Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Jurors in Sen. Emil Jones’ trial have a question about a discrepancy

Posted in:

Illinois

* The “information” is the original charging document…

The jurors pointed to an example.

In the interview, an agent asked, "do you know how much he was getting paid?"

The information says "when asked if he knew how much money [Maani] agreed to pay [Katz], Jones said that he did not."

They underlined "agreed to pay."

— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) April 22, 2025

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:13 am

Comments

Agreed to pay vs. actual pay. Might seem like splitting hairs, but kinda important if someone’s freedom is on the line. You can see why the jurors are being careful.

All in all, kinda seems like a sloppy prosecution.

Comment by FF Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:22 am
It’s a very good question, regardless of the underlying facts of the case. Feds should be held to a very high standard in their allegations.

Comment by chi Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:32 am
I think he’s acquitted. Gut feeling.

Comment by Eire17 Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:40 am
The three questions indicate that they see his acts as illegal—it’s just a question of clarifying the nuances of how federal law applies.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 9:53 am
This whole thing is sloppy. Emil may not have been the worlds finest legislator, but it sure feels like he paid a non-cooperation tax to what at the time felt like a US Attorneys Office that thought very highly of their own superiority.

Comment by DHB Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 10:10 am
Jones’ behavior was certainly unethical and probably illegal. But it seems like it’s been a pretty messy prosecution by the Feds. Good to see the jurors are being extra careful.

Comment by Telly Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 10:14 am
Sounds like there’s at least one holdout.

Comment by Samantha Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 12:49 pm
I’m no fan of corruption, but this seemed like too eager of a set-up.

Comment by Downstate Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 2:17 pm
Not sure if Defense counsel asserted the entrapment defense, but it sure seems like it was there, i.e.
when govt. agent induces Defendant to commit a crime he/she would not have otherwise committed.

Comment by Watchdog Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 2:52 pm
Jurors have again proven their worth as responsive to the law and to the evidence.

My problem with this case is the continuing practice of Federal prosecutors, (and some supportive judges), stretching beyond all recognition what should be straightforward definitions of wire fraud, conspiracy, and bribery, especially when they can get political notches on their belts.
It’s been going on since Rudy Giuliani made a political career out of it. Great example to follow.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Apr 23, 25 @ 5:18 pm