* With all the weird, busy craziness happening right now, I just finally noticed this story from yesterday…
Nine jurors voted in favor of acquittal on the four counts involving Robert Blagojevich and three voted to convict, Grover said.
“I’m further resolved to hear it was a 9 to 3 result in my favor,” Robert Blagojevich said today. “I’m an innocent man. I’ve done nothing wrong. The majority of the jury thought that was the case.”
Prosecutors told jurors that Robert was a victim of circumstance but they also said he knew his brother was trying to reap a personal profit from appointing a successor to Barack Obama in the Senate. And they say Robert is responsible because he was the only friend left that was willing to help the former governor implement his schemes. But [juror John Grover] said most of the jurors didn’t buy that argument.
JULIE BLAGOJEVICH: I just burst out crying and that man lifted my spirits with what he said. He did. He did.
ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH: She broke down with happiness and joy because we were listening to news accounts how the jury lined up on certain counts and it wasn’t really clear how it related to me.
But Grover told the Sun-Times that 9 of the jurors wanted to acquit the older Blagojevich. Robert says that validates their legal strategy for the second go around.
ROBERT: That’s not in any way a welcoming prospect, but what are we going to do? I’ve got no choice. I’m not going to plea to something that I didn’t do. And so I’m stuck and, you know, my family and I will figure it out.
DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett said, “If I were (U.S. Attorney) Patrick Fitzgerald, I would play hardball and consider charging Patti Blagojevich.
“Clearly they (the defense) used her and the children as a vehicle to get sympathy,” he added. “Their PR tour was designed and planned to put him in the best light possible. He’s now a convicted felon. So, it won’t work the second time around.”
There was disappointment from Republican Judy Baar Topinka who lost the 2006 general election to Rod Blagojevich. She called the former governor a “bad man” and cannot believe the jury deliberated so long to find him guilty on just one count. […]
When asked if Republicans will get a boost since the Blagojevich problems hasn’t gone away, she said, “They were only too happy to recount George Ryan to us, he was convicted of 18 counts. He was penny ante compared to this guy.” [Emphasis added.]
* The Question: Who was the worse criminal, George or Rod? Explain.
We’re not talking about governing abilities here. And we’re not necessarily talking about the number of convictions, since Blagojevich’s ordeal is far from over. I’m simply asking your opinion on who you think was the worse criminal.
Of particular concern, several jurors said Wednesday, was the lone holdout on numerous counts that would have convicted Blagojevich of trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. John Grover, 52, a juror from Joliet, said he grew so frustrated after three days of deliberating on the same charge that he yelled at the woman who refused to join the other 11 in agreeing to convict.
“I gave her a piece of my mind,” Grover said. “If it wasn’t for that one lady, we’d have had him convicted on probably 80 percent of (the indictment).”
Grover considered going to the judge to tell him that the female juror was deliberating in bad faith, but he felt that would do no good. […]
Stephen Wlodek, of Bartlett, said it bothered him that after the verdict, the former governor and his defense team claimed the prosecution failed to make its case.
“In a way, they didn’t prove it to one person,” he said. “I just felt a little slighted by that. It gave the impression to the residents of the state that this jury was deadlocked right down the middle when we weren’t.”
Mr. Grover probably should’ve gone to the judge. Even if it didn’t work, at least the higher-ups would’ve been notified that there was a serious problem.
Sources tell CBS 2 News that the holdout juror is Jo Ann Chiakulas, a retired state employee. She used to work for the Illinois Department of Public Health, had been a director of teen counseling for the Chicago Urban League and once handed out campaign literature for a relative who ran for public office.
Coincidentally, the Chicago Urban League was once headed by Cheryle Jackson, a former Blagojevich press secretary, although it appears Chiakulas left the Urban League several years before Jackson became the league’s president. […]
The holdout juror seemed to stand firm no matter how hard her fellow jurors argued.
“It just surprised, shocked all of us I think that someone would have such a different opinion than ourselves,” said Parker.
* And, if true, this revelation from Fox Chicago is not a good thing…
FOX Chicago News reported that it is likely to be juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying since early july that she would find Blagojevich not guilty. [Emphasis added.]
Yikes.
* Meanwhile, some jurors are apparently complaining about media contacts…
The Clerk of court has just sent out this release, on behalf of U.S. District Judge James Zagel.
“It has come to the Court’s attention that certain jurors in the Blagojevich trial are calling and complaining about numerous phone calls from the media asking for interviews and visiting their homes. The United States Marshal has advised the jurors to call 911 to report the incidents.
Please keep in mind that some of these jurors simply do not wish to talk, and if they have not agreed to talk with you, we ask that you respect their privacy.”
The cops can’t do much about reporters doing their jobs.
On one hand, the criminal justice system randomly picked them to serve. They didn’t ask for the spotlight, and they deserve to resume their private lives once they complete their service.
On the other hand, the 12 jurors in Blagojevich’s case deliberated one of Illinois’ most historic cases, which began with the pre-dawn arrest of a sitting governor pulled from his bed sheets by FBI agents. Of 24 criminal counts the federal government splashed on Blagojevich’s rap sheet, jurors returned just one guilty verdict - on quite possibly the meekest charge of the batch.
In some respects, aren’t jurors obligated in a broader, historical context to lend transparency to the proceedings? To answer basic questions? To set the record straight?
Everyone - the public, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judge, the defendants - wants to understand the factors that played into their decision, particularly when U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is vowing to retry the case.
As a news gathering organization, we are compelled to ferret out the best sources for every story we cover, every day, year in and year out. We expect our reporters to act responsibly and respectfully in pursuit of the truth, and never advocate harassing or stalking anyone.
The story, post verdict, is quite simply the jury: What was said, what presented problems, who were the holdouts?
The residents of this state funded this expensive and drawn out drama, and they have every right to learn what it was like to deliberate the fate of our former top elected state official for the past 14 days.
We don’t ask these questions to improve our health. The media doesn’t exist simply to annoy jurors on high-profile cases.
It is our duty to ask the questions that the public cannot, simply because they have jobs and kids and obligations and perhaps cannot devote their lives to asking what they want to know.
That’s our job, and we take it seriously.
So we find it incredulous that the U.S. marshal feels that possibly tying up emergency phone lines is an appropriate response to media inquires.
* Roundup…
* Mitchell: Blame feds — not jurors — for deadlock
Democrats spent their day at the Illinois State Fair Wednesday rehashing the talking points they’ll be using in the fall election campaigns in the wake of ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s unresolved federal corruption charges.
It’s going to feature heavy doses of “We did our job to get rid of Blagojevich and try to stop it from happening again,” along with smatterings of legislative accomplishments like curbs on predatory lending, utility rate relief and public pension reforms.
But House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, who is also chairman of the state Democratic Party, bluntly outlined to Democratic party leaders at the Crowne Plaza Hotel the challenges ahead.
“We all know that there’s a huge scandal hanging over our heads called the former governor,” Madigan said. “We all know that. It’s right and proper for us to ask how shall we go forward, because the opposition will not let us forget the former governor.”
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said Blagojevich’s tenure as governor was so rocky, voters won’t necessarily link his behavior to all Democrats.
“Madigan wouldn’t even talk to him for years,” said Cullerton.
“I’m just really glad he’s not the governor anymore,” Cullerton added.
It was part of an emerging Democratic strategy: Portray Blagojevich as a freelancer who lied to his fellow Democrats even as he lied to the FBI. Remind voters at every turn that it was a Democratic-led Legislature that impeached him. Make the case that he is more akin to imprisoned fellow ex-Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, than he is with today’s Democrats.
“The Republican Party doesn’t have anything to talk about,” Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn said as he arrived at one of the related Springfield party events Wednesday, referencing Ryan. “George Ryan is in jail, Rod Blagojevich is awaiting sentencing, and I’m here to clean it up.”
But Quinn was Blagojevich’s lieutenant governor, replacing him in January 2009, so he may be especially vulnerable to the continuing fallout from the case as he seeks a full term in November.
Asked about his one-time public statements vouching for Blagojevich’s integrity, Quinn harkened to the one criminal count on which Blagojevich was convicted: “Rod Blagojevich lied to me, he lied to the FBI, he lied to the people of Illinois.”
Democrats said they hope to soften the effect of the Blagojevich scandal by talking about pocketbook issues.
They promised to bring more jobs to Illinois and criticized Republicans for wanting to lower the minimum wage, opposing a federal aid package for schools and fighting an extension of unemployment benefits. They mentioned legislative accomplishments like approving a statewide public works program and curtailing government pension costs.
There was little mention of the jobs Illinois has lost under Democratic leadership, the state’s massive budget crisis or the income tax increase Quinn wants to pass if he wins the election.
That was the other huge elephant in the room. Because of the big Blagojevich news, they could more easily gloss over that one.
There were some awkward moments Wednesday such as when Cullerton was railing against Republican candidate for governor State Sen. Bill Brady, for, among other things, paying no federal or state income taxes this year and voting against the capital bill after voting for the projects it funded.
“Bill got a little confused,” Cullerton said. “He voted for the projects. He just didn’t vote for the funding. He says he’s against taxes. He’s against taxes. He didn’t pay any last year.”
A few feet from Cullerton, Giannoulias, who also paid no taxes last year, looked at the ground. By the time Quinn got up to complain about Brady paying no taxes, Giannoulias had left the stage with Sen. Dick Durbin for a state fly-around to convince voters Giannoulias’ economic plan beats Kirk’s.
Oops.
*** UPDATE *** I almost forgot the other elephant at the fair. Former Senate President Emil Jones showed up. Gov. Quinn lavished praised on him from the podium. Turns out, Jones is hinting at a mayoral bid…
Chicago - Former State Senate President Emil Jones is telling political insiders he may run for mayor next year, even if Mayor Daley is in the race, FOX Chicago News has learned.
Political Editor Mike Flannery asked Jones about the report at Democrats Day at the Illinois State Fair.
“I wasn’t thinking about it, it comes up,” Jones said. “I enjoy what I’m doing now. …[People] have come to me several times you know but again, I enjoy what I’m doing presently.”
When asked how he responds to those who ask him to run, Jones said, “It sounds good, but my wife won’t let me do that, I don’t think.”
Yeah. Listen to your wife. She’s right.
* The Governor’s Day media roundup shows it was all about Blagojevich…
* Dems Talk Verdict, Election at Ill. State Fair Governor’s Day
* There is so much wrong with this commentary that I don’t quite know where to begin…
We don’t need to spend $25 million on a face-saving do-over for Patrick Fitzgerald. The next trial will probably last twice as long as this one, as Fitzgerald calls in witnesses he neglected to cross-examine the first time around — partly because he didn’t realize Blagojevich wouldn’t put up a defense, leaving him with half a case.
We can also do without a retrial because it will give Rod Blagojevich another six months to repeat his wearying claims of innocence. Maybe he wants that, but the rest of Illinois doesn’t.
It wasn’t a total defeat for the government: they got Blagojevich on one count. It wasn’t a total defeat for Blagojevich: he can say he was never convicted of selling the Senate seat. Maybe Fitzgerald wants a rematch for vindication, and Blagojevich wants one so he can get more attention. But Illinois doesn’t want a rematch. We just want to put the Blagojevich years behind us.
$25 million just for the retrial? What credible person is saying that outside of Sam Adam, Jr.? Also, I got news for you, Blagojevich clearly showed yesterday that he’s not gonna keep his big yap shut. A trial, at least, will force him to stay off the airwaves for a while, giving us a respite, no matter how brief.
And who says Illinois doesn’t want a retrial? Our infamous commenter Bill most surely doesn’t, but he’s not exactly representative of the state at large. Sheesh, what a goofy mess.
Fitzgerald’s view was — and remains — that Blagojevich shouldn’t get a pass just because he was as lousy a schemer as he was a governor.
And that seems exactly right to us. […]
A couple of hours after the jury’s verdict was read, Blagojevich’s lead attorney, Sam Adams Jr., ripped into the prosecutors for declaring they would retry the case. Adams asked, “Is this worth it?”
To which we say again: You bet. Elvis has not left the building.
Blagojevich and his brother, Robert, were exonerated of nothing, and Illinois remains too crooked a state for the feds to start looking the other way now.
Admittedly, Blagojevich has already been a gift to reform in Illinois. In the wake of his arrest, the state Legislature was shamed into passing a host of bills designed to promote a cleaner and more transparent government and politics. Illinois now has tighter state procurement laws, stronger freedom of information laws, pension board reforms and stricter limits on campaign contributions.
But only by prosecuting public corruption to the fullest extent of the law, retrials and all, can Illinois one day hope to arrive in that happy land of honest government.
We very much anticipate that second trial. The government’s accusations of racketeering and conspiracy are too serious to go unresolved. We trust that another jury will tell the people of Illinois whether the state’s only impeached and ousted governor is guilty or innocent of more than one felony.
Blagojevich offered his opinion on that question after jurors offered their verdict: “This is a persecution!”
No, Governor, this is a prosecution. And we’re thankful that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his team were swift in assuring citizens that they would take their case to a second group of jurors.
Judge Zagel, never one to dally, could move as early as next Thursday, Aug. 26, to set a date for jury selection to begin. Good for him. The sooner all of us know whether Rod Blagojevich’s criminal record stops with one federal felony, the sooner all of us can concur that justice has been served.
And pretty much every other sane person outside Blagojevich’s inner circle.
* And speaking of goofy arguments, more than a few people have criticized Patrick Fitzgerald for not waiting until Blagojevich sold the US Senate seat before moving in. This is a fairly decent counter-argument…
His backers said that if Fitzgerald had waited to arrest the governor until Blagojevich carried through with an alleged plan to appoint U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., to Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat in exchange for a sizable donation, it would have created a constitutional crisis.
“What should he have done?” former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer said. “Wait for him to sell the seat? It would have been a disaster. The arrest was not only proper, it was necessary.”
My own opinion is that Fitz was worried that Blagojevich was busily concocting an alibi. The Tribune reported the week before his arrest that the feds had the governor on wiretaps. Blagojevich knew the net was about to drop, so he started undoing things. If they had waited, he most likely would’ve appointed anybody but JJJ.
I will say this, though, and it might surprise you. I would almost rather have seen the Blagojevich jury fail to reach a verdict on any counts than to convict him only of the chicken-bleep lying to a federal agent charge.
We certainly should have an expectation that our elected officials would tell the truth to the FBI, and there are times when their failure to do so deserves punishment, as when George Ryan tried to throw the agents off his scent by lying about how he paid a state contractor for use of his Jamaican vacation home.
That was hardly the case with Blagojevich. Here is the false statement on which he was convicted: “Rod Blagojevich does not track, or want to know, who contributes to him or how much they are contributing to him.”
As many witnesses testified and wiretaps confirmed, Blagojevich obviously did track his campaign contributions. In fact, he monitored them quite closely.
But here’s the problem: There’s nothing particularly wrong with a politician keeping track of their campaign donations. It’s certainly not illegal. In fact, he was in his rights to sit there at his desk in the governor’s office and make fund-raising calls on his cell phone.
Were federal agents thrown off the track, or was their investigation impeded in any way when Blagojevich was stupid enough to tell them such a lie?
No way. They probably just said to themselves: “Gotcha!”
And remember the false statements were made in March 2005, more than three years before the wiretaps.
Fitz should’ve busted him before the 2006 election and saved us a lot of trouble.
A juror in the corruption trial of Rod Blagojevich says the panel was deadlocked 11-1 in favor of convicting the former Illinois governor of trying to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat.
Juror Erik Sarnello of Itasca, Ill., said the panel was deadlocked 11-1 in favor of convicting Blagojevich of trying to auction off the Senate seat. He said one woman on the panel “just didn’t see what we all saw.” The 21-year-old Sarnello said the counts involving the Senate seat were “the most obvious.”
[Juror Stephen Wlodek] and the other two jurors disagreed on the exact number of counts in which the jury eventually voted 11-1 to convict, they did agree on this: On at least some of the most serious counts, the overwhelming sentiment was Blagojevich was not just a politician blowing off steam in conversations recorded by the FBI in which he said the power to name a senator was “(expletive) golden” and that he wasn’t going to give it up “for (expletive) nothing.” […]
But [juror Erik Sarnello] and Wlodek told the AP that after three weeks, it was clear one juror, a woman they wouldn’t name, would not be swayed.
“She just didn’t see it like we all did,” Sarnello said. “At a certain point there was no changing. … You can’t make somebody see something they don’t see.”
While some votes were split 7-5, 6-6 or 9-3, the most explosive of the charges — that Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat — came down to a single holdout vote, jurors said.
That one holdout — a woman whom her colleagues declined to single out — felt she had not gotten the “clear-cut evidence” she needed to convict, Sarnello said.
“Say it was a murder trial — she wanted the video,” Sarnello said. “She wanted to hear [Blagojevich] say, ‘I’ll give you this for that.’ . . . For some people, it was clear. Some people heard that. But for some, it wasn’t clear.'’
She sounds an awful lot like the lone holdout in George Ryan’s trial. That woman was removed by the judge after it was reported that she hadn’t told the truth about her criminal record during the selection process. No such luck this time around.
Sarnello addressed the question of why the jury Tuesday asked for a copy of the oath they took at the start of deliberations. Some jurors felt one of the jurors was not deliberating in good faith. “Some people felt that they were deliberating not under what the law told us to do,” he said.
“What they were looking at wasn’t what we were supposed to be looking at based on what the judge gave us as a set of rules,” Sarnello said.
It’s probably safe to assume that the lone holdout was the target of that action. Yep. She sounds more and more like Ryan’s friendly juror with every revelation.
* Meanwhile, remember that jury note from last week which claimed they had agreed on two counts and were deadlocked on the rest? It turns out, the transcript of Bradley Tusk’s testimony, which the jury requested this week, convinced some jurors to switch their guilty votes to not guilty…
The entire jury had been prepared to convict Blagojevich on the bribery charge that dealt with the ex-governor trying to shake down then-U.S. Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, Wlodek said.
But reviewing testimony from former deputy governor Bradley Tusk on Monday made all the difference for certain jurors, he said.
“Reading the testimony swayed two to three jurors to go from guilty to not guilty,” Wlodek said. “I think it just came down to the testimony of the witness. For them, it wasn’t there - they felt it didn’t prove their case.”
Sarnello, a sophomore at College of DuPage studying criminal justice, said the main problem with the prosecution’s case was that it was all over the place.
“It confused people,” he said. “They didn’t follow a timeline. They jumped around.” […]
Wlodek described the jury’s deliberations as methodical, with the foreman assigning each juror a specific job. Wlodek’s job, for example, was to review the hours of recorded conversations that the government used as a primary piece of evidence against Blagojevich.
Fitzgerald, who is anything but a politician, used his own awesome power in this case with too heavy a hand. And so Blagojevich wasn’t hit with a federal indictment but a veritable Mack truck of complicated and redundant charges.
The feds are accustomed to winning. They wear it, too often, as a righteous entitlement. There is value in this loss.
* Alexi Giannoulias’ reaction to the Blagojevich verdict arrived late yesterday, so many of you may not have seen it…
“Today, the jury found Rod Blagojevich guilty for lying, and on November 2nd, the voters of Illinois will reject Mark Kirk for lying. The people of Illinois deserve leaders they can trust.”
That was, by far, the most pointedly political reaction of the day. Mark Kirk’s react was more muted and generic, for instance…
“This is a sad day for Illinois. Rod Blagojevich disgraced our state and deserved the full weight of justice. For the sake of our economic future, the citizens of Illinois need to turn the page from Rod Blagojevich and the team he brought to power by electing thoughtful independent leaders who will restore integrity to our state.”
Since few people saw Giannoulias’ statement, I doubt it will make much of an impact beyond these electronic pages, but I’m curious what you think of it.
*** UPDATE *** OK, I apparently hadn’t seen all the reacts. Get a load of this one from the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, the same guy who said he probably wouldn’t “make political hay” out of the verdict…
“I fully support U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald’s decision to seek a retrial of Rod Blagojevich. Let’s be clear, Rod Blagojevich isn’t concerned about the use of taxpayer money; he is concerned about the use of Rod Blagojevich’s money to mount another high-priced defense.
“Well, Rod should be worried. With Broadway Bank closed, I’m not really sure where he’s going to find a bank willing to loan millions to a convicted felon.”
