Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Friday Rolling Stones blogging
Next Post: Taking the fall and asking for money
Posted in:
I can’t help but wonder if this new revelation was tossed over the transom by either the prosecutors or the defense in order to get a mistrial
A federal judge launched an investigation into a juror in the George Ryan trial Thursday, hours after the Tribune reported to court officials that public records appear to show the man had a felony DUI conviction that he hid during jury selection.The revelation cast a shadow over the historic prosecution of the former governor and could potentially lead to a motion for a mistrial or form grounds for the juror’s dismissal with deliberations already under way.
Court records matching the suburban juror’s name and other identifying information show a conviction for aggravated drunken driving–a felony–while Ryan was secretary of state in 1995.
In a sworn questionnaire filled out by potential jurors before the trial’s start last September, the juror answered “no” when asked if he, a close friend or relative had ever been charged with or accused of a crime.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 10:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Friday Rolling Stones blogging
Next Post: Taking the fall and asking for money
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My question: why did the Chicago Tribune take this to the judge in the first place? Seems more out of motivation to sell newspapers rather than some grandiose notion of civic duty.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 10:36 am
Even if this proves significant, it won’t result in a mistrial but only the substitution of a juror with an alternate and a restart of deliberations, which might be a good thing based on reports of jury disharmony. Plus, I doubt that the defense is looking for a mistrial because Webb got away with a lot the first time that he won’t get the second time.
Comment by River Forest Tom Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 10:48 am
What happens to a trial if they use all the alternates and need more jurors?
Comment by DOWNSTATE Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 10:55 am
Does anybody know how the Tribune got ahold of jury info? I had know idea it was public.
I wonder how in anybody’s mind you can “restart” deliberations? Do they give the jurors a mind eraser? It’s tough enough for a juror to keep the pledge not to draw conclusions until the trial is over. How do you ask a juror to give up a conclusion once it’s been reached?
Yeah, I know it happened in “12 Angry Men,” but does it happen in real life?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:01 am
There’s no doubt in my mind that Webb found this info when they picked the jury and kept it in his pocket until now. Even with all the stuff he got into the trial, Faywell’s testimony can’t be overcome. Webb wants a do-over.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:07 am
Yeah, he really wants a do-over for another 6 months for free… Right.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:16 am
LOL… that last comment was even funnier when you know where it came from. My lips are sealed, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:18 am
Thanks, Rich. Love your work. I don’t profess to have any inside information, just to be clear.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:23 am
:)
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 11:28 am
At what point does Thompson and Webb get to claim George as a dependent?
Comment by frustrated GOP Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 1:25 pm
I guesss the G tossed the info to BigBlue and Capt Blog likes to call them
They gotta think 7 days of deliberations can’t make it good for their case
Comment by ReddByrd Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 1:29 pm
I think the trouble with the jurors boils down to one thing: They were overtaken by all of the charges and the completely complicated case that the prosecution put on without remembering that the jurors are not prosecutors nor lawyers but lamens people. They are lamens people who will not understand the case as the FEDS do. As such, to convict Ryan or any other politician, in the future, the FEDS should present clear cut and dry charges with evidence and witnesses to support the charges. Also, even if there are 22 counts or 22 charges, the FEDS should only charge the most provable or the charges that are not cirumstancial and then a 12 member jury would look at between 1, 2, or charges and the evidence that supports the charges and not 22 charges and the evidence or circumstancial evidence that supports the charges.
On FOX News this morning, a defense lawyer was interviewed and she explained that if the juror is dismissed, it is grounds for a mistrial and further in a mistrial all of the witnesses would be “impeached”. Now thats exactly what she said. If this is true, I believe that the FEDS would do best to bring new charges (if they are any) as oppossed to trying the same charges.
It all boils down to the 12 jurors. As with any other matter, it is hard to get 12 people from difference cultures and backgrounds to all collectively agree. This goes to the faults in our judicial system that whether you are innocent or guilty, your fate lies in the hands of 12 strangers who could be attracted to you or disattracted to you and could just simply say you’re innocent to save time and energy or could just say that you’re guilty for the same reasons.
And as was stated above, will Winston and Straun foot the bill for another 6 months?
Comment by ONE M.C.M.A.D Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 3:38 pm
If there is a mistrial, do you think the feds will retry the case?
Comment by Political Hack Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 4:29 pm
I was at the Dirksen Federal Building having lunch in the 2nd floor cafeteria yesterday (around 12:30 PM or a little later), and there was a really tense looking jury that got ushered into the cafeteria get lunch (from the South, not the normal North [elevator bank) entrance into the Cafeteria area) and then taken back to what appeared to be a separate eating area. I’m not sure if that was the Ryan jury, but the others I was there with indicated they thought it was - and it was a really pensive looking group. Did not look comfortable at all.
Comment by Making The Wheels Turn Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 5:00 pm
I agree that Webb has nothing to gain from spiking the case….while mistrials generally benefit the defense, I’d take it as a good sign that the jury still can’t reach agreement after eight days. Someone in that room sees reasonable doubt.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 5:49 pm
Attorneys that I am friends with are predicting mistrial, saying that the juror in question would have had too much say at this point.
But - their guess is as good as anyone elses.
I forgot to ask them if the juror would be prosecuted?
Comment by Shelbyville Friday, Mar 24, 06 @ 10:01 pm
Sees reasonable doubt????? Normally the longer a jury takes, the better for the defense, they have to go through each charge and review testimony etc…then determine a guilt or innocense. I agree, the “G-men” did not simplify this case, and when you cannot put one witness on the stand that sayes I heard or the Gov. told me to do x, y, and z, which is in violation of the criminal codes, pretty hard to get a conviction.
This mess all started by dirty employees getting caught doing unethical acts, and instead of taking their weight, they blamed their bosses. I was taking bribes to buy fundraising tickets, bulls&^%. But this is what the fesd wanted to hear, they did not look at evidence, they based this soley on acusations made by individuals who had their own rearends in a sling. But thats the game the “G” play, they think they have a better witness when their witness is under indictment.
Last time I checked it was not against the law to be a poor, non effective, pay no attention to what your subordinates are doing boss. Look at the current Gov., however claiming no knowledge doesn’t always get you a “not guilty” verdict.
Comment by dumb ol' country boy Saturday, Mar 25, 06 @ 5:14 am