Blagojevich files his appeal
Tuesday, Jul 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Lawyers for disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed a long-awaited appeal of his conviction and 14-year sentence late Monday, arguing that U.S. District Judge James Zagel’s “one-sided evidentiary rulings” favored prosecutors and that the stiff sentence he imposed was based on vague and speculative evidence.
The 91-page appeal, filed about an hour before a midnight deadline set by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, maintained that Zagel kept Blagojevich’s attorneys from rebutting cooperating government witnesses and pointing out potential biases in their testimony.
Jurors were also wrongly instructed about bribery and fraud laws and how they pertained to “political deal-making,” the appeal argued.
The lower court “misled the jury by failing to explain the legal distinction between campaign contributions and bribes,” the lawyers wrote.
* Sun-Times...
The appeal essentially rehashes arguments Blagojevich’s attorneys unsuccessfully made to Judge James Zagel and jurors in the run-up to and during his two trials, repeating Blagojevich’s claims that he was attempting to make a legitimate “political deal” when he offered to appoint President Obama’s choice for the Senate in return for a post inside Obama’s administration.
Had Blagojevich “not sought a political benefit in return, he would have done a disservice to all of his supporters,” Blagojevich’s attorneys wrote in their appeal, describing the attempted sale of the Senate seat as the “non-existent crime of attempted political horse-trading.”
Likewise Blagojevich’s appeal asserts that he never acted on an illegal offer to accept campaign donations in return for appointing disgraced former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to the Senate.
It argues Blagojevich’s convictions for shaking down a horse racing executive and a children’s hospital should also be tossed because “the government failed to prove an explicit quid pro quo agreement, as required under the law,” adding that the government misinterpreted a “false statement” he was convicted of making to the FBI.
* AP…
The appeal also points to what it says was a lack of evenhandedness by U.S. District Judge James Zagel throughout Blagojeivch’s two trials.
It alleges Zagel gave Blagojevich little choice but to testify at his retrial after repeatedly ruling arguments the defense viewed as crucial could only be broached by Blagojevich himself from the witness stand. Once on the stand, Zagel prohibited many of those statements, including Blagojevich’s attempt to tell jurors he believed at the time that his actions were legal, it contends.
“Had Blagojevich been permitted to present his good-faith defense, it would have been a powerful defense, likely to produce an acquittal,” his lawyers argue.
The appeal also blames Zagel for allowing a juror who allegedly expressed bias against Blagojevich to remain on the jury despite defense attorneys’ objections. The appeal only referred to the panelist as Juror No. 174, saying he said about Blagojevich during jury selection, “I just figured him, possibly, to be guilty.”
The appeal also raises longstanding claims that Zagel barred FBI wiretap evidence that might have aided the defense, that he sided overwhelmingly with prosecutors and that he miscalculated the appropriate prison term for Blagojevich.
The appeal itself is here.
Discuss.
- John Boch - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:23 am:
An appeal from Bloviating Blago?
Gee, here’s my surprised face. :-/
He’s got nothing but time to ponder these sorts of stuff. And of course, he’s innocent. (Chuckle, chuckle)
Thanks for the reminder to send him a card. I sent him a Christmas card, asking how he was adjusting to prison life. He didn’t reply. I guess he didn’t want to be pen pals.
- Big Paddy - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:24 am:
Good luck with this appeal (facetiously said, of course). Hot Rod is exactly where he belongs, in the hoosegow!
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:34 am:
What the hell took them so long to file this?
- one of the 35 - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:35 am:
This does not pass the “snicker test”.
- Downstater - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:37 am:
In the words of another famous political crook, Blago cries, “I am not a CROOK!”.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:43 am:
–What the hell took them so long to file this?–
You get what you pay for.
While the trials were going on, daily media exposure was good for business.
You don’t drum up business writing appeals at your desk.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:44 am:
This thing represents the biggest reach this side of Shaquille O’Neal.
The argument that politicians “horse-trade” jobs and the like legally is advanced in the brief by, among other things, Blago’s extensive reading of history and study of people like Teddy Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
He’s also arguing that the slam-bang opener to Trial 2 “You are a convicted liar, aren’t you, Mr. Blagojevich?” was both highly prejudicial and incorrect to the extent he has not exhausted his appeals on that conviction.
On that conviction, the whole thing comes down to Rod having a different definition of the word “track” when used as a verb than the FBI.
I could go on, but that’s all the Rod I can take. No wonder this came in under the wire last night.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:47 am:
“… failing to explain the legal distinction between campaign contributions and bribes …”
There’s a difference in Illinois?
/snark
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 10:54 am:
To quote Rich, “How can we miss you if you won’t go away?”
- kerfuffle - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:16 am:
His 15 minutes are all most up!
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:35 am:
It’s actually a short read:
1)Play
2)the
3)tapes
A piece of constitutional genius, says author, RB Rowling.
- Nosmo King - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:38 am:
Rod:
How can we miss you if you won’t go away. Well, on second thought, you did “go away”, but you get my drift.
- Mokenavince - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:46 am:
Even he deserves a fair shake. Something Rod never gave to anyone. I miss his show on WLS.
It would lull me to sleep.
- thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:48 am:
I love how there’s no hint of personal ethics. Not a “I shouldn’t have done it even if it wasn’t illegal” but that “It would have been a disservice to my supporters had I not done it and this is acceptable behavior”. You know what you did is a disservice to? Residents, voters, taxpayers…anyone that is affected by pay-to-play governance.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 11:50 am:
Say…where’s Bill to tell us how this appeal should win?
- foster brooks - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 12:35 pm:
His lawyers must be as lazy as he was waiting until the last hour to appeal.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 1:18 pm:
Not to the question of his guilt, but as to his appeal, it appears to me describe pretty accurately what I thought I saw during the trial
- LisleMike - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
Maybe the thought of his father-in-law possibly going to court in Joliet was imputus to get something moving, either to avoid seeing him in the prison where in he resides,or to be able to sit in court and gloat at him.
- lil' redhead - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
Aaaargh! Won’t he ever go away…….not in my lifetime, I guess.
- Loop Lady - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 3:43 pm:
@#$^÷×!
But I actually don’t want the taxpayers to pay for his incarceration for 14 years either…go Blago!!
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 4:08 pm:
===where’s Bill===
I think he’s laying low.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 5:34 pm:
schnorf: “it appears to me to describe pretty accurately what I saw during the trial”
Exactly.
Did the trial appear somewhat slanted toward the Feds? Yes
Will it be enough for a successful appeal of the conviction? No