Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** Natasha Korecki has just reported that Bill Cellini will not testify on his own behalf.
Apparently, Cellini’s lawyer is more confident in his case than people like myself.
* After yesterday’s very damaging testimony, he may have no choice but to take the stand…
Attorneys have raised the possibility that an Illinois powerbroker accused of conspiring to shake down the Oscar-winning producer of “Million Dollar Baby” could take the stand in his own defense.
William Cellini’s attorney told Judge James Zagel the millionaire businessman will make a final decision by the end of Friday. Prosecutor Chris Niewoehner told Zagel he’d been told it was likely Cellini would take the stand.
The danger in testifying, of course, is that if he testifies and is found guilty his punishment could be more severe and his chances of winning any appeals are diminished.
* As I told you yesterday, Tom Rosenberg essentially testified on the stand that Cellini did, indeed, deliver a message from Stu Levine that he’d better pony up or lose his Teachers Retirement System business. That’s all prosecutors really needed to prove. Cellini’s legal team attempted to do some damage control during cross examination…
Cellini’s lawyer, Terry Gillespie, focused on Rosenberg’s relationship with Cellini and Levine in his cross-examination. While U.S. District Judge James Zagel disallowed many of his questions, Gillespie attempted to get across the defense’s contention that Cellini was only helping Rosenberg, a friend of 30 years, at Rosenberg’s request.
Rosenberg testified that he called Levine’s lawyer, former Chicago Ald. Ed Vrdolyak, to ask if Levine was holding up the investment. Rosenberg testified that he believed Vrdolyak when he said Levine wasn’t involved.
Levine testified this week that Vrdolyak was to share with him, Kelly and Rezko, a $2 million bribe they were plotting to extort from Rosenberg.
“I didn’t actually think it was Stuart Levine,” Rosenberg said regarding the call to Vrdolyak, “but I wanted to make sure.
* The prosecution rested its case yesterday. Judge Zagel denied a defense motion for a directed verdict today…
Cellini’s attorney, Dan Webb, criticized the government’s case as weak and called its star witness, Stuart Levine: “the single most non-credible witness I’ve seen in my career.” […]
Webb also argued that the victim of an alleged extortion scheme, Tom Rosenberg, testified he never was asked by Cellini for a political contribution or anything of value.
But prosecutors said the conspiracy was clear: Cellini agreed with Levine and others that there would be state action on a state pension board in exchange for a campaign contribution to then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel said the defense was “railing against charges that were not made.”
* Let’s go to the ScribbleLive machine. BlackBerry users can click here. Everybody else just follow along below…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Did the defense ever ask the $64,000 question of why Rosenberg was testifying under a grant of immunity?
Was there some question about Rosenberg’s previous deals at TRS which could have become a problem and discredited Rosenberg as a witness were it reveled?
It’s easy to be charming when you have no skin in the game.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 12:27 pm
QuinnTSential; Rosenberg is a gazillionaire, he probably doesn’t chew gum without consulting his lawyer. and no lawyer would let his client testify without a safety net. I didn’t hear him say anything that would have implicated him in any “wrong doing” any way. It would have been difficult for the defense to accuse him as well without making things worse for their own client. Natasha reported that Webb said, that Levine was the least credible witness he has ever encountered in his career, pretty funny. Wonder if the jury is curious as to why Rezko isn’t testifying.
Comment by kermit Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 12:58 pm
He testified under a grant of immunity.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:02 pm
Kermit he had a grant of immunity; and that is the nexus of the question, why was a grant of immunity necessary?
Whether he is a gazillinoaire or not; he was testifying for the prosecution, and as a result he could have simply been subpeonaed and require to testify. If that was the case, then he could take the 5th, but then he was the alleged victim, and they knew they had to:
A: present a victim other than retired teachers
B: counter-act the stench of Levine and his deal.
So the fact remains; why did Rosenberg have to have a grant of immunity, if he was the innocent victim?
Did he testify in the previous trial?
Did he have immunity then?
Did he get immunity now; as a fail safe to contradictory testimony now and a potential perjury problem?
Was he not as pure as the driven snow in his previous dealings with TRS?
If so, what were his past transgreessions that may have required immunity?
Did he perhaps pay bribes before to someone other than Rezko and Kelly to get business in the first place?
I just thin it’s odd they granted him immunity, and yet I am not aware of anyone pointing that out and drawing out why.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:16 pm
He did testify at the Rezko trial and I believe it was under a ‘grant of immunity’…I remember reading that Rosenberg had dealings with Allison Davis where Rosenberg warned Davis of Tony Rezko. Ironically, Allison Davis was recommended by Rezko to Blagojevich for a State Board and partnered up with Rezko on several deals.
Comment by kermit Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:39 pm
So the question still stands; if he was the innocent victim, then why the grant of immunity?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:43 pm
So the question still stands; if he was the innocent victim, then why the grant of immunity?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:43 pm
Sorry for the unintentional double-header
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:44 pm
===then why the grant of immunity? ===
In order to prosecute Bill Cellini, silly. C’mon, man, it’s the feds.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:47 pm
Sorry I am not seeing the crime here. If Rich comes to me and ask why he is not getting something and I tell him it is because they are waiting for his contibution, where is the crime? He asked I answered?
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:51 pm
I understand that; but then my point is, I do not recall reading that the defense counsel drew out of the witness that he was testifying under a grant of immunity.
If I am a juror, and I believe the alleged “innocent victim” required a grant of immunity, then I would discredit that witnesses testimony. I would think that is relevant, but I haven’t seen anywhere that the appropriate question about the witness testimony was asked and answered to elicit that testimony.
Why not? Was that forbidden?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:53 pm
The feds allege an illegal conspiracy, and that Cellini’s part in that conspiracy was to send Rosenberg a message from Levine. Rosenberg testified that he received that message. Ergo…
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:53 pm
I do not know for sure if they got that in, or if they were even allowed to.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:55 pm
But I think I recall that they did get it in with Levine.
So if they were able to get it asked and answered for Levine; an alleged co-conspirator, why wouldn’t the same question be able to be assked of the alleged “innocent victim”.
It would certainly seem to tilt the scales towards reasonable doubt.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 1:58 pm
You’re not seeing the crime here? It has been said before, this was a stick-up, albeit a very polite one, where the robber hands back your now-empty wallet and your watch, and leaves you bus fare to get home, but he’s take the contents of your wallet all the same.
They tampered with a government program and altered it’s cash flow to suit their private illegal purposes. That Rosenberg still made a few million at the reduced rate is immaterial. They stopped him from doing over 20 million in business with the state, in order to get a bribe.
I think Cellini testifying is an indication the defense thinks they are going to lose unless he goes on the stand and charms the jury with some kind of alternate view of the deal and players that exonerates Cellini. That’s a very risky game, as Rod found out.
Comment by Newsclown Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:06 pm
QTS,
Remember, Rosenberg didn’t complain to the feds. If anything, he’s a reluctant victim, and he’d rather not be testifying at all, especially against his friend Cellini.
Most victims call the police. In this instance, it was the police (FBI) calling Rosenberg. It kind of makes you wonder why, doesn’t it?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:09 pm
===They tampered with a government program and altered it’s cash flow to suit their private illegal purposes. ===
No, they didn’t.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:15 pm
47th,
Rosenberg’s motive in threatening to blow the whistle was to get the brick lifted off the pending allocation. When he got what he wanted, he was not about to break into jail by shining the spotlight how TRS may have operated for some time in a collegial and collaborative nudge and a wink sort of way.
I think that if the defense could point out that Rosenberg was testifying under a grant of immunity, without having to further inquire why, they could taint Rosenberg, and give jurors reasonable doubt.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:18 pm
===No, they didn’t.===
OK, “they” might not be the right word, but Levine admitted that did. And in this trial he is saying Cellini was in on it too. But Levine is a liar, so who knows?
And QTS, even if the defense got the jury to hear Rosenberg had immunity, I’m sure the prosecution would make it equally clear that it was not in exchange for anything other than his testimony. It’s not like he was a jail house snitch getting a reduced sentence. It was either immunity or the 5th.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:29 pm
The grant of immunity could be to protect him from a charge of failing to report a crime. It is unlikely that the feds would do that, but it never hurts to be cautious when dealing with them.
Comment by Pelon Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:34 pm
I think it is too late for the immunity thing to be brought to the jury now.
Comment by Newsclown Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 2:42 pm
I think Webb can still bring the immunity up in closing arguments if he wants to; it’s public record.
Conspiracy is so slippery; it’s all going to depend on what the jury instructions say to define the crime.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 3:01 pm
Checking the old reliable “contributors” database, it appears that Capri Capital and its various affiliates was not shy about “donating”; including to such stellar organizations as:
Capri Capital Advisors LLC
1201 N. Clark
Chicago, IL 60610 $5,000.00
9/22/2003 Individual Contribution
Hispanic Democratic Org
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 3:31 pm
Rich- maybe not- if Cellini testifies and is found guilty, his exposure increases dramatically to a longer sentence- they are simply rolling the dice- it is typically a bad idea for a dedendant to testify in a federal criminal case under the sentencing guideline which is what drives the decision
Comment by Sue Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 3:36 pm
1. Cellini was never going to testify. Way too dangerous. Webb was just yanking the prosecutors’ chains.
2. While I haven’t seen a report from the corutroom on the matter here, it is routine that defense lawyers can cross-examine witnesses as to any inducement they received for testifying, as it shows bias. To take the sting out of the cross, prosecutors routinely disclose this through their questioning on direct examination.
3. Just because something is a public record doesn’t mean it can be referred to in closing argument; it has to be introduced into evidence.
4. Judge Zagel denied the motion to dismiss the case because there is enough evidence of the charged crime. The question boils down to whether the jury will agree that Cellini was part of an agreement to hold up Rosenberg’s allocation unless he gave a campaign contribution.
You can call that attempted extortion and/or conspiracy. There is evidence of a quid pro quo. The jury will decide if there is sufficient evidence to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 4:24 pm
anon- what ever happened to the charge(s) that Cellini facilitated or assisted Levine’s breach of Honest Services- assuming that charge sticks, it seems pretty clear he at least did that- Levine as a government official soliciting kickbacks violated what is left of Honest Services and Cellini clearly seems to have been in the middle of that
Comment by Sue Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 5:00 pm
Honest services is much more difficult to prove these days since the Supreme Court stepped in.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 21, 11 @ 5:21 pm