Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Lots of react to the Sun-Times decision
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
[Bumped up to Wednesday morning for visibility.]
* TUESDAY - 4:50 pm - A federal judge has decided there will be no new trial for Bill Cellini.
A bit of background for those who’ve been living under a rock…
Cellini was found guilty in November of attempting to extort money from a Hollywood producer for then governor Rod Blagojevich’s campaign.
After the trial, the Chicago Tribune discovered one of the jurors on his case didn’t disclose her felony record as required on juror questionnaires.
* 6:09 pm - And here’s why…
U.S. District Judge James Zagel offered a strong defense of Chiles in his remarks.
“While Chiles may have had contempt for defense counsel, what Chiles didn’t have was contempt for the law,” the judge said.
Regarding Chiles’ tumultuous testimony, Zagel said her “buttons were pushed” and she did not have the luxury of having been prepared to handle aggressive questioning by Cellini’s lawyer. He also noted her lack of sophistication and education.
Zagel found that Chiles did not lie on jury questionnaires she filled out and that her failure to disclose her criminal history under direct questioning from him during jury selection was not deliberate.
She showed no bias toward Cellini in any way, the judge ruled.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 2:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Lots of react to the Sun-Times decision
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Phew! Saw this story on twitter, thought it said he WAS getting a new trial, rushed here, and big sigh of relief.
This is a good decision. The reason for a new trial was not sound at all.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:53 pm
I still contend that he may well end up successfully appealing this conviction.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 4:54 pm
They can lock him up, but chances are he will end up owning 51 percent of the prison.
Comment by DuPage Dave Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 5:58 pm
If giving a false answer to a yea or no question on a jury form isn’t “lying”, what is it?
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 6:23 pm
So she lied to get onto the Jury and doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist, she has a hissy fit in court when questioned about her lies, and she shows an extreme prejudice towards the Defense lawyer, but not the Defendant?
Huh?
If this conviction isn’t overturned, then the right to a fair trial for all of us in the future is permanently lost.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 6:49 pm
Is it time to take a friend and go looking for that John Kass writer? He has nothing to be afraid of.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 6:55 pm
This just in…Zagel Infallibility established as official doctrine in Northern District of Illinois.
Comment by Phocion Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 7:20 pm
==she shows an extreme prejudice towards the Defense lawyer, but not the Defendant?==
I feel the same way. I would let Cellini go and send his lawyers to prison. Cellini seems to be quite well liked by everybody who knows him.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 8:08 pm
I really don’t understand how Zagel determined that she did not lie. I didn’t even think that was in question.
Comment by Snucka Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 9:21 pm
If Judge Zagel did in fact rule that she did not lie on her questionnaire, words no longer have meaning, which at some point will render communication impossible. She may not have intended to lie, she may have lied under duress, but lie she did.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 9:43 pm
“He also noted her lack of sophistication and education.”
So, she can’t be accused of lying because she’s stupid??
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 9:54 pm
lol-Infallibility-Cellini isn’t the Pope-Zagel is. I dont have a problem with Zagel’s decision but can anyone explain why the jury selection process doesn’t have a simple cross check vs people like Childs? I understand felons are not automatically disqualified but it’s information everyone needs to know.
Comment by Soccertease Tuesday, Jan 24, 12 @ 10:15 pm
Man, how would you like to have someone point out to the world that you are unsophisticated and uneducated? Seems like he could have come up with a different way to defend her actions.
Comment by Stooges Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 8:23 am
The next Illinois pol who gets indicted should hire Sam Adams, Jr and not Dannyboy.
Comment by Hi Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 9:05 am
I have often wondered if, in his long tenure on the bench, Zagel has ever ruled otherwise when it comes to trials he’s presided over? Even in the first phase, it seems that such things should be reviewed by a judge other than the presiding trial judge.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 9:39 am
This was the only possible decision, and the conviction will be upheld on appeal. You cannot impeach a jury verdict after-the-fact. Had both sides known of her conviction, doubtless the Government would have challenged her, not the defense.
Comment by Ace Matson Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 10:24 am
‘This just in…Zagel Infallibility established as official doctrine in Northern District of Illinois.”
Absolutely correct. Judge Zagel does not make errors. Just ask him.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 10:27 am
I guess potential jurors in federal court can now lie on the questionnaire and then lie under questioning by the judge — and get away with it. At least in Zagel’s courtroom.
This exculpation encourages people to lie when called for jury duty since the judge says there’s nothing to forgive.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:06 am
The way all of you continue to villify this woman amazes me. Not one iota of proof has been shown that she showed any ill intent in lying. The suggestions that she lied to get on the jury are outrageous without any proof. The judge made the absolute right call in this case. Those of you suggesting she should have been punished need a slap in the face as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:09 am
Also, not all lies are equal. Quit living in a black and white world.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:10 am
If a person who has been thru the system decides he’s guilty-then he’s probably guilty. The lawyers tried a “Hail Mary” tactic and lost .There’s a lot of nice guys in prison.Cellini was stealing tax dollars and he got caught.He had a great run on our money and the family will profit from it forever.Move on.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:21 am
Really enjoy reading the comments from all the Cellini apologists. Of course, he’ll raise the issue on appeal, and he’ll lose because her presence on the jury did not prejudice Cellini.
It’s not so much that she didn’t answer the questions about her background accurately, it’s that she was able, like all the other jurors, to hear the evidence and deliver a fair verdict. C apologists need to remember that the jury delivered a split verdict, finding him guilty on some charges and not guilty on the others. So she was prejudiced in the guilty verdict while not prejudiced in the not guilty verdict. Sorry, C apologists, that argument won’t fly — even if made by the great Dan Webb.
Comment by Jim Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:29 am
@Demoralized,
Perhaps the questions on the jury form where truth is optional should be singled out with an asterisk.
We’ll call it the Zagel option out…
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:32 am
Right call by the judge on Cellini’s motion, but confusing language in his decision. She apparently lied in giving the wrong answer to a question, but he could find no appreciable impact on her ability to fulfill her duties as a juror. This was a red- herring by the defense counsel, who earned her obvious contempt post trial — again not impacting the outcome of the trial itself.
Whether she should face consequences is entirely separate from whether Cellini should get a new trial.
Comment by mark walker Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 11:47 am
Over the years I’ve found much of what I need to know to keep my sanity while working in and around government by reading and re-reading Alice’s various adventures.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - - that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 12:25 pm
@Wensicia
Whether she lied is not the point for me. It’s if it affected the outcome. It clearly did not. The lie is irrelevant. If it had relevance I might agree that another outcome was warranted.
People need to quit persecuting the juror and focus on the criminal.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 25, 12 @ 1:07 pm