From Bohrer's article:

We came here with the impression that the governor was on a political crime spree. They impeached him in Springfield pretty quickly. He was a disgrace to our state, a blight on our body politic. We heard it over and over. He was dirty, and we all knew it.

So we just waited for the prosecution to prove it to us jurors. That's their job. But what did they deliver? The Blagojeviches saying naughty words — words that the Baldies won't even say out loud — and making vengeful wishes that were never put into action. Embarrassing, yes. But crapmouth is not a crime.

I think the Government seriously mis-stepped by including Robert Blagojevich in the case. Bohrer writes:

They indicted his brother. What for? He was around for four months. The government had been investigating Rod for as long as I went to college. Meanwhile, the actual convicted crooks who worked for this administration are getting off light, all because they got on the stand for the prosecution. And Robert Blagojevich, who lives in Nashville, gets collared for spending four months on his brother's speed-dial. This all smacks of vindictiveness, not prosecution.

Which is another reason why I'm voting to let the governor go. Could they have convinced me of a few crimes that he committed? You bet. But to throw the book at him like this, interpreting every fishy thing he did into a new scurrilous charge? Sure, much of it is close to criminal, but close isn't good enough in law.

Robert Blagojevich did testify. By all accounts I've read, he was credible. On cross-examination, he was asked about his brother. That might have been another Government mistake, because it gave Robert the chance to insist emphatically Rod is not a crook. Boehrer recounts the exchange:

One of the assistant U.S. attorneys (aka 'Bald Guy No. 1') was cross-examining the ex-governor’s brother, Robert, talking hypotheticals. He wanted to know: Would it have been wrong for someone to walk into the governor's office, drop a bag containing a hundred grand on the desk, and ask to be appointed to the Senate?

"[Rod] would tell the guy to pick up the money and walk out with it," Rob shot back. That was surprising. The answer was not what the prosecutor had expected — it didn't even address the question he had asked.

The question also gave Robert the chance to tell the jury Rod isn't a criminal. If the jury finds Robert credible, they may credit his testimony in the entirety -- and conclude neither one of the brothers did anything criminal.

When the indictment was first returned, the Government charged Robert Blagojevich with only two counts -- both charging wire fraud through the theft of honest services. Knowing the Supreme Court was about to weigh in on the validity of the law, they hedged their bets, and filed a Superseding Indictment, adding attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit extortion and conspiracy to commit bribery to Robert's charges. (Before the case went to the jury, one of the wire fraud charges was dismissed.) For Rod, the Government added 8 charges.

This may be a classic case of prosecutorial overcharging. Remember Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference announcing the Indictment? He told us Rod's conduct "would make Abraham Lincoln roll over in his grave."

Instead, as Bohrer writes:

....[T]here were no bags of cash. Nobody got shoved up against a wall and had his pockets turned out. The government caught the Blagos talking deals on the phone, but in politics, that's what you do. Hell, in any business, that's what you do. And the prosecution has failed to show that the Blagojeviches did anything more than shoot the breeze. And when they even thought about doing more than that (and all the prosecution has proved are that they had those thoughts), their Ivy League lawyers assured them it was kosher — no crime to plot, only to act.

The feds started looking into the governor in 2004. Four years of surveillance, of persecution and this is all they've got? I mean, I'm glad the guy is no longer governor, but who could withstand that kind of scrutiny and come out looking spotless? And the only reason, so they claim, that the government doesn't have any hard evidence on him is that they had to swoop in before he could do any real damage — after four years of watching him, mind you. Give me a break!

Does this tide of public sentiment for acquittal mean the jury will feel the same way? Not necessarily. The fact that they told the judge they are divided on 9 counts (not including the 13 wiretap charges they haven't gotten around to discussing or deciding yet and excluding the 2 counts they agree on) means some would convict on those 9 charges.

Unlike the public, the jury not only heard the judge instruct them, they have a copy of the instructions. Buried in the 136 pages are instructions like these:

On Bribery:

Bribery committed by a public official is the demanding, soliciting, seeking, or asking for, directly or indirectly, or agreeing to accept, anything of value from another person in exchange for a promise for, or performance of, an official act. The term “anything of value” includes money, property, and prospective employment.

On the meaning of "anything of value":

The term “anything of value” includes campaign contributions and potential salaries. It is not necessary that the defendant’s solicitation or demand for thing of value in exchange for influence or reward with respect to state business be stated in express terms.

On the official act:

It is not necessary that the public official had the power to or did perform the act for which he was promised, or which he agreed to receive, something of value; it is sufficient if the matter was one that was before him in his official capacity. Nor is it necessary that the public official in fact intended to perform the official act. It is sufficient if the public official knew that the thing of value was offered with the intent to exchange the thing of value for the performance of the official act.

...It is not necessary that the defendant’s solicitation or demand for a thing of value in exchange for influence or reward with respect to state business be stated or written in express terms.

On campaign contributions:

[I]f a public official demands, solicits, seeks, or asks for, directly or indirectly, or agrees to accept money or property, believing that it would be given in exchange for a specific requested exercise of his official power, he has committed bribery, even if the money or property is to be given to the official in the form of a campaign contribution.

On Extortion:

Extortion by actual or threatened fear means the wrongful use of actual or threatened fear to obtain or attempt to obtain money or property. ....“Fear” includes fear of economic loss. This includes fear of a direct loss of money, fear of harm to future business operations or a fear of some loss of ability to compete in the marketplace in the future if the victim did not pay as directed.

The government must prove that the victim’s fear would have been reasonable under the circumstances. However, the government need not prove that the defendant actually intended to cause the harm threatened.

...While the official must receive or attempt to obtain the money or property in return for the official action, the government does not have to prove that the official actually took or intended to take that action or that the official could have actually taken the action in return for which payment was made or demanded or that the official would not have taken the same action even without payment.

On Wire Fraud and the scheme to defraud:

A scheme to defraud must also involve a material misrepresentation, false statement, false pretense, or concealment of fact. A misrepresentation, false statement, false pretense, or concealment is “material” if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, a decision or action of the
public.

It is not necessary that the misrepresentation, false statement, false pretense, or concealment actually have that influence or be relied on by the public, so long as it had the potential or capability to do so.

On whether there needs to be financial gain:

The wire fraud statute can be violated whether or not there is any actual financial loss or damage to the victim of the crime or actual financial gain to the defendant.

On the false statement charge, which requires the jury to find it to be material:

A statement is material if it had the effect of influencing the action of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or was capable of or had the potential to do so.

It is not necessary that the statement actually have that influence or be relied on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so long as it had the potential or capability to do so.

So while the public views the Government as proving only "talk" and blustering, there may be jurors, reading those instructions, who believe talk is enough. On the other hand, it appears there are jurors who point out in response, talk isn't enough unless there was the requisite intent. Intent is likely the key to the whole case.

On intent and bribery:

The phrase “intent to defraud” means that the acts charged were done knowingly with the intent to deceive or cheat the public in order to deprive the public of the public official’s honest services through bribery.

...[You must find] that the defendant did so corruptly with the intent to be influenced or rewarded in connection with some business, transaction or series of transactions of the State of Illinois;

On intent and bribery in the context of the racketeering act:

To sustain the charge of bribery as alleged in Count 1, Racketeering Act 1(b), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following propositions:

First, that the defendant agreed to accept any property or personal advantage; and

Second, that the defendant did so knowing that the property or personal advantage was tendered or promised with intent to cause him to influence the performance of any act related to his employment or function as a public officer.

For conspiracy to commit bribery, in the context of the racketeering act:

To sustain the charge of conspiracy to commit bribery, as charged in Racketeering Act 1(a), the government must prove the following propositions beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant agreed with others to the commission of the offense of bribery, as charged in Count 1, Racketeering Act 1(a); and

Second, that the defendant did so with intent that the offense of bribery be committed;

Intent and Attempt:

To “attempt” means that the defendant knowingly took a substantial step toward the commission of the offense with the intent to commit that offense.

Intent and Aiding and Abetting:

If a defendant performed acts that advanced a criminal activity but had no knowledge that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed, those acts alone are not sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Intent, Wire Fraud and Good Faith:

For purposes of Counts 3-13, and Count 1, Racketeering Acts 3[c];, 4[c];, 6(d)- 6(l), good faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with intent to defraud, an element of the charges. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.

Intent, Extortion and Good Faith:

[G]ood faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with intent to commit extortion. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with intent to commit extortion.

Intent, Bribery and Good Faith:

[G]ood faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with acting corruptly, an element of the charge. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted corruptly.

Intent, False Statements and Good Faith:

An act is done willfully if done voluntarily and intentionally, and with the intent to do something the law forbids.

[G]ood faith on the part of the defendant is inconsistent with willfulness, an element of the charge. The burden is not on the defendant to prove his good faith; rather, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted willfully.

So how will the jury decide what Rod's intent was? And will they realize, they don't have to decipher it, that it was the Government's job to prove it?

They have phone calls with talk of various potential schemes and scenarios. They have Rod's brother's testimony they are not crooks. They have testimony from admitted crooks and those who got immunity from prosecution claiming Rod had bad intent. Who will they believe? As to those who got immunity they are told:

You have heard testimony from Joseph Aramanda, Rajinder Bedi, John Johnston, Gerald Krozel, Robert Williams, Michael Winter, and John Wyma, who received immunity; that is, a promise from the government that any testimony or other information they provided would not be used against them in a criminal case.

You may give the testimony of Joseph Aramanda, Rajinder Bedi, John Johnston, Gerald Krozel, Robert Williams, Michael Winter, and John Wyma such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care.

As to the admitted crooks, they are told:

Ali Ata, Joseph Cari, John Harris and Alonzo Monk have also each received benefits from the government, including a promise by the government to recommend a reduced sentence in return for their truthful cooperation.

You may give the testimony of Ali Ata, Joseph Cari, John Harris and Alonzo Monk such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care.

And perhaps the best instruction of all:

The defendants are presumed to be innocent of each of the charges. This presumption continues during every stage of the trial and your deliberations on the verdict.

The presumption of innocence is not overcome unless from all the evidence in the case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged.

The government has the burden of proving the guilt of each defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof stays with the government throughout the case. A defendant is never required to prove his innocence or to produce any witnesses or evidence at all.

Some have opined that perhaps the only thing Rod Blagojevich will be convicted of is making a false statement to the FBI, but even a conviction on that count would be a stunning loss for him. I disagree. While it would mean he'd do some prison time, I think it would be a stunning loss for the Government. The Government would have gone from an offense that would cause Abraham Lincoln to roll over in his grave to Martha Stewart-type conduct. After four years of investigation, and the hyperbole of their accusations, how would that not be a stinging defeat?

Back to the court of public opinion: I agree that public opinion towards Blago has turned. He's morphed into our benign, crazy uncle. The upbeat, clueless personality he displayed before and after court at his trial, with serious Patti by his side, is nothing but an extension of the persona he displayed on Celebrity Apprentice where millions of Americans got to see him as a quirky, out of touch, self-absorbed dreamer.

He didn't seem like a crook, he seemed like a harmless flake. Who else can't figure out how to text a message or move a mouse around on the computer? Similarly, millions got to see Patti Blagojevich on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here." She's as focused as he is spacey-- and clearly the force that keeps him grounded. (Background music: "Ground control to Major Tom" from David Bowie's Space Oddity.)

People from Illinois may have already known this about Rod and Patti, but thanks to TV, so does the whole country. If the jury acquits on most counts, that's the image people will be left with, and it will mesh perfectly with what will become the view of the Government's evidence at trial: Schemes, dreams and bad language.

If there's an acquittal on most counts, this trial will be remembered for the Government's failure to produce a smoking gun at trial, for prosecutors getting blindsided by, and failing to anticipate, Rod's decision not to take the stand, which caused them to forego calling their stronger witnesses like Rezko and Levine, who they were likely holding for rebuttal, and going from claims before trial that the conduct we'd see would make Abe Lincoln roll over in his grave to their almost apologetic statement during closing argument that "The law doesn’t require you to be a successful crook. It just requires you to be a crook.”

No one wants their crazy uncle to go to jail. They want him put out to pasture. At this point it seems there are jurors who disagree as to whether he's a crook or just a self-aggrandizing and foolish blowhard. It was the Government's job to prove the former. If instead of trying to decipher his intent from phone calls, the jurors hold the Government to its burden of proof, and don't buy the testimony of those who sang for their supper, I don't think the public will be surprised or upset at an acquittal. Rod will go out to pasture and Robert will achieve victim status. How it will take a conviction remains to be seen.