Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Watching the story evolve in real time
Next Post: Anatomy of a manufactured hit piece
Posted in:
* This seems like pretty weak sauce to me, but when your client was just sentenced to 14 years in prison, you’ll take what you can get…
Attorneys for Rod Blagojevich claim the Naperville jury forewoman who helped convict the ex-governor engaged in misconduct for showing copies of her juror questionnaire to students at Metea Valley High School in Aurora.
In an emergency motion filed Friday, Blagojevich’s defense team called for an evidentiary hearing to determine if court rules were broken by Connie Wilson, who addressed about 300 government students on Tuesday. And if so, “her violations must result in a new trial,” attorneys wrote.
The motion cites a Dec. 13 Daily Herald article and Dec. 16 Naperville Patch report of Wilson’s appearance at Metea in which she showed copies of her jury summons and questionnaire.
Defense lawyers say they were told that information would remain confidential.
* This is probably right…
[Former federal prosecutor Gil Soffer] said it was a “desperate” move and not likely to work.
* The hearing is scheduled for 10 o’clock this morning. The ScribbleLive thingy is set up and ready to go. BlackBerry users click here everybody else can just watch as it happens…
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 9:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Watching the story evolve in real time
Next Post: Anatomy of a manufactured hit piece
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
FREE RODDY!
Its like “Free Willy” only with better hair…
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 9:34 am
I don’t know how this later act could have impacted the outcome of the trial itself. I wish they weren’t getting paid for this waste of the court’s time. Rod needs whatever money he has left.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 9:38 am
===Blago wants new trial: Two must not be enough, especially when it means 14 yrs===
I have been wondering what kind of sentence Blagojevich would have received if the jury in the first trial had found him guilty on some of the charges. I know there were more severe charges that were dropped for the second trial but I wonder how much of Rods testimony was used against him by Zagel when he sentenced him. If Rod was convicted of six or eight charges (but not the racketeering ones) would the feds have been satisfied and would he have ended up with a lighter sentence than he has now?
Comment by Been There Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 9:38 am
Donald Trump. There’s someone whose judgment I respect.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 9:51 am
“Hair Brained” - love Judge Zagel’s choice of words!
Comment by Stones Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 10:32 am
No Rod, he did not say “hair brained.”
Comment by amalia Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 10:32 am
It’s harebrained, folks, like the bunny, not the helmet on Blago’s head.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 10:53 am
This, to me is astonishing. I am a federal criminal defense lawyer - I am there almost every day. I have tried over 25 criminal jury trials there and even managed to win one once. I cannot believe any attorney would make such a s—-y argument. Signing your name to such BS doesn’t serve your client well and makes future judges in future cases look at like you like your full of it. Unreal.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 10:54 am
OK, I stand corrected but hair brained is still funnier.
Comment by Stones Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 11:09 am
Judge Zagel…you have insulted hares and rabbits everywhere…you better watch your carrots, buddy!
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 11:40 am
Too bad Zagel can’t find Blago’s lawyers in contempt for every stupid motion they come up with, accompanied with the appropriate fine, maybe then they’d stop.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 11:52 am
Thank You Judge Zagel, now revoke his bond and send him off to do the time.
Comment by Dan Shields, Springfield, IL Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 11:57 am
Totally agree that this is a stunt by Blago’s attorneys and should be nipped in the bud. It has no bearing on what he did, and that is why he got jail time.
However I also have to wonder about Ms. Wilson. Was this something she was paid to do? In the beginning the story was that she showed her summons and questionaire to a group of high school students. Then the story was that she handed out copies of the questionaire and summons and had sketches of the trial. I began to wonder if this was the beginning of a lecture tour for Ms. Wilson. Is she taking this on the road in order to benefit from her 15 minutes of fame? If it is then I wonder if there should not be some penalty for her for violating the judges order not to show the questionaire or the summons to anyone. It’s also a little disturbing that a juror would take the chance of jeopardizing the trial to gain notariety for themself. The time and money that this cost the taxpayers of Illinois should not be taken lightly. I would like to know what Ms. Wilson’s motivation is for doing this.
Comment by Irish Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 1:34 pm
Irish: From the Scribble feed above–
Zagel, however, said that he never instructed the jury to keep their questionnaires confidential, and told the lawyers that the motion was “prepared without any adequate thought.” The attorneys should write Wilson a letter of apology for alleging she acted inappropriately, Zagel said.
“It smacks a little of a retaliatory motive against a juror that perhaps you and your client don’t like, and is improper,” Zagel said, according to CBS Chicago.
So what penalty are you talking about, if there was never a “court order” to violate?
And what’s YOUR motiviation for questioning the juror’s motive for whatever she did?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 2:00 pm
“…we find the defendant guilty and his lawyers obnoxious….”
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 8:32 pm
Now Rod is giving rabbits a bad name.
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Dec 19, 11 @ 10:27 pm
Who is paying for the attorneys on Blago’s behalf right now? Father-in-law Mel? or me?
Comment by springpatch Tuesday, Dec 20, 11 @ 12:13 am