friday.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:24 pm:
OK, so Rosenberg might not be the most sympathetic victim, but does that negate the testimony and evidence that Cellini and Levine were gaming TRS decisions?
As far as I’m concerned, when TRS decisions were made without regard to the best investments (and directed to favored firms for political, not investment reasons), then the public and members of the TRS plan were defrauded.
Cellini may not have asked Rosenberg for anything. So far it seems like, at a minimum, he told Rosenberg that he’d have to satisfy Rezko and Kelly. We’ll see what Rosenberg says, but Cellini’s words are still potent for the prosecution.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
===As far as I’m concerned, when TRS decisions were made without regard to the best investments (and directed to favored firms for political, not investment reasons), then the public and members of the TRS plan were defrauded.===
Except, Cellini isn’t charged with that.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:31 pm:
If you wanted to invent Stu Levine you couldn’t, the universe wouldn’t let you get away with it. Yet here we are.
- downstate hack - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:32 pm:
Levine a weird and unstable and unbelievable “star” witness. So far a very weak case.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:40 pm:
===Except, Cellini isn’t charged with that.===
Correct. Levine pleaded guilty to that already. His testimony is that Cellini conspired with him to shake down Rosenberg. So we know there was fraud, and we have Levine testifying that Cellini was in on at least some aspect of the fraud.
I haven’t heard the tapes. The jury has. They get to decide whether Cellini was a participant or not. So yes, Levine is a liar, but how does Webb explain away Cellini’s words on tape, and not just the words, but the tone of the conversations?
If Cellini gets convicted, it will be because his voice on the tapes carried more weight than an admitted liar, thief and general scumbag. And it wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:46 pm:
===I haven’t heard the tapes.===
I have. They were released during the Rezko thing.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:47 pm:
OK, what was your impression of Cellini’s intent with respect to Rosenberg? More importantly, what do you think the jurors’ impression will be?
Because that’s pretty much the whole case, isn’t it?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
My impression was that they don’t have him saying anything definitive. I’m not sure how the jury will take it.
- Jim - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 4:50 pm:
You have to understand that Levine isn’t a star witness. Indeed, it’s likely the government will concede that he’s the worst sort of sleaze bag, that maybe no other human being on the face of the earth is worse. But that cuts both ways. If he’s so rotten, and he is, why is Cellini associating with him?
I do think it’s a close case. It’ll depend on how the jury interprets the recorded phone conversations between Cellini and the worst guy in the world.
By the way, two governors thought so highly of this scumbag that they appointed him to important state agencies. But this is Illinois, so they probably thought he was an appropriate person to hold the public trust.
- A Citizen - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 4:52 pm:
If the Feds don’t have the Honest Services ambiguous Card to play, they don’t seem to be able to prove their case. When they lost this charge on Rezcko they should have dropped the Cellini charge.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 5:00 pm:
If I were a juror, after learning much more than I care to know about Stuart Levine, I think I could break one of two ways:
One, Levine is such a (I think decorum prevents this word), that I wouldn’t believe a word he said about anyone.
Two, if a big macher like Cellini is spending all this time on the phone dealing with Levine and his schemes, he’s in it up to his neck.
As always, jury instructions will be critical.
A wildcard in this could be the testimony that Webb elicited from Levine that his brain is so scrambled after years of abusing high-powered drugs that anything he says is suspect. The dude can’t even remember what years he served on TRS.
To paraphrase Steve Stone, let that be a lesson for all you young hustlers out there. Don’t do what Levine did. Once worth $70 million, big man on campus, now the lowest of the low with nothing.
- Quinn T. Sential - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 5:44 pm:
Anyone get a peek at the defense witness list? Any chance that Jim Ryan is on that list?
What if he were to be called to testify about his lifelong close relationship with Levine, how despite being a close friend, never knew about his “secret life”, his duplicitous and deceitful nature, and his corrupt ways? could that in some way exhonorate Cellini’s inability to see through what Levine was doing with respect to the “illegal activity”, and as result be perceived as a dupe for Levine in this situation?
This again could be bolstered by Rosenberg’s testimony that Cellini never asked him for anything, and as a result there can not be a direct attempt at extortion.
- Springfieldwatcher - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 6:37 pm:
Well you 47th ward youmight want to look at the record, Cellini invesment group had the highest rate of return for TRS 13.5% can’t do that well at the bank. Let’s get the facts right.
- Springfieldwatcher - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 6:44 pm:
Rich
you surprize me your facts are usually very
good Cellini’s investements were the best 13.5% is good in anyone’s book. Facts say it all
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 6:46 pm:
Where, exactly, did I say they weren’t good?
- nino brown - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 7:34 pm:
good one.
- Larry Mullholland - Wednesday, Oct 19, 11 @ 11:30 am:
So if I understand this correctly; Cellini is being charge for conspiracy to committe fraud, having never asked for the money, never confirmed the message was delivered to a guy (Rosenberg) who previously (allegedly) agreed to pay a bribe, Cellini wasn’t aware of any bribe schemes, later suggested the money be given to Rosenberg, all while trying to ensure personal access to TRS investments decisions while returning the best return on those very investments. Providing a greater return than any TRS investment. How much $$ has been spent on this case so far?