Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Special election all but certain
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 - 11:23 am *** Sam Adam, Jr.’s closing statement is proceeding just about as we’d expect…
Adam’s statement is being continuously objected to by gov’t, and Zagel is sustaining. Zagel tells him to be “more precise.”
*** UPDATE 2 - 11:28 am *** More from Sam, Jr…
Sam Adam Jr. cranks up the volume right from the start, telling jurors in his closing argument that he decided not to put Rod Blagojevich on the stand — despite his promise that he would — because the government didn’t prove its case against him.
It’s what he refers to as the “big pink elephant in the room.”
“I promised each and every single one of you that Rod was going to get up there and take the stand,” Adam says. And at opening statement I gave you my word and I meant every word of it,” he says. “I had no idea no idea that in two months of trial (the government) would prove nothing.”
He argues that the government proved the defense’s case — that Patti got paid for legitimate work she did for Tony Rezko, that “Rod didn’t take a dime,” that government witness Lon Monk pocketed envelopes of cash from Rezko.
*** UPDATE 3 - 11:49 am *** Buddy Holly?…
Sam Adam Jr. briefly focuses on testimony of Bob Greenlee, Blago’s former deputy governor.
“He looked like Tom Arnold and Buddy Holly had a baby … remember those glasses?” Adam says, recalling Greenlee’s thick plastic frames. A female juror in front row crosses her arms and can’t suppress a smile.
“He took more than $100,000 a year to advise this man … and what does he come in here and tell you? Ridiculousness,” Adam says. “The most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard before: ‘Yes, I said those things, yes, I gave you encouragement… you know why? Because I was trying to disagree by agreeing.’ Who are you kidding?”
Adam is referring to Greenlee’s testimony that he told the ex-governor what he wanted to hear - that placating his boss was often easier than arguing with him.
*** UPDATE 4 - 12:11 pm *** SAJ states the obvious…
Ripping apart prosecution witnesses, Adam says to #Blagojevich, “You’ve got absolutely horrible judgment on people.”
Also, make sure to head to the Sun-Times’ Blago Blog for some pretty funny stuff.
*** UPDATE 5 - 12:18 pm *** Yikes…
18 times: Number of objections from prosecution on SAJr’s closing argument in defense of #Blagojevich
* After all the hooplah late yesterday when Sam Adam, Jr. vowed to risk a contempt of court citation and jail time for insisting on pointing to the absence of Tony Rezko and other witnesses the prosecution didn’t call, we have this short report from inside this morning’s hearing…
Zagel to #Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Jr: “To put you at ease, Mr. Adam, jail is not in the picture and never was in the picture.”
And…
Zagel to #Blagojevich atty Sam Jr: “I don’t know where they lock up lawyers who make objectionable statements, but we don’t do it here.”
* Background…
Prosecutors had mentioned some of those witnesses, including convicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko, in their closing argument, and Adam argued the defense should be able to do the same.
“Your honor, I have a man here that is fighting for his life,” Adam said, turning red and raising his hands.
Zagel responded: “You will follow that order because if you don’t follow that order you will be in contempt of court.”
“I’m willing to go to jail on this,” Adam shot back.
Zagel said he was giving Adam the night to rework his closing arguments, given his “profound misunderstanding of legal rules.” He said Adam could designate another defense attorney to give the closing if he couldn’t follow the rules.
More…
“The jury has to decide based on evidence,” Zagel ruled, “and the fact that someone wasn’t called isn’t evidence.”
Adam raised objections, as the lack of testimony was expected to be a cornerstone of his closing to cast doubts on the government case against disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich and his fundraiser brother Robert Blagojevich.
“You will not argue it. You will argue evidence,” Zagel insisted.
He said other legal jurisdictions might permit the tactic where if “the law’s against you (and) the evidence is against you, then attack the opposing lawyer,” but federal court and his courtroom do not.
“I can’t follow your order,” Adam said.
“You will follow that order,” Zagel replied. “Because if you don’t, you’ll be in contempt of court.”
* Possible motives for the Adam outburst…
Presuming they weren’t the signs of a meltdown, experts say Adam Jr.’s histrionics at the end of court Monday ultimately proved to be an unwieldy way of accomplishing two simple goals:
1. Stall for time so that he could give his entire closing argument on the same day.
2. Lay the groundwork for an appeal.
* Roundup…
* Blagojevich trial: Day 28 Closings or contempt?
* Blagojevich trial: Judge, attorney clash; jury sent home
* Dull, odd day in Blagojevich trial ends in drama
* Adam Jr., Zagel showdown a long time coming
* Blagojevich lawyer may be muzzled
* Judge Zagel, Blagojevich Attorney Clash Again
* Kadner: Will Adam risk contempt in Defense of Blago?
* Sneed: Berliant snuck into Blagojevich trial
* Blagojevich trial: Blagojevich daughters join parents in the courthouse for closing arguments
* Bring your daughters to court day
* Trial becomes family outing
* Why did they bring the kids to court?
* Roeper: Why would Blagojevich put kids in line of fire?
* Kass: Blagojevich uses kids for sympathy from jury
* Zorn: Really, Rod and Patti? The kids?
* Undecided Blagojevich Jurors Might Be Annoyed by Family
* Walking jurors through the Blagojevich maze
* Can Rod Muster 12 More Votes?
* Blagojevich trial: Ex-governor expressionless as government begins closing statement
* Blagojevich trial: What the prosecution is trying to do
* Blagojevich Prosecution: “Talking is the Crime”
* Prosecutors on case: “The law doesn’t require you to be a successful crook, it just requires you to be a crook.”
* Prosecutor in closing argument: Crimes didn’t have to be successful for ex-governor to be guilty
* Prosecutor: Case is “simple” — governor can’t exchange state action for personal benefit. “You do — that’s a bribe.”
* Prosecutor in closing argument: “In politics, money is power”
* Spotlight on brother
* Prosecutor to jury: Robert Blagojevich lied to you; you heard him “dancing and dodging”
* Tiptoeing around the profanity
* Government wraps up closing argument; Urges jury to find Blagojevich brothers guilty on all counts
* Final message: Don’t miss the forest for the trees
* Robert Blagojevich was an innocent bystander, lawyer says
* Defense attorney: Robert Blagojevich a “person of honor”
* Lawyer: Robert just didn’t want Rod to get in trouble
* Robert Blagojevich attorney: You can’t get convicted for talking
* Robert Blagojevich attorney to jury: You heard the government prove my client is innocent
* Robert Blagojevich closing ends
* Blagojevich jurors’ names stay under wraps
* Blagojevich’s Elvis statue may be auctioned off
* Blago’s Stuff Heads to Auction
* Blagojevich storage items in Arlington Hts. may be auctioned
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Special election all but certain
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If Rod reads this blog, he’s certainly happiest about the link noting that Berliant got into the courtroom. That appeals to Rod’s inner celebrity.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:33 am
Just another episode of the insane clown posse. At least this means the jury should get their instructions by mid-afternoon and start deliberating. A verdict by Thursday?
Comment by Stooges Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:35 am
Seems to me Zagel walked into Sam Adam Jr.’s trap.
Especially when you start interferring with defense’s closing argument, the jury starts getting the feeling there’s not a fair shake.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:48 am
The jury wasn’t present during this whole spat. So it’s not likely they are aware of the conflict.
… And of course he’s not going to jail. This defense has been nothing but anticlimaxes from day one. Good luck on that appeal buddy.
Comment by MKA1985 Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:54 am
If you don’t control a goof like Adams, he will make all sorts of improper arguements, possible causing the jury to aquit based on non-issues. You can’t appeal an aquittal no matter how unfairly it was obtained. Judge Zagel is doing his job and doing it well.
Comment by girllawyer Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:54 am
could the defense figured out that with the G’s closing the headlines woul dbe all about them, and with some hurors reading newspapers or seeing the news, did he make the specitical to change the headlines?
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:56 am
laying the groundwork for an appeal. argument will be Zagel abused his discretion.
Comment by Cedra Crenshaw vs. The Machine Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:56 am
Call Me! - Blondie, enhanced by VanillaMan
Promise me your contribution, baby
Promise me your vote
Illinois is an auction, darling
So show me your banknote!
I wasn’t Governor very long
But I sold this state out for a song!
Call me on the line!
Call me call me any, any time!
Call me, c’mon make a deal!
Call me, Illinois’ a steal!
Call me!
Tony Rezko took the cash
That I then split with Kelly
In the Mansion was a stash
Hidden back in the alley
I’ll never get enough, cuz
I need shirts with real French cuffs
Call me, cuz I’m trusty!
I got testicular virility!
Call me, it’ll be a thrill!
So call me, Children’s Hospital!
Call me!
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere, anyway
Anytime, anyplace, anywhere any day, anyway
Call me, or my wife, c’mon!
Help us with our political strife
Call me in Springfield!
For a price, I’ll support a repeal
Call me!
Patti is a realtor, baby!
Making a Rezko salary
With her help, we’re not too shabby!
Designer furs and jewelry!
Would you like help with that law?
All you have to do is call!
Call me, Mr. Senator-to-be!
With my appointment, you will see!
Call me, Congressman Jesse Junior
Wouldn’t you love a Senate tenure!
Call me!
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:17 am
I think jr. was simply caught of guard. IMHO when they decided to not put on a case one of the cornerstones was to point at the non-evience in the case, i.e. that they failed to call a witness.
FYI this would bakfire horribly anyway. Under federal law, you can only comment about the failure to call a witness i that witness was pecularily within the power of only one party to call, and the other side couldnot call them.
So Adams first has to show he could not call these witnesses himself as a threshold before he can comment about them not being called.
Id adams makes the comment, the Judge can rectify the error by telling the Jury it was in the Defense power to call this witness, so the jury should disregard the comment from counsel. see the mahone case.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:44 am
I’m starting to think this Adam Jr. is full of bluster.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:44 am
Hard to believe “Call Me” is 30 years old already.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:03 am
governor can’t exchange state action for personal benefit. “You do — that’s a bribe.”
What was exchanged for what, I missed it?
Comment by Bob Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:13 am
get this over with…PLEASE!!! If Blago walks, our judicial system is broken, or politics as usual in IL needs to be tightened up…real reform will never happen of course…
Comment by Mr. Cow Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:15 am
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/showdown-or-showtime-will-blago-lawyer-defy-judge.html
Tribune is reporting that Judge Zagel is threating Sam Jr that he will cut his closing arguement off and speak to the jury if he keeps spouting objectionable arguements.
Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:52 am
Bribing is a verb - an action. Bribing is illegal.
A bribe is a noun designating that bribing took place. That is also illegal.
An unsucessful bribe involved bribing. That is illegal.
It doesn’t have to be successful to be illegal.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:10 pm
I’m getting a bad feeling about this…
Comment by b-non Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:12 pm
I’m also getting a bad feeling, if he walks I have no faith in our Judicial system
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:15 pm
*I’m getting a bad feeling about this…*
Because Jr. is a blowhard? No way. After he is done with his stand-up routine, the prosecution will remind the jury that he said nothing of substance, and the jury instructions will do the same.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:15 pm
I hate to say it but juries are typically filled with absolute morons who are attracted to shows and then they get sympathy. That’s why I have no faith in jury trials
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:17 pm
A big PINK elephant in the room?
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:21 pm
Publius, that’s awfully darned elitist and even downright undemocratic of you.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:22 pm
I’m not a lawyer. That certain witnesses weren’t called is a fact, and I guess I don’t see why an attorney can’t point out a fact in argument.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:27 pm
On a normal week I have full faith in juries, but after reading many stories this week about juries letting guilty people walk free I’ve lost faith in them for awhile.
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:27 pm
By getting a million objections by the judge, Adam may be trying to get the judge to slip up on one done in error (because the judge is only human and is probably getting pissed, this is a real possibility). If he can get the judge to make one mistake, we have a mistrial.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:28 pm
Adam Jr. is doing exactly what a good lawyer should, i.e. explain the facts in such a way that the jury understands and appreciates counsel’s understanding of them. About right now I am sure at least one juror is saying, “you know what?! This whole trial is absurd! How can anyone have takin’ this guy (blago) serious?”
Comment by GetOverIt Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:29 pm
“I don’t see why an attorney can’t point out a fact in an argument”
Because that “fact” involves presumptions, which can never be proven, regarding how an uncalled witness would have testified. Mentioning that Rezko and Levine were not called presumes that if they had been called they would have bolstered the defense.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:30 pm
I have a question for Rich and the rest of the site, how long do you think deliberations are going to last?
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:32 pm
wordslinger: Starting to think? Have you been asleep the last several weeks?
Full of bluster and dangerously ignorant of the law as well.
Comment by Mr. Cow Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:34 pm
*About right now I am sure at least one juror is saying, “you know what?! This whole trial is absurd! How can anyone have takin’ this guy (blago) serious?”*
That is probably true, and if the jury was immediately sent off to deliberate without any instructions after Jr finishes, I would be worried. But they are not. I am confident that the prosecution and the sobering instructions will ground the jurors.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:35 pm
*wordslinger: Starting to think? Have you been asleep the last several weeks?*
I think his statement was in the vein of “I have a hunch the sun will set tonight.”
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:37 pm
SS, it isn’t about mentioning who isn’t there in the context of the evidence. It is about arguing that the person isn’t there because the government didn’t want their testimony to be heard (ie it favored the other party). Legally, the inference is only permitted to be drawn when one side prevented the other from being able to present the witness. That happens, for example, where one side has the ability to produce the witness (such as an employee) but the other side can’t (such as if the person lives outside the US and can’t be subpeonaed).
So Adams can say that Rezko was involved, but can’t claim that Rezko would have testified in a way that benefitted Blago or hurt the government.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:40 pm
The jury is largely made up of people who don’t pay attention to current events and weren’t predisposed to an opinion on the case. Whatever the jury thinks about the case is likely to be different than what the news junkies here think so I’m pretty skeptical whenever someone comments about how sure they are what the jury is thinking, whether for or against.
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:44 pm
Publius@12:32 - I’ve heard a couple of legal pundits recently who said that as a rule of thumb figure one day of deliberation for each week of the trial. I have no idea if that’s true or close to it.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:47 pm
Adams Jr. is grasping a straws, he going to lose and he knows it.
The only person in the room who thinks he’s gonna walk is Rod.
Comment by Northside Bunker Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:00 pm
18 objections on closing argument? More lousy prosecution tactics. Why not just waive their arms saying “LISTEN TO HIM NOW. HE’S MAKING POINTS THAT HURT US.” Good lawyers avoid objections in closing. Good lawyers do things like laughing, messing around with notes, faking dozing off — anything to get the jury to look at you and not pay attention to the guy giving the closing. That’s different (and much more effective).
It really seems like Fitz sent in the B team on this one.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:13 pm
Skeeter - The Trib blog says that the majority of the objections were because the prosecution contended that Adam was misstating or distorting the evidence that had been presented. Good lawyers don’t let the opposition lie to the jury.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:24 pm
Skeeter,
There’s a strong argument for what you say in most cases, where an objection to one or two points will highlight those points. But when you’re dealing with a defense lawyer who’s trying to make a mockery of the courtroom (and whom you may be trying to set up for a contempt ruling), you’ve got to keep drawing the line. A reason these prosecutors are making the judgment call to object is to stop Adam from building a head of steam and gathering any force to his “argument.” Also, jurors almost always identify with the judge. Showing that the judge thinks the defense counsel is going way over the line, all the time, helps the prosecution. It likely outweighs the downsides normally present in objecting.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:26 pm
“Good lawyers don’t let the opposition lie to the jury.”
Depends on what the judge will let you get away with in making the objection. If the judge will let the attorney say “Objection, mis-stating the evidence. In fact, the witness said . . .” However, if the judge bars speaking objections and only allows “Objection, misstating the evidence” then you are doing no more than pointing out bad stuff for your side.
Plus, it should have been thoroughly covered before: “Jurors, when I’m doing, Mr. Adams is going to get in front of you and tell you a whole bunch of stuff. But you heard the evidence. Trust what you heard.” The jurors need to be conditioned to expect B.S. and when that B.S. comes, it should not be highlighted.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:31 pm
Skeeter, I totally get what you’re saying and actually agree with much of it.
But don’t forget, the Gov’t gets the last word. The “You heard the evidence” part, and the “Well, that was an interesting show…that has nothing to do with reality”…that will probably come in the rebuttal, if you ask me.
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:36 pm
No Cincinnatus, one mistake does not result in a mistrial. Or a reversal on appeal. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. Judges make mistakes all the time as do lawyers. That’s why the appellate courts distinguish between “harmless error” and “reversible error”.
Comment by girllawyer Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 3:03 pm
Thanks for the clarification, girllawyer. Beware, you’re now my go-to person for legal interpretation.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:43 pm
Schnorf you suport the chewbacca defense?
it is an irrelevant fact. That the FBI agenst did not wear grey ties is a fact, they didnt run any DNA tests on the money patti was paid, none of the investigators used the money they spent on this case to heal sick children….. there are lots of “facts”, but they are not evidence in the case or relevant to the case.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:36 pm