Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Lauzen says he’s thinking about congressional bid
Next Post: States struggling to assess budget damage from federal debt ceiling deal
Posted in:
* Rod Blagojevich’s sentencing hearing will start October 6th. The Sun-Times reports that Blagojevich plans to testify. For his sake, I certainly hope his lawyer’s comments are not a preview of that testimony…
Blagojevich was “a good, honest governor who tried to help the people of Illinois,” Sorosky said. “He cared about the ordinary guy.”
Unrepentant testimony like that could add more years to his sentence.
* This won’t help him much, either…
In Blagojevich’s case, sentencing at the hands of Judge James Zagel will also come on the heels of a 158-page motion, where the former governor and his lawyers argued that Zagel had his “thumb on the scales of justice” and that the judge’s rulings skewed heavily in favor of the prosecution.
“The motion basically states that we believe that many of Gov. Blagojevich’s constitutional rights were violated at trial, and that therefore he should receive a new trial,” Sorosky said.
Indeed, Blagojevich and his lawyers said categorically that Zagel had reneged on a promise to let Blagojevich testify to his own good intent. In his motion for a new trial, Blagojevich filed an affidavit stating that had he known he would not be allowed to make such claims, he never would have taken the stand.
“His defense to these charges is that he was operating in good faith at all times,” said attorney Lauren Kaeseberg. “And he should have been able to testify to that effect, tell the jury that he operated under good faith and the reasons that he believed he was operating in good faith.”
“And he wasn’t able to do that, and we believe that was not fair.”
* The hearing could last two days…
The sentencing hearing could last two days, U.S. District Judge James Zagel said in setting the sentencing date, depending on the number of witnesses Blagojevich’s lawyers call to testify to his character and his accomplishments as governor.
That list of character witnesses can’t be very long. And since the disastrous fiscal impact of his gubernatorial reign will be felt for years to come, those who testify about his “accomplishments as governor” could be violating their oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:28 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Lauzen says he’s thinking about congressional bid
Next Post: States struggling to assess budget damage from federal debt ceiling deal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m not expert, but it seems odd that the trial judge is deciding whether the defense motion is valid. Wouldn’t some other “objective” person be a better judge?
Comment by tubbfan Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:39 pm
Bill Holland would be an excellent person to testify about Blago’s “accomplishments as governor.”
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:47 pm
“…fiscal impact of his gubernatorial rein…”
Should be gubernatorial “reign”, though there is a good pun in the spelling as published.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:49 pm
I can think of another Bill who will testify on Rod’s behalf.
Comment by PaGo Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:50 pm
so was the defense motion thrown out? i don’t see much mention of it in the articles i’ve read…
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 2:56 pm
Enstien said IQ has it’s limits, stupidity
has no such limits. So long Rod.
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 3:00 pm
==Blagojevich was “a good, honest governor who tried to help the people of Illinois,” Sorosky said. “He cared about the ordinary guy.”==
If the jury didn’t buy this, what makes them think the judge will sympathize? Save it for the appeal. Do you suppose Zagel will let him stay out on bond during the appeal after Blago’s lawyers accused him of being unfair and biased towards the prosecution during the trial?
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 3:09 pm
==Blagojevich was “a good, honest governor who tried to help the people of Illinois,” Sorosky said. “He cared about the ordinary guy.”==
Obviously Blago’s attorney is an out of stater or never read a newspaper…
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 3:36 pm
When Blago goes to Prison, can we get him one of those masks that Hannibal Lecter wore in “Silence of the Lambs” just to prevent him from talking?
If that won’t work, I would suggest buying the prison guards noise cancelling headphones.
Comment by Ghost of John Brown Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 3:44 pm
A post-trial motion is a pre-requisite to filing an appeal and is presented to the trial judge. Don’t know the statistics, but they must be rarely granted and certainly won’t be here.
Comment by Liz Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 3:59 pm
Capt Fax
Let’s get the full list of “characters” out in the open
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 4:05 pm
I’ll testify that Blago is a “Character”.
As far as people that will stand up for Blago, I am positive his close friend and confidant Jay Hoffman will be right up there in front.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 7:39 pm
They’ve been goading Zagel for a while, I assume, to try to get him to blow so they could use it on appeal.
The wheel grinds slowly, but very fine.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 8:53 pm
I think Judge Zagel should look to Blago’s own words about Mongo the steer:
When reporters asked Governor Blagojevich about the controversy, he responded half-jokingly, “If we discover that someone is cheating, whether they be human beings or cows, they’re going to pay a price.”
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 1, 11 @ 9:58 pm
Every society needs a scapegoat or a boogeyman to blame it’s problems on. Blago was it for our state.
Comment by Justica O ! Tuesday, Aug 2, 11 @ 5:42 am
defense motion is still under consideration by Zagel. It will be denied. as to this from tubbfan “I’m not expert, but it seems odd that the trial judge is deciding whether the defense motion is valid.” This is not a claim of bias asking the Judge to step aside and allow another Judge to do the sentencing, nor would they likely have specific facts to back up such an assertion. Even if they did our system would have this Judge himself decide his own purported bias.
This motion claims the Judge’s rulings [1] on law were in error or [2] on evidence were against the defense in situations (a) where the law supports an opposite ruling, or (b) an earlier ruling by the Judge led the defense to make its case a certain way (e.g. put defendant on the stand) expecting later rulings to be consistent - but they were not.
Comment by 21law Tuesday, Aug 2, 11 @ 4:31 pm