home

Blagojevich Jurors Have a Question

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:27:47 PM EST
Tags: Rod Blagojevich (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

On their 11th day of deliberations, the jurors in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert have a question. The judge will hear it at 2:30 pm CT.

This is the first peep from the jurors since their first days of deliberations when they requested a transcript of the Government's closing argument and of witness testimony. Both requests were denied, although the judge said they could ask for witness transcripts by individual name.

< What Comes First: Political Polarization Or Presidential Leadership? | Gibbs Retrenches: Stands By "Professional Left" Remarks >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blagojevich Jurors Have a Question | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    what happens if they can't find (none / 0) (#1)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    unanimous agreement for all 24 charges, perhaps have been able to agree on, say, 15?  

    A federal jury can deliver (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    a partial verdict -- unanimous on certain counts and hung on others.  The non-unanimous counts are deemed "mistried" and will either be retried or dismissed, at the prosecutors' option.  (The jury will be told not to disclose what the vote was on any non-unanimous count, not even which way the majority leaned; just that it wasn't unanimous.)  Any counts on which the jury acquits become a final judgment in the defendant's favor, under the Double Jeopardy Clause.  In the 7th Circuit, where this case is being heard (although not everywhere), any counts on which there may be a conviction are non-final and will not proceed to sentencing until the mistried counts are all resolved (by dismissal or retrial).

    Parent
    To clarify, a "partial verdict" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    can also refer to the jury returning with verdicts on some counts, and a willingness to continue deliberating on the remaining counts, rather than necessarily being hung on the remainder.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    didn't see your update Donald.

    Jackson

    I'm reading that the judge (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    found the jury's note unclear (all counts?; some counts? the not said they couldn't agree "on any given count") and sent them back to clarify their concerns, to report on "the state of their deliberations," and return with a clearer question.

    Some counts (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    I shouldn't have gone by just a headline on Yahoo, maybe I should actually read the story first.  Another reason I'm not qualified to be a Lawyer.  It was not my intention to mis-inform anyone.

    Jackson

    Parent

    No problem Jackson but (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    I did delete your comment since the info was inaccurate. I didn't want someone finding your comment on google and attributing it to talkleft. Thanks for noting the correction.

    Parent
    When a judge gives the kind of instruction (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    that Judge Zagel has suggested he will give tomorrow ("'It is also permissible for a jury to return a verdict with unanimity on some counts and have an inability to reach a unanimous decision on other counts,' Zagel said he would tell the jury."), it can be very harmful to the defense.  I haven't seen the jury's note quoted in full anywhere, so I am going by the newspaper renditions, which are unclear to me.  It may be that the jury is saying it has reached unanimous agreement on some counts, but cannot agree on others.  But it also seems possible that the jury is saying it does not have agreement on any count.  In that situation, where several jurors are convinced that the defendant is not guilty (or that "not guilty" is the right verdict for whatever reason), while other jurors are pressing for a guilty verdict on all or many counts, the judge's "reminder" or "advice" that they can return a verdict on some counts even if in disagreement on others, will often serve to encourage the jury to compromise.  In that situation, the jurors holding out against conviction (usually they are in the minority, but not necessarily), may acquiesce in returning a few convictions on what may seem to be the least serious counts, in exchange for the rest of the jury voting not guilty on other counts, or even in exchange for the rest of the jury agreeing to advise the judge that they are hopelessly deadlocked on the (seemingly) "more serious" counts.  

    But in fact, in federal court, there are rarely any genuinely "less serious" counts -- no matter how minor the underlying conduct, relative to the rest of the indictment.  The prosecution in that situation is happy to take even a couple of felony convictions and dismiss the rest of the counts.  Here's why:  If the jury, taking what seems to be the judge's hint, convicts on even one or two counts, there is probably more than enough room within those statutory maximums to impose whatever sentence the judge might have imposed in the case anyway.  And in calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines, and then in assessing the final sentence in his discretion, the judge is free, under federal sentencing law, to consider as "relevant conduct" even the facts underlying acquitted counts (not to mention any hung counts).  In this way, any suggestion or pressure on the jury to compromise -- which the judge's instructions seemingly innocently mentioning the option of a partial verdict can be seen as -- can spell a devastating outcome to the defense.

    Thanks. And here I was, thinking (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    that a jury out so long and still split must be good for Blago.

    (By the way, have you taught law?  You seem a natural.  You sure teach me a lot here.)

    Parent

    Sure, the jury's being out so long and split (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    is good for the defense ... but only if the pro-defense jurors hold fast to their position.  They may hear the judge's instruction as discouraging that, and it may even be intended to be heard that way.  As for your personal remark, CC, I thank you for the kind compliment.  I have asked TL "off-blog" to give me your address so I can answer you further.

    Parent
    Blagojevich Jurors Have a Question | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment