Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Holdout juror remains mum, but is identified

Posted in:

Illinois
Blagojevich Trial

* That lone holdout Blagojevich juror was a real problem for others…

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.

* CBS2 has identified the woman…

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.

* Kristen McQueary weighs in on whether reporters should leave jurors alone…

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 does the SouthtownStar…

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

* Some Blago jurors support retrial

* A New Trial Means a New Jury

* Jurors wanted to clear Robert Blagojevich

* Blagojevich juror: Robert Blagojevich shouldn’t be tried again

* Profanity for Obama? ‘Where I come from, that doesn’t happen

* Juror: Blago kids should’ve stayed home

* What the Blagojevich Jury Thinks

* Southland Blago jurors keep quiet on case

* ‘I’ve been on juries before, I’ve never had it this tough’

* Do it again, but without us, Blagojevich jurors say

* News-Sun: Retrial? Yes

* $25M-$30M for retrial? Hard to say

* Largest Cost of Retrial: Defending Blagojevich

* What should feds do differently next time in the Blagojevich case?

* Government Has Advantage in Retrial: Former Prosecutor

* Uncertainty surrounds Blagojevich retrial

* Does costly Blago retrial deter further corruption?

* Lawyers: Blago’s media blitz worked

* Blagojevich Seeking Out Media Opportunities

* Sneed: The Blago beat

* Foster: Rod dodges bullet

* Lipson: Jersey Shore politics in Illinois

* Hinz: Rod’s long legal road

* QC Times: Blagojevich conviction doesn’t change much

* Register Star: Corruption must end; Blago retrial necessary

* Herald-Review: Illinois faces more embarrassment

* News-Democrat: One and counting: The Blagojevich verdict

* Guilty count could cost Blago 5 years in jail

* Blago: No comment on retrial, conviction

* Newly-Convicted Blagojevich Takes Daughter to Camp

* Blagojevich does dad duty on day after verdict

* What’s next in USA v. Rod Blagojevich?

* Kadner: Ettinger vows to unveil whole Senate deal story

* Ch. 7 a ratings winner in coverage of verdict

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:14 am

Comments

last I looked, he ws being tried in AMERICA…I wanted him convicted too, but 12 peers could not agree. Get overt he jury bashing. The media needs to knock it off. She stood up for what she believed it. Good for her. The Suntimes Mary Mitchell has a good column today. Unless you get 12…11 doesn’t count. Fitzs gets a redo so stop the insults at the lone hold out.

Comment by Tom Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:20 am
If she was saying since July that she would not find him guilty, then she did not deliberate in good faith. Is it possible to reconvene the jury without her and bring in one of the subs? Too late now, of course, but couldn’t that have been done? I think something similar was done during the Ryan trial.

Comment by lincolnlover Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:22 am
Posted this yesterday …

re Juror 106 … if the media have identified her properly, she was not the Director at IDPH; she’s not listed as a former Director on the IDPH web site. From what I can find online, it appears she was named a “Special Assistant” in the fall of 1991 and was apparently still at IDPH in 2000 with a title of “Chief”.

Be interesting to know if she was still there when Blago took office and, if so, how long? Or did she take the 2002 ERI and never work with Blago? Anybody have Illinois Blue Books from 2003 & 2004 that might give us the answer?

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:24 am
If a juror in fact had conversations with anyone about the case during the trial, contrary to the judge’s order, and did not report the conversations to the court, she could potentially be prosecuted for contempt of court. This could develop into quite a story, if true.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:29 am
I’m pretty disturbed by this outing of the juror. Somebody referenced Bartman yesterday. How can a news station publicize a jurors name without their consent? I think, no matter what you think about this person’s decisions and motives, that this has the potential to open an awful floodgate for her personally and that’s not right.

Comment by Ace Laredo Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:31 am
I don’t know how her identity could have been kept secret….the trial was a public hearing and she sat in the open. And I don’t think all the curiousity is prurient.

I have no need to hear from her directly…maybe she had her reasons. But if there’s information out there that she pre-judged and couldn’t follow the judge’s instructions, I’d really like to know. Let’s hear more from that ’second-hand acquaintance’. If she felt she couldn’t deliberate fairly, she should have told the judge at the end of the trial. He could then have appointed one of the alternates.

The jury system only works if jurors are honest about their biases…that’s the reason for voir dire during jury selection. If I recall, several prospective jurors told the judge that they weren’t sure they could set aside their prior opinion of Blago. They were respectfully excused from service.

So, if she honestly and sincerly stuck to her ground, leave her alone. But if she was dishonest about her biases and her sole motive was to disrupt the proceeding, she did a lot of damage to the process and wasted the time of the other jurors time. We need a little more information to find out which. May never get it unfortuntately.

Comment by Park Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:46 am
The media always needs to walk a fine line between the public’s right to know, and an individual’s right to privacy or the government’s need for secrets. Most time the media does the right thing. It is those times that people feel a line was crossed that the media comes under some of its harshest criticisms, especially when polling data is on the side opposite the media. I hope someone soon polls on this juror’s dilemma, the results should be interesting.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:49 am
Cincinnatus recognizes an individual privacy right? Really?

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:52 am
I think I’ve seen this movie before.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:52 am
I totally agree with you Tom. We have a legal process in place for a reason. To now question jurors beliefs is wrong. She believed the defendant was not guilty on these counts. Why do we have to pry into her life now?? Scrutinize the job that she we chosen, not asked, chosen to do?? The media is on a witch hunt and I think we need to show some decency as U.S. citizens. Fitz gets to spin this in the media, and dirty up Blago even more (as if that were possible). All while we foot the bill, and avoid the real problems of our state. My only question why must we continue to clean up the messes of the past, instead of looking and moving forward?

Comment by Chicago Moderate Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:59 am
Well golly, Rich, why would you think no?

For instance, my abortion stance is on the side of the women to choose, if reasonable restrictions apply (e.g. partial birth abortion is horrific and should be banned). I also believe that abortions should not be publicly financed? Is my position for or against the individual?

Net neutrallity? Nope.

Forced purchase of ObamaCare? Nope.

Are these for or against individual liberties?

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 10:59 am
“why must we continue to clean up the messes of the past, instead of looking and moving forward”

What kind of message does that send to those moving forward?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:01 am
… Bartman …You are not going to compare a guy who got caught up in a single moment in time at a game of all things with someone who - possibly - allowed preconceived bias to render useless a government proceding that cost the taxpayers dozens of millions of dollars, are you?

Comment by Joe from Joliet Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:01 am
We taxpayers are going to be paying the bill for this retrial. How about common sense solution? Blago was convicted on one count, sentence him for that. He’s a convicted felon, losing his law license, already impeached and removed from office. Isn’t this enough? Then let’s move on to arrogant U.S. attorneys immediately announcing a retrial. Do any of you pundits think its fair that the prosecutors have unlimited resources to retry cases, while defendants can be bankrupted? I thought our judicial system was supposed to be fair. As long as the U.S. Attorneys want a retrial, they should pay for it out of their own budget, and give up their paychecks too (just like other federal employees are doing now). Then they should resign and get a job in the private sector where all of us regular taxpayers have to live on a budget. We can’t waste millions of other people’s money, in fact we would be fired for doing that.

Comment by Fed up taxpayer Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:05 am
I said yesterday I didn’t need to know her name/background, just her reasons. Now I’m questioning that.

If there is evidence that this juror did not act and/or deliberate in good faith, it’s the media’s job to uncover and report that. If this juror simply didn’t see what others saw in the jury room, she should be allowed to stay private. It’s about choices — if by all accounts she *chose* not to deliberate in faith, then she also chose to be the subject of public scrutiny.

Comment by Concerned Observer Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:09 am
@Fed up taxpayer:

You don’t make decisions on trials by looking at cost. That is just idiotic and you know it.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:10 am
Rich:

About the juror privacy issue . . . I saw in your comments yesterday that you said that jurors were public figures now. You are completely wrong. Sure, the media is going to want to know, especially in this case, what the heck went on. But being chosen for a jury doesn’t make you a public official with no right to privacy. If they don’t want to talk, so be it. I would go even further than the judge to say that if somebody made it clear they didn’t want to talk and reporters kept calling or showing up at their house then those reporters should be arrested for harassment.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:13 am
By the way, I distinguish my comments above from the need to investigate. If a juror or jurors were not deliberating in good faith then it should be investigated by everyone, including the media.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:15 am
I don’t think it a “witch hunt” to need to find out a few things. Like if this juror was truthful during voir dire and/or if she was really making pronouncements and discussing the case with acquaintances, against direct orders from the judge, while the trial was going on. Society’s trust in our legal system and the public’s acceptance of trial results hinges on the basic tenet of jurors honoring their oath and negotiating in good faith.

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:17 am
Fed Up Taxpayer,

The cost of the retrail to the government is low. They don’t have to do much in terms of preparation. The witnesses are known, the testimony for the large part is as well, and all the groundwork done for the original trial is still good. They just need to shuffle a few pieces.

The cost issue is a red herring. I don’t buy it.

I want Blago in the can for 15-20 years to serve as an example to the other crocked politicians who want to do really dumb things.

Comment by Logical Thinker Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:23 am
As far as the juror not deliberating in good faith, if the jury really believed that (and not just feeling sour grapes over no verdict), it was their duty to alert the Court. If the jury did not, I now have the first and only thing I would blame the jury for. They shirked their responsibility.

If a juror’s neighbor says the juror was talking out of school, why didn’t this good citizen go to the Feds during or after the trial? I suspect an Andy Warhol moment here.

Now that these allegations are out there, it is incumbent of the Feds to investigate the claims. If there investigation comes back negative, all those who pried into this will owe this juror an apology. If the allegations prove true, the media did its job.

We shall see.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:24 am
*their

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:26 am
People need to back off the juror. The judge should admonish the media not to contact jurors unless they contact the media first. This is a pending case and the judge still has jurisdiction. If he doesn’t get a handle on this he may have jurors in Blago v. Fitz II ask to be excused because they don’t want their life wrecked by the media.

We also don’t want to give Rod a great appeal because the media crucified the one hold out in the first trial so the message was to the second jury is convict or else.

Take it easy, her reasons are her reasons and we don’t have a right to know unless there is an accusation of improper conduct and to date there is none. This is what happens with the jury system, and flawed or not, it is still the fairest system ever developed in the history of the world. I suggest we back off and let the judicial system continue to work. I don’t want my rabid response to be Blago’s appeal.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:30 am
Hey, everything costs us taxpayers money, costs us millions whether the feds want to admit this. Notice how the U.S. attorney’s office (paid for by our tax dollars) refuses to issue any data on what their office spends every year. Who else on the planet can get away with that? The rest of us have to live on a budget and be held accountable for whatever bills we run up for our employers. We don’t get to redo every project that doesn’t work out and send bill to taxpayers. Remember Blago is broke, but he is still entitled to representation. Between lawyers and trial expenses, its going to be a lot. And we get to pay for this.

Comment by Fed up taxpayer Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:41 am
The verdict did not meet the expectations that were set by anyone. So that is the story. This hold-out juror became the new story. The longer she refuses to clarify why she voted the way she did, the longer all the jurors will have to face the Press.

Obviously the hold-out juror didn’t expect to create such a fuss, or didn’t care. The day the verdict was read - she needed to have revealed herself, blame the Prosecution for failing to convince her, and the story would have died.

The longer she hides now, the more it appears that she has something to hide and the greater the rumors and stories that swirl around trying to fill the vacuum her decision created.

I recommend that when fate shoves you into the spotlight, you should do whatever it takes to align yourself with everyone else so that it fades. That is, if you want your life back.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:54 am
That the U.S. Marshal would tell jurors to report the reporters to 911 for visiting and calling their homes is flat out wrong! Unless, of course, the reporters are breaking down their front doors or hiding in their back seats, none of which I can imagine, that is a major waste of 911 resources.

Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:54 am
I wonder if this woman is holding out for the best deal she can get for her public statements? Will we see her soon on Oprah?

As far as Blagojevich is concerned, nothing the other jurors are saying looks good for him, including bringing those poor kids into court. I’m hoping that will help keep his mouth shut until the next trial, just dreaming.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:05 pm
VM,

Perhaps she and her agent haven’t figured out how to leverage her vote for maximum gain. Wonder what the National Enquirer has offered for her story. Maybe Rich is in the running with a lucrative counteroffer.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:05 pm
Cheswick, I agree 100%. I thought the same thing. Being contacted by the media is NOT an emergency. And inconvenience, yes. An emergency, no.

Comment by Anonymous ZZZ Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Wensicia,

Obviously, we’ve both had our cynical pills today.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:07 pm
I think the U.S. Marshal’s office was telling the jurors “you’re no longer our job.” You don’t have too many Tommy Lee Jones and Joey Pants working out of that office.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:12 pm
=== She stood up for what she believed it. ===

um she was not supposed to stand up for her beliefs, she was supposed to follow the law whetehr she agreed or disagreed with it. I see no porblem questioning a juror who chose to diregard the jury charge to follow the law even if they did not agree with it.

To the contrary this juror appears to have gone into the case with a decision firmly fixed on the otucome, which means she lied during voir dire as well when asked about her ability to remain impartial, to follow the law etc.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:31 pm
==Obviously, we’ve both had our cynical pills today.==

Cincinnatus — between you and me, wanna bet if she’s hired an agent yet?

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:40 pm
An interesting out-of-state perspective on this fiasco.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437490986410482.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I have more reason to dislike Blago than most, but I am still troubled by Fitzgerald’s approach.

Comment by Vibes Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:43 pm
==Obviously, we’ve both had our cynical pills today.==

I’d check her campaign’s next disclosure statement, to see if any $25k donations were made right around this time.

Comment by Pat Robertson Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:48 pm
Anyone know who the office-seeking relative of the holdout juror is/was and what office the relative was seeking?

Comment by just wonderin Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:51 pm
With respect to the WSJ opinion article linked above, I don’t know who wrote it, or why,–but I quit reading after the sentence “Blagojevich may or may not be corrupt…”

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 12:55 pm
Wensicia,

She won’t answer my calls…

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:07 pm
If prosecutors were stupid enough to allow a former state social services employee from the Urban League during jury selection, they should only be blaming themselves for this outcome. Knowing her background, I am only surprised that the jury was not hung on all 24 counts.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:19 pm
How else does one control the media when they won’t go away?

Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:19 pm
Jim Burns made a terrific point on Chicago Tonight yesterday regarding this concern over the “cost” of the trial. The cost for the government is fixed. The US attorneys and FBI agents get paid either way. If they weren’t working on this case they would be working on something else. There is no additional cost to the government.

Comment by Wizard of Ozzie Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:48 pm
Tricky call here. On the one hand, if she violated her jury instructions, that’s bad and she really ought to be investigated by the media.

On the other hand, it looks all kinds of awful for any government investigation into the one juror who wanted to acquit Rod. Kind of a slight “Nudge nudge” there, to any future juror thinking of acquitting. Appearances count. And do we know she was the only juror who ever talked about the case, or had a strong inclination to lean one way or another, before the end of the trial? She may just be getting all the heat, because of the way she decided.

Probably the best thing is for the media to continue what it’s doing now, and investigate. Go First Amendment. But eventually, like Bartman, we should leave this woman in peace, and move on.

Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:51 pm
See the following interview with jury foreman James Matsumoto in AOLNews. at http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/foreman-james-matsumoto-holdout-blagojevich-juror-argued-politics-as-usual/19598384

Matsumoto, who voted guilty on many counts, attested to his belief in the good faith of the holdout juror: “She saw it as no crime was being committed, it was just talk, political talk. That was her position,” Matsumoto said. “All of us as jurors respected her position, her right to have that opinion.”

Matsumoto went on to say that the government’s case was too complex, and suggested the prosecution simplify the case on retrial.

Bottom line: The failure of this bungled prosecution rests squarely and solely in the hands of U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald and his office.

Comment by Quiet Sage Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 1:58 pm
Quiet Sage,

The fact that the jury foreman thought the holdout juror acted in good faith is a big development that people need to consider. Most probably she did.

I think a lot of people are transferring their disappointment on the verdict onto this woman, instead of putting 100% blame on the Feds as you astutely point out.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 2:24 pm
==e.g. partial birth abortion is horrific and should be banned==

I really hate when people say this. They obviously have no idea what they’re talking about. Late second or third trimester abortions are only done in cases where the fetus is already dead, is so malformed it won’t live after the birth, or giving the to the child will kill the mother. These procedures often happen after the happy couple have already picked out names or even have started putting a nursery together. They are as tragic as having a child die. Anyone who thinks otherwise really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 2:27 pm
just checked the state board of elections web site - a “James Chiakulas” was a Blago donor. Not sure if he is any relation to the holdout juror…

Comment by Robert Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 2:44 pm
Still amazes me what info can be found easily on the www. Here is a link to a wedding announcement for a bride whose parents are a Joann and James Chiakulas. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-10-14/features/9910140421_1_abbott-laboratories-abbott-park-weddings-and-engagements

Don’t know if its the juror and the donator or just a coincidence of names.

Comment by just wonderin Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:05 pm
Cheryl,

Let’s not re-litigate this here. Obviously, you don’t believe there should be any limits to abortion, and oppose the 2003 prohibition on the procedure when the child is still alive. Do not presume that others are misinformed, that assumption itself is misinformed.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:11 pm
Michelle Obama was the VP for Community External Affairs for the UofCHosp in 2005, when Lumpkin was on the Hosp Board, and Lumpkin is the former boss of the holdout juror on the jury deciding whether Barack Obama’s senate seat was being sold? WOW! 6 degrees of separation or do I smell a whiff of Chicago “eau de corruption”.

Comment by just wonderin Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:25 pm
There was a James Chiakulas from Chicago who donated to the Bflagojevich campaign in 2001-2002

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:38 pm
just wonderin-
I was just wonderin’ the same thing and I finally found the link:
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/burrridge/news/2616648,pioneer-press-chiakulas-081910-s1.article

Turns out Stacey is indeed her daughter with James C Chiakulas who died in a car accident last December. If you check out the State Board of Elections website, you will find that Mr. Chiakulas was a contributor to Blago on several different occasions. I believe they were divorced for some years, but it is quite interesting. . . (turns out that relative she claims to have helped out on a campaign may have been him too. . .according to his obit, he ran for the 9th Congressional District in the 1980s and for the 49th Ward alderman in 1991).

Comment by OT Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:40 pm
James also contributed to the 33rd Ward and to Citiznes for Mell around the time Blago was running for governor, according to the website.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:51 pm
I don’t understand how she ended up on that jury and why someone didn’t do their homework. It really didn’t take that long to connect the dots on her. She may have had nothing to do with Blago’s campaign, but the connections are there and it looks very bad.

Comment by OT Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:54 pm
OK, now comes the question, if said juror was the wife of a Blagojevich donor, was the defense aware of this? I’m sure the had extensive info on all the jurors.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:55 pm
This isn’t going to end well if this is indeed true.

Comment by Logical Thinker Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 3:59 pm
I’d be curious as to what questions she was asked and how she answered during the jury selection process.

Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:05 pm
So, are you saying that anyone who contributed to Rod (or to Rod’s political gubernatorial opponent) in either of the two elections should not have served on that jury? Or is there a dollar amount that makes it problematic? Is this a voir dire question? If so, better check out the rest of the jurors’ donations while you’re at it. OTOH, let’s not make up rules that do not exist.

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:17 pm
I just think it looks bad. I don’t want to speculate on whether she had any pre-existing bias going into this. . . she at least made him a felon. She will have to answer these questions for herself.

Comment by OT Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:27 pm
Potential jurors aren’t and can’t be asked every detail of their lives. They usually are asked general questions along the lines of “is there anything that would prevent you from being fair” but if they are less than honest or if they genuinely didn’t see something as a problem, it won’t come to light before they are chosen. And sometimes people knowingly lie. I’ve had jurors specifically deny any personal experience with the kind of crime being tried and then in deliberations hold out against a verdict citing their own personal experience with a siminal crime. It is an imperfect system.

Comment by girllawyer Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:30 pm
Sheesh. A similar crime.

Comment by girllawyer Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:33 pm
Kinda makes Zagel’s move, to keep the jurors identities confidential, like not such a good idea, if this pans out.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:39 pm
I agree with the “lone juror”. The government did not prove a SINGLE argument in the case. She was correct and I would have voted the exact same way she did. The evidence was not there to convict

Comment by matty Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 4:55 pm
looks like she was a bad juror for the prosecution. their
bad in checking.

also looks like the Adams think that they are still picking
a jury to acquit some poor criminal in a 26 st. fight cause
they left the Grateful Dead hanger on, Schindler, and the
librarian at WTTW on the jury. totall stupid.

makes one want to go to law school cause there’s lots
of errors to go around.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 7:27 pm
matty, how much did *you* donate to Blago’s campaign?

/joke

Comment by ben tej Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 7:29 pm
Wow. Nice detective work everyone.

And while I have nothing but respect for the jury foreman, a) he can’t read minds and b) he probably wouldn’t be out to say anything untoward about this juror in public even if he did personally think it. He strikes me as a classy guy.

Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 19, 10 @ 11:14 pm
I think this holdout juror looks very suspicious.

Comment by Gregor Friday, Aug 20, 10 @ 7:37 am