Yesterday, the Government filed 123 pages of proposed jury instructions. I excerpted some and will post them later as they show the theories the Government will be arguing in closing. For example, it wants an instruction on aiding and abetting a conspirator. I take that to mean they want to tell the jury even if they find brother Rob never joined the conspiracy, if he knew about its objectives and did something to help it, that makes him guilty. The penalties for aiding and abetting are the same as for the crime you aid and abet, so that could be a big deal.
Speculation continues as to whether Blago intended to punk the Government by refusing to testify or was just cutting his losses. It's probably a combination of both, but more the latter.
By resting without putting on evidence, the Government didn't get to put on a rebuttal case. If it was holding back some aces, like calling Tony Rezko or Stuart Levine, or some devastating tape recordings it thought would impeach Blago's credibility, it got outfoxed.
But reportedly, Blago and Patti were subjected to mock cross-examination sessions and sources say Rod didn't do too well.
The ex-governor's practice runs — with prominent criminal-defense lawyers acting as cross-examiners — were troubling, sources with knowledge of the sessions told the Tribune. The sources said the former governor had difficulty wrapping words around the concepts he wanted to use to defend himself.
As I've said before, it will be interesting to see how Sam Adam, Jr. deals with the issue of having promised the jury Rod would testify and then not fulfilling it. The Government is not allowed to refer to a defendant's decision not to testify, and the jury is instructed not to consider it. But what if Adam gives a reason? Is the prosecution allowed to counter it? If so, maybe Sam Adam will just refer to their decision not to put on any evidence because they didn't need to since the Government's case was so thin. If they don't mention Blago specifically, I don't think any exception to the rule should be allowed, but I haven't had occasion to look it up recently.
This afternoon the Court will hear arguments from the media about releasing the jurors' names.
For some thoughtful and articulate trial coverage by someone who has attended all of it, check out Report From Chicago. Another interesting take on Blago's not testifying is that of NPR and WBEZ reporter Justin Kaufman.
