Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Intoxicating Hemp: No safety? No thanks!
Next Post: What Is A Credit Union?
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
State Sen. Emil Jones III’s attorney says the recorded statements of his deceased onetime colleague, Martin Sandoval, should be barred from Jones’ upcoming trial because there will be no opportunity to cross-examine him.
Defense attorney Victor Henderson filed the motion Tuesday, ahead of a Friday pretrial conference in Jones’ criminal case. Jones, who remains in the Illinois Senate two and a half years after being charged with bribery, faces trial April 7.
Jones is accused of agreeing to limit a study of traffic enforcement systems only to Chicago in exchange for $5,000 and money for an associate. The payments were allegedly offered by a red-light camera executive who expressed fear that a broader study could damage his business. […]
“Notably, a report of an interview that the FBI chose not to record states that Senator Jones made certain statements, which the Senator adamantly denies,” Henderson wrote. […]
Jones allegedly suggested that Maani sponsor an event for Jones in a bid to disguise the $5,000 payment. Prosecutors say Jones told Maani he was not as worried about the $5,000 as he was with the job for Jones’ associate.
From the Jones filing…
Allowing testimonial statements into evidence without the ability to cross-examine the speaker violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment Rights. […]
Sandoval’s statements, specifically those recorded on March 22, 2019, April 3, 2019, and April 11, 2019 characterize (or mischaracterize) conversations he allegedly had with Senator Jones and/or contain Sandoval’s impression of Senator Jones’ thoughts and feelings with respect to red light camera legislation and meeting with Maani.
Accordingly, they are testimonial and barred by Crawford and its progeny.
The Jones filing on the handwritten notes is here.
* From 2022…
The charges relate to legislation Jones introduced in 2019 calling for a statewide study to evaluate red light cameras, formally known as “automated traffic law enforcement systems.”
According to the charging document, Jones later agreed to limit the scope of any such study to cameras operated only inside the city in exchange for payments to himself and an unnamed associate from someone identified only as “Individual A,” who had an ownership interest in a red light camera company that did business with municipalities outside Chicago.
Jones never amended the bill that is identified in the above story.
* Tribune last month…
Three weeks later, Maani and Jones had another dinner at Steak 48, where they allegedly discussed having Jones’ intern work directly for Maani instead of SafeSpeed to hide their corrupt relationship, according to the prosecution filing. Maani agreed to pay the intern $15 an hour, based on 20 hours worked per week.
Later in that dinner, Jones allegedly suggested Maani hide the $5,000 payment to Jones by sponsoring an event for him, saying the payment would not show up on his campaign finance reports. Maani again said he needed to conceal his involvement in any exchange.
“I feel you,” Jones allegedly responded.
“I will help (Jones’ intern) 100 percent,” Maani said. “And like I said before, if you could just help me with the, ah, the study, to make it to (just) Chicago.”
“You’re good,” Jones allegedly said, later adding, “If I do file that bill it will only be for Chicago.”
The “event” has never been fully described as far as I can tell, and how Sen. Jones was supposed to have allegedly personally profited from that has also never been revealed, nor whether the money was even paid.
Jones’ intern was eventually paid $1,800 for six weeks of no work, according to prosecutors.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 18, 25 @ 1:24 pm
Previous Post: Intoxicating Hemp: No safety? No thanks!
Next Post: What Is A Credit Union?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I believe that Jones’ lawyer is correct.
The recordings are heresay.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Mar 18, 25 @ 2:05 pm
“State Sen. Emil Jones III’s attorney says the recorded statements of his deceased onetime colleague, Martin Sandoval, should be barred from Jones’ upcoming trial because there will be no opportunity to cross-examine him.”
An admittedly quick glance of this seems to show some parallels with the Drew Peterson case. If I recall correctly Jim Glasgow was able to get an allowance from the state Supreme Court to allow this hearsay from a person who is now deceased.
In that instance it was focused on a deceased victims statements, so it may not apply here. However, the larger legal theory he used to allow the insertion of those statements was through something called “forfeiture by wrongdoing”. That *may* be relevant here.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Mar 18, 25 @ 2:54 pm
@TheInvisibleMan
I believe Drew Peterson was all state charges and state rules so probably would not apply to federal charge in Jones case. But it certainly sounds like the Feds have a weak case
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Mar 18, 25 @ 3:39 pm
The Sandoval comments should absolutely be barred. Another example of outrageous government overreach.
Comment by ;) Tuesday, Mar 18, 25 @ 4:48 pm