*** UPDATED x1 *** The perils of secrecy
Friday, Nov 11, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Federal judges in Chicago corruption trials have taken to concealing jurors’ names from the media. It’s been pretty much the standard procedure since the media discovered that some George Ryan jurors hadn’t told the truth on their questionnaires.
I have long argued that this is a mistake. Yes, jurors are private citizens, but they are also performing a public act by sitting in judgement of a defendant. And now we have a major consequence of that undemocratic secrecy rule…
Court officials acknowledged Thursday that information revealed by the Tribune appears to show that a member of the federal jury that convicted Springfield power broker William Cellini concealed two felony convictions.
Attorneys for Cellini said the information may be used in seeking to overturn last week’s verdict. […]
Federal law generally disqualifies convicted felons from serving on juries.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** From the US Attorney’s office…
An article in today’s Chicago Tribune states that ‘Federal law generally disqualifies felons from serving on juries.’ This statement is off the mark. Federal law disqualifies persons who have been convicted of felonies from serving on juries only so long as their ‘civil rights have not been restored.’ Under Illinois law, civil rights are automatically restored upon the ‘completion of any sentence of imprisonment or upon discharge from probation, conditional discharge or periodic imprisonment.’ Thus, a person who has completed his or her sentence on a felony conviction is not disqualified from serving on a federal jury.
We decline to comment on facts specific to the Cellini case because it is appropriate to reserve our comments for the courtroom on matters that could be the subject of litigation. In general, however, federal law appropriately provides great respect for a jury’s verdict, and holds that it should not be lightly disturbed.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 9:28 am:
If a felony convictions bars one from serving has a juror, how on earth would Blago ever get a trial before a jury of his peers?
- Ahoy - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 9:48 am:
So, how do we think it affects the outcome?
- Anonymous - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 9:52 am:
There should be mandatory prison time for a juror who lies about felony convictions. We’re not talking about something like jaywalking which could be forgotten.
- Phocion - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 9:55 am:
Seems if the law prohibits jurors with felonies, the courts should just run criminal background checks on jurors before they’re seated. Big problem for this juror is that she outright lied to the judge when he asked her if she had a felony record. Could be fertile grounds for retrial.
- Elo Kiddies - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:00 am:
Both sides had access to the names and addresses, and either could have raised objections during jury selection. Is it wrong that the juror lied? Sure. But even if the media didn’t catch it before hand, the US Atty and Dan Webb both had chances to point it out.
- wordslinger - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:01 am:
Why in the world would you lie to a judge to get ON a jury?
- D.P. Gumby - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:04 am:
Juror misconduct undercuts the legitimacy and credibility of the jury verdict. This is why one has alternates in case anything happens to a juror or a juror is disqualified. Plus, any juror w/ a felony is considered more vulnerable to outside influence.
- Joe - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:08 am:
@Elo - I don’t think the names were given out beforehand, not to the media anyway.
- Robert - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:10 am:
I believe the benefits of free vetting by the media exceed privacy concerns, especially since the media generally avoids printing personal details of individual jurors unless a juror does something wrong.
- mokenavince - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:11 am:
The Feds like you to think Chicago is so crooked
that jurors might get paidoff or bumped off. Just
the same old rap about Capone and the mob. The Feds are no more efficient than the rest of us.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:13 am:
This lying felon isn’t the only just one vote on the panel. This person may also have influenced others on the panel during their secret deliberations. RETRIAL.
- Wensicia - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:26 am:
Phocion is right, the courts should be running criminal background checks on potential jurors before they’re called. How much will this cost the state if forced to re-try the case? Holding the juror responsible won’t cover the expense.
- GMatts - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:28 am:
If the jury system is vunerable to corruption, which history tells us it certainly can be, then an undetected felon on the jury , could potentially be a benefit for the convicted - Retrial is preferable to a sentencing.
- Ken in Aurora - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:33 am:
Opinion from someone without a legal background: this would have been more of a problem if the juror in question had voted to acquit.
- Nieva - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:44 am:
I would think an appeal would be forthcoming on just this issue. And I think the feds will be stuck with the bill on this one. A trial like this costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why would they not vett a jury on any dealings with the judical system.
- amalia - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:51 am:
what prevents Federal prosecutors from doing a background check on jurors? isn’t that what is done by State prosecutors? read that Fed judges can decide if they want to run background checks on jurors. why did Zagel not conduct background checks on these jurors?
- Aristotle - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:51 am:
Everyone lies about something always. This is not going anywhere, unless the defense can show an undisclosed bias in favor of the prosecution. Being a convicted felon does not make someone pro-prosecution.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 10:54 am:
In fairness to this juror, let’s all acknowledge the possibility that after years of abusing crack cocaine and booze, it would be easy to forget spending 44 days in county jail in 2008. I mean, that was like, what, three years ago man.
Given the record, it’s also likely that this juror didn’t understand what felony meant when the judge asked the question. “Convicted of a felony? No, I never did that. I was only convicted of smoking crack and aggravated DUI your honor.”
Hard to see how this doesn’t force a retrial. Also, has anyone reported on why the first juror was dismissed for a conflict? That’s an interesting story too I bet.
- Coach - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:27 am:
From Webb’s statement, as reported in the Sun-Times: “The two most important counts that were not guilty should not be thrown out because they would fall under the double-jeopardy clause.”
So, the guilty verdict must be tossed because the juror served illegally, yet the verdict relative to the two not-guilty counts must stand? That’s some logic.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:30 am:
===That’s some logic.===
No, that’s the Constitution. Read it sometime.
- Coach - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:33 am:
Well, if the jury’s verdict is tainted, how is jury’s verdict on the two counts that favor the defense not tainted? It’s one jury.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:39 am:
You can’t be tried again after you’re found not guilty. That’s why.
- soccermom - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:45 am:
But if it wasn’t a legit jury, did jeopardy really attach? If a jury is not legally entitled to reach a true guilty verdict, then how was Cellini in jeopardy? If there was no jeopardy, then no double jeopardy, right?
- wordslinger - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:49 am:
Rich, I don’t know if it would apply in this case, but there is precedent for tainted proceedings resulting in acquittal paving the way for a second trial on the same charge.
That would be Outfit hitman Harry Aleman, who was found not guilty of murder in a bench trial by the bribed Judge Frank Wilson. Later, based on testimony of the fix in Operation Gambat, Cook County States Attorney Jack O’Malley was able to re-indict Aleman for the murder and he was found guilty.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:54 am:
Yeah, because the defendant bribed the jury. There’s no indication that the defense did anything untoward here.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:57 am:
On second thought, I give up. I think I need a nap.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:57 am:
- Why in the world would you lie to a judge to get ON a jury? -
Two felonies might make it hard to find steady work. Good old Cellini, showing us that the 1% really are job creators…
- Thoughts... - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 11:58 am:
Torn. You don’t have a choice when called for jury service and thus, don’t choose to be in the public eye. If there was something embarassing but not disqualifying in the juror’s past, it could come out - so the justice system is supposed to be fair for the defendant but for the jurors it doesn’t matter?
I don’t know, but I can’t imagine it’d be too terribly hard for the US Atty’s office to run background checks on every potential juror (or better yet, run them before notices are sent out - they’d even save money on postage that way). They do have access to law enforcement resources, right?
- Left Leaner - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 12:21 pm:
There should be consequences in place for lying on your juror questionnaire similar to committing perjury. A juror is determining the fate of someone’s life, just like someone testifying.
- D.P. Gumby - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 12:35 pm:
Consider: How would a convicted felon on a jury measure the credibility of the testimony of other felons…such as Levine…and argue/influence other jurors?
- Patrick McDonough - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
Cellini and all these other guys are so concerned about jurors keeping their past private. Seems Cellini made millions keeping his life very, very private. I did not hear a peep about his dealings until lately. It is a two way street where I come from. Peace and love.
- Esteban - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
I don’t know this for a fact but I would bet that
prospective jurors are told on the questionaire that they are answering the questions “under penalty of perjury”.
- Coach - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
=== Federal law disqualifies persons who have been convicted of felonies from serving on juries only so long as their ‘civil rights have not been restored.’ ===
If that statement from the feds is true, then the Trib’s assertion is more than “off the mark” - it’s flat wrong, or, at the least, lacking critical context that would undermine the force of the story.
Typical, though I’d be shocked to see the Trib walk back its story.
- Not So Quick . . . - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 2:21 pm:
“Plus, any juror w/ a felony is considered more vulnerable to outside influence.”
I’ve always heard that persons convicted of felonies are unable to think for themselves, and that golf is an acronym for Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden. That’s why I will never offer one gainful employment, and always golf only with men.
Yes, the juror should have disclosed. No, convicted felons don’t always do so when they should - looking past the question is sometimes automatic for them. There are abundant reasons for that.
Did it influence the outcome? Not at all likely. If a felon is unable to think for him or herself, then how on earth would one convince a third party to act in a particular way (without his or her gun to help, that is).
I don’t think there were any guns allowed, and Cellini needs his punishment for the activities he was proven responsible for.
- Esteban - Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 2:56 pm:
Both the prosecution and the defense were denied the right to exlude this juror for being a convicted felon, which one side or the other might have done had they known of her criminal record.