Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Ald. Jackson files as independent delegate *** A caption contest and a campaign roundup
Next Post: This just in… Moody’s downgrades Illinois again - No change in S&P rating - S&P threatens future downgrade
Posted in:
* Oy…
A juror at the trial of convicted powerbroker William Cellini has stormed out of a Chicago federal courtroom yelling, “Leave me alone.” The outburst came Friday afternoon after a round of heated questioning from Cellini defense attorney Dan Webb.
Candy Chiles is being questioned at a hearing that was called after it was discovered she lied during jury selection. Chiles said she didn’t have any criminal convictions, but she pleaded guilty in the 1990s to drug possession charges and in 2008 to DUI charges.
Cellini’s attorneys say Chiles’ convictions disqualify her from jury service. They are seeking a new trial.
Judge James Zagel chastised Webb for “provoking” Chiles and suggested Webb change his tone to be less hostile. Webb denied using a hostile tone.
According to the AP, Judge Zagel has called a recess. I’ll update if anything big happens or if we get more details.
*** UPDATE *** Tribune…
“You’re trying to see if I’m a liar so you can get him off?” juror Candy Chiles, a 50-year-old daycare provider, asked as her voice choked with emotion. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!”
After the judge called an immediate recess, Chiles quickly walked out of the courtroom, shaking her head and muttering about the defense team.
It was her third blowup at Cellini’s attorney, Dan Webb, during his pointed, hour-long examination, which centered on whether she knew she was being untruthful when she told the court she had not been arrested or convicted of a crime. In fact, she has two felony convictions and another arrest on her record.
“Do not do me like this. Do not do me like this,” she said. “I am not a criminal. I didn’t steal anything … damn you.”
She has a point.
* From earlier today…
A juror who didn’t disclose her felony record while being selected to sit at the trial of Springfield power broker William Cellini told a federal judge today that she didn’t reveal her 2000 drug conviction because she had put the incident behind her.
“It’s in my past. I never mention it at all, that foolishness in my life,” Candy Chiles, a 50-year-old daycare provider from the South Side, said at a hearing in federal court.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel — who did not order background checks on potential jurors before the high-profile trial — is holding a hearing today to determine if Chiles’ equivocations denied Cellini a fair trial. She also did not tell the court about a felony DUI conviction in 2008 and an assault arrest in 1994. […]
Zagel said Chiles hadn’t been truthful in her answers to the court during jury selection.
“I think it’s pretty clear…you did not give complete answers to these questions,” the judge said. “In a way, you did not follow the instructions of the court to answer truthfully.”
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:47 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Ald. Jackson files as independent delegate *** A caption contest and a campaign roundup
Next Post: This just in… Moody’s downgrades Illinois again - No change in S&P rating - S&P threatens future downgrade
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Sounds like Webb got the reaction he was hoping for. And who let him provoke the juror, Judge Zagel?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:56 pm
What Wordslinger said.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 1:58 pm
Well, Mr. Webb, that’s your job. Criminal trials ain’t beanbag. Certain states w/ Republican majorities have statutorily prohibited convicted felons from voting. If that is valid public policy then… And, it is certainly hard to claim that a juror who lied under oath should judge someone who is accused of, in essence, lying (conspiracy to defraud etc).
Comment by D.P. Gumby Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:07 pm
I figured she would play the victim card.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Seems to me that soomeone who lied under oaht would be LESS likely to convict someone accused of lying under oath. So if anyone should feel aggrieved, it should be the prosecution. In this case, the verdict should stand, and she should be charged with perjury.
Comment by ChicagoR Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:24 pm
Why did Zagel allow her to get pounded by Webb for an hour? The facts of the matter are clear, and were before the hearing.
If the judge thinks it’s enough to boot it, he should have just done so. And next time, run a criminal records check.
What was the purpose of a high-profile public beatdown by a bigfoot lawyer? Did he think she was going to confess to some sinister motive for not disclosing her conviction? A prejudice against asphalt, perhaps?
I know where my next jury summons is going to be filed.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:26 pm
Wouldn’t having a felon on the jury just improve the criminal’s chances of being found not guilty?Someone who has lost to the system isn’t going to be on the the government’s side,and could have sympathy toward the poor defendant.
Comment by anon Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:32 pm
Zagel let her take a beat down because she had it coming. She lied plain and simple. Zagel cut the defense off at the knees everytime they tried take the trial of course. In this instance the defense has a legitimate issue to explore.
However, IMHO not enough of an issue to void Cellini’s conviction.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:32 pm
Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Cellini is done.
Comment by Hi Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:37 pm
–Zagel let her take a beat down because she had it coming.–
So judge, jury and executioner? Who knew that was the role of a federal judge. What crime was she charged with and convicted of again, in regards to this hearing?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:37 pm
Other side is that a felon who lied about it would perhaps be more inclined to go along w/ everyone else so the felon wouldn’t stand out or draw attention. So, such a person may not be as independent a juror as others.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:37 pm
After this criminal record was disclosed, someone had a beating coming, and Zagel decided it wasn’t going to be him. She took the beating because the Judge didn’t do the background check. I guess that’s fair in the judge’s mind.
But now that the beating has been administered, I think the verdict can stand. I just wish Zagel would have taken the lumps for this screw up as much as this juror. And I hope this makes Dan Webb feel better about himself, attacking a liar and making her a scapegoat for his client’s problems. Pathetic.
Let that be a lesson for you kids, don’t lie on jury questionnaires.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:39 pm
This has virtually nothing to do with whether or not Cellini was appropriately found guilty. And you’re right, disclosure would likely have had the prosecutor, not the defense, favor her removal from the jury.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:42 pm
I thought the jury was supposed to be a group ot the indicted person’s peers.
So the other eleven that weren’t liars didn’t meet the standard.
Comment by Irish Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:43 pm
==What crime was she charged with and convicted of again, in regards to this hearing?==
She lied to the judge to get on the jury and she’s lying now. She should be charged with a crime.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:47 pm
=So judge, jury and executioner? Who knew that was the role of a federal judge. What crime was she charged with and convicted of again, in regards to this hearing?=
Who said she was charged with a crime? Her lie caused this hearing. Being harshly questioned does not equate to being charged or convicted of a crime.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:51 pm
George, Zagel said Webb was “provoking” the juror, which Webster defines as “inciting to anger.”
What’s the point of that, for an hour, when the facts are already known?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 2:56 pm
2008 is pretty recent past.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:00 pm
I thought lying on a jury questionnaire and on direct questioning from the judge was perjury.
Comment by Laura Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:40 pm
Has she been charged, Laura?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:41 pm
==She lied to the judge to get on the jury and she’s lying now. She should be charged with a crime.==
Please. That’s just lunacy. What could possibly be the benefit of charging her with a crime? And what exactly is she lying about now and to what end? Stop it with the torches and pitchforks against this lady. I’ve seen nothing to suggest she lied to get on the jury. Was it stupid? Sure. But let’s move on.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:42 pm
probably all fury signifying nothing. but the Judge from the Thompson administration sure is making the Cellini finality difficult.
Comment by amalia Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 3:59 pm
=What’s the point of that, for an hour, when the facts are already known?=
The point is to see if her fib effected the juries deliberations and eventual findings. I think that’s worth an hour’s time even if it was an uncomfortable hour for the juror.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:11 pm
Let me preface this comment by stating that I am not a lawyer. But seriously, how is lying or “making false statements” to federal authorities(e.g. FBI, IRS) a crime, a felony even, but there seems to be no legal repercussions for lying in federal court?
Aren’t jurors put under oath to tell the truth during the early stages of a trial? I’m not saying she should go to prison, but I don’t necessarily think she should walk away from the mess she created without some sort of punishment.
Comment by Jimmy87 Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:18 pm
Word, not that I’m aware of but I thought the forms state that if a person does not provide factual answers they can be charged with perjury. Where I think an even stronger issue of perjury was committed is when she was directly asked by Zagel if she had ever been convicted of a crime and she said no. So maybe she didn’t steal but she was charged with drug possession, assault and DUI. In fairness of the process, the defense should have been provided truthful information.
Comment by Laura Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:25 pm
==What could possibly be the benefit of charging her with a crime?==
What if Cellini gets a new trial? Shouldn’t the juror be charged with perjury and at least fined? If for no other reason than to send a message to future potential jurors?
I hope Zagel gets the message, too. High profile trials need greater diligence in screening jurors, including background checks. It’s just as much his fault.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:28 pm
Um, I’ve known at least a couple people who didn’t know whether they were convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Guessing this is not that unusual.
Comment by Cheswick Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:37 pm
“I am not a criminal.” Well, that’s semantics, isn’t it. She is a twice-convicted felon who lied to a federal judge. She was found guilty of selling crack and you don’t get an aggravated felony dui for just being tipsy.
Comment by pprchsr Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 4:42 pm
Webb is just doing is job, and she deserved a certain amount of grilling for her failure to disclose the convictions and her attitude at the hearing. Will it change anything? Probably not. If it deters others from doing the same thing, maybe it helps, but I doubt it does.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 6, 12 @ 5:02 pm