Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Group says Clerk Martinez Tribune op-ed has ‘fundamental and incurable flaws’
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* Click here to follow along in real time. CBS 2…
Both Madigan and McClain were in court Wednesday during jury selection, where attorneys made a small dent in questioning around 180 potential jurors.
U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey warned that attorneys would have to adjust their timelines if questioning continued at such a slow rate.
Some questions potential jurors were asked included:
• Whether they feel like there’s an issue with the political system in Illinois.
• Whether they feel that lobbying is a bad thing.
• Whether they feel politicians shouldn’t mix business and politics.
• Whether they could consider the evidence regardless of their personal feelings about the Democratic Party in Illinois?
How would you answer those questions?
* Related…
* Michael Madigan meets a few of the people who could decide his fate — just 3 jurors chosen: Two men and one woman were the first to be chosen as jurors in the racketeering conspiracy trial of former Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan on Wednesday, launching a selection process that got off to a slow start. One is an educator. Another works for Amazon. And the third says he works in insurance. Now, they’ll help decide the fate of one of the most powerful politicians in Illinois history. That man, Madigan, spent the day listening to lawyers interview potential jurors, including one person who said Madigan had a reputation for “doing things his way” and for being involved in “shady dealings.” He was excused from the panel.
* Three jurors selected so far to hear evidence in Madigan corruption trial: McClain, who had not been to the courthouse since his conviction in May 2023 in the related “ComEd Four” bribery case, sat at a table behind Madigan for most of the proceedings. The two longtime friends only seemed to acknowledge each other once in the courtroom, when, after a break, Madigan could be seen offering a half-wave, which McClain returned with a smile. … The third person selected, Juror 16, said flat-out he did not want to participate, but he was selected anyway. An insurance underwriter with three school-age kids, he grew up in the 19th Ward and said he knows Ald. Matt O’Shea but is not particularly political. He said he most recently went to O’Shea’s office for a block party permit. Asked if it was successful, the juror replied, “It was a good party.”
* Several jurors chosen, but process slow-going in Mike Madigan corruption trial jury selection: “An impartial jury is always difficult in a case like this because everybody is going to have heard about the case. Anyone who says they haven’t heard about the case is probably lying. Anyone who said they haven’t heard about at least Michael Madigan is probably lying,” criminal defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. “You want to endear yourself to the jurors. So, both sides are going to be talking to them. They’re going to want to be likable. They’re going to use some humor when they’re asking questions. They’re going to try and relate to the jurors.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 11:38 am
Previous Post: Group says Clerk Martinez Tribune op-ed has ‘fundamental and incurable flaws’
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
=How would you answer those questions?=
“yes” to all of the above
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 12:13 pm
===The third person selected, Juror 16, said flat-out he did not want to participate, but he was selected anyway.===
That’s not the way to get out of jury duty. Judges hate that. A better approach is to strongly imply or even directly say that you cannot be impartial, that you have always had a strong bias for (or against) the prosecution. It’s just your nature to believe prosecutors always tell the truth and defendants always lie.
That works every time.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 12:27 pm
Lobbying gets a bad rap because so many lobbyists have been breaking the rules. Fundamentally, a lobbyist is just a point person for a particular cause, who brings information and opinions to the table. But that’s been warped into something else.
In the question of politics and business, he’s caught dead to rights using his position to steer business his way. I don’t insist politicians be unemployed elsewhere, but clearly, they have to recuse themselves from anything related to their other business. That should also mean politicians with farms should not be voting on ag policy .
Comment by Give Us Barrabbas Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 12:28 pm
===Whether they feel like there’s an issue with the political system in Illinois===
I’m not really sure I understand the question. Can you be more specific?
===Whether they feel that lobbying is a bad thing.===
No, lobbying isn’t a bad thing.
===Whether they feel politicians shouldn’t mix business and politics.===
I think that depends a lot on the specific details.
===Whether they could consider the evidence regardless of their personal feelings about the Democratic Party in Illinois?===
How I feel about any organization has nothing to do with whether or not evidence has been presented proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
From what I understand of jury selection, my back ground would most likely cause me to be eliminated from most jury selection pools.
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 12:37 pm
“• Whether they feel that lobbying is a bad thing.
• Whether they feel politicians shouldn’t mix business and politics.”
This feels like a lawyer tipping his hand about his strategy.
Comment by Suburban Mom Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 12:57 pm
Why select a juror who doesn’t want to participate?
Comment by Mr Ed Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 1:02 pm
“Whether they feel like there’s an issue with the political system in Illinois.” What does that even mean, “issue?” That’s a pretty broad question.
If I was in the room and had to answer that question honestly, I’d probably reply that it’s sad that Illinois residents have to rely on federal prosecutors to do their dirty laundry, rather than having a state legal system that could ensure honest government. At that point I suppose I’d be asked to leave.
Comment by Payback Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 1:09 pm
yes
neutral (mixed)
Yes
yes
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 1:41 pm
My answer would include see Rod Blagojevich former governor, convict, and recipient of a pardon by former President Trump.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 1:54 pm
• I feel the system works the way it is set up to work.
• My dear friend’s husband is a lobbyist for his organization. I believe in the value of a good lobbyist is necessary. But not evil.
• it’s unavoidable, probably.
• definitely.
Comment by Cheswick Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 2:08 pm
I’ve been on both sides of lobbying (lobbyist and staff attorney, never an elected), as I’m sure many here have been. Done ethically, it is an important educational process. No single person is likely to understand the nuance of every industry/interest seeking legislative change. As staff, my position changed on numerous occasions after speaking with a lobbyist (not always in their favor).
But so many people have a visceral negative reaction to the term, even if they know nothing else about government or politics. Definitely a jury selection challenge here (I know, stating the obvious).
Comment by Leslie K Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 2:13 pm
• Whether they feel like there’s an issue with the political system in Illinois.
Yes, which is true of all units of government.
• Whether they feel that lobbying is a bad thing.
No. Exercises of the First Amendment cannot definitionally be bad.
• Whether they feel politicians shouldn’t mix business and politics.
No. This cannot be done.
• Whether they could consider the evidence regardless of their personal feelings about the Democratic Party in Illinois?
I don’t think humans are psychologically capable of this, so no.
Comment by Garfield Ridge Guy Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 2:13 pm
• Issue with the political system in Illinois. YES
• Lobbying is a bad thing. NO
• Shouldn’t mix business and politics. YES. I’m on several boards, some of which do business with the other entity. I’m always mindful of which hat I’m wearing. As a board member, not unlike an elected official, I have a duty of loyalty. And it is incumbent to disclose any conflicts at the outset of service and when they may arise.
• Whether they could consider the evidence regardless of their personal feelings about the Democratic Party in Illinois? YES
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 2:24 pm
I agree with Leslie K (”done ethically, it is an important educational process”). It would be impossible for a small group of legislators to know everything affecting the lives of millions of people. Lobbyists bring important issues to their attention. That said, lobbying disclosure requirements are also important for transparency.
Comment by Darren Bailey's Blowtorch Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 2:39 pm
Last time I saw former Speaker Madigan and Mike McClain together they were dining in their favorite booth at Saputo’s
Comment by quad cities Thursday, Oct 10, 24 @ 3:02 pm