The Blago Holdout
Ace has some information on the lone holdout that I don’t think you’ll find anywhere else.
We prosecutors have a saying: Cases are won or lost in jury selection. Now, a) I have made some mistakes over the years, and b) I’m reluctant to second-guess another prosecutor’s decisions when I wasn’t there.
That said —
The Government deserved to lose this one.
Here’s what Ace has pulled from the pretrial coverage:
Juror # 106, a black female believed to be in her 60s, is a retired state public health director who has ties to the Chicago Urban League. She has handed out campaign literature for a relative who ran for public office. She listens to National Public Radio and liberal talk radio shows.
She has ties to the Chicago Urban League (as Ace points out, a group of community organizers) and listens to liberal talk radio shows. (Apparently Big Media is omitting that part of the description from its current coverage, but Ace found it.)
Yeah, she sounds like the perfect juror for a politically charged case that put an Obama crony on trial.
The case was lost the moment the Assistant U.S. Attorney uttered these words: “The Government accepts the panel.”
At that point, it was all over.
Well, the question always is “Were they out of peremptory strikes?”
This is another example for why voir dire is so important, and further explains why the process is really “juror de-selection” rather than “juror selection.”
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:01 pmBeldar, couldn’t that have her removed for cause? She’s a political creature and had no business there. She’s a Chicago community organizer, practically.
I imagine this was quite an unpleasant jury room for the rest of ’em.
I admit, I really don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think this shouldn’t require a peremptory. I wish someone could show her saying she was going to be impartial when asked during voir dire.
Ace also says that the other 11 jurors are indicating the case was presented in a format that was difficult to understand. Why do that? They had extremely powerful evidence of a particular crime. Couldn’t they present this case in a single day, rebut whoever Blagojavich brought out, and be done with it?
Maybe I’m just being naive.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:07 pmWere they out of peremptory strikes — and were the people they struck worse than this??
Patterico (7ce293) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:08 pmBeldar, couldn’t that have her removed for cause?
I can answer that:
No.
As for the complexity of the case: they did have 24 counts. But no matter the complexity of the case, it’s the prosecutor’s job to tie it all together and make it clear in argument.
Patterico (7ce293) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:11 pmWell, dang. I would want a system where the prosecutor can question someone like this to the point where it’s clear they are unable to be fair, but I’ve been watching too many Law and Order episodes.
I wonder if they should have just charged him with the more serious and provable charges and kept it simple, but of course, if this juror is what we think she was, it wouldn’t have mattered much. and the 11 ‘guilty’ votes, at least on some charges, are evidence that the case was made.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:16 pmWere they out of peremptory strikes — and were the people they struck worse than this??
Well, perhaps they struck all the people that showed up in purple SEIU shirts. That probably would have exhausted all of the challenges for a Chicago jury.
JVW (3e9492) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:30 pmNo matter how cynical i get,i can’t keep up.Could this have been as planned?Nobody who is part of the administration or even in congress had to testify under oath and legions of skeltons stayed in the closet.As archie bunker would say ‘stifle’.
dunce (3ecffc) — 8/18/2010 @ 10:30 pmWhat’s been asserted so far about this juror is probably from pre-jury selection surveys — i.e., it was self-disclosed. Based just on that info, no judge would consider excusing a juror for cause. The only chance the prosecutors would have would be if they could develop much more conclusive evidence of bias during voir dire questioning, perhaps by developing more evidence about the disclosed activities and potential prejudices, and perhaps by developing evidence of additional grounds beyond those self-disclosed. Even then, most prospective jurors, when questioned (and gently led), will commit to do their best to set aside their biases and prejudices, and most judges will rely on that assurance in declining to remove them for cause.
It’s not unreasonable to wonder, too, whether hypersensitivity to Batson concerns might have played a role as the prosecutors decided how best to exercise their peremptory strikes. Fair or not, the risk of a case being substantially complicated and a verdict put at risk — by later claims of racism during jury selection — is something prosecutors (and to some extent, all courtroom lawyers, civil and criminal) have to weigh.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/18/2010 @ 11:37 pmHow could racism be in play if Blago is white?
Bradnsa (980254) — 8/18/2010 @ 11:59 pmBradnsa: Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), held that white defendants can make Batson challenges to prosecutorial tactics designed to exclude blacks from the jury.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 12:13 amAmusingly, this didn’t really answer bradnsa’s question. I mean, Beldar’s obviously right about what’s going on legally, and I really appreciate his insight.
but a lot of these hoops people are jumping through to pick a jury seem to make the administration of justice a lot worse.
It’s just my opinion, but when she was asked if she or her family had any association with the defendant’s organizations, she should have said yes and been excluded. I know I’m wrong, but I should be right.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/19/2010 @ 12:18 am(If that strikes you as peculiar, welcome to our world. I’ve written elsewhere of my profound belief that even while they’re in the middle of jury selection, not even the smartest, least racist, and most ethical trial lawyers have any assurance as to whether they are or are not violating Batson. You can see judgments reversed on Batson grounds because the appellate judges are persuaded that you followed too many stereotypes (including but not limited to racial stereotypes). You can also see judgments reversed on Batson grounds when they think you didn’t follow stereotypes that you should have. It is Kafkaesque.)
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 12:18 amSeveral of the other jurors have agreed to be interviewed at length by responsible, Blago-case-knowledgeable journalists over the past 24 hours. I have been impressed with these jurors, their intelligence, their focus, their insights, as well as their measured approach to solving both the legal questions and the jury room disagreements they encountered. Still, despite their dignity and their stated respect for the lone juror’s opinions, it has been quite obvious both from what they say (and don’t say) that they knew exactly what they were dealing with concerning this woman from the very first minutes they began deliberations.
What is interesting, and what some who are not from Illinois may not know, is that the regular Democrat party in Illinois, after they rushed to impeach him, desperately wanted Blago to be found guilty and jailed so that they could brush off the corruption crumbs and close the books on him before November elections. Mrs. Juror 106 may have thought she was helping her party but I doubt many of them are thanking her tonight.
elissa (846f6f) — 8/19/2010 @ 12:43 amThanks Beldar, I think I read a post about this on your blog.
Bradnsa (980254) — 8/19/2010 @ 12:48 amI told you! I told you so!! No, but you knew it all, didn’t you? Oh, it’s just a harmless little inferior juror. No harm there; right? Sheesh!!!
Shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and shouldn’t be allowed to serve on juries. The IQ is just too low.
KKKris (754d31) — 8/19/2010 @ 2:08 amI see the idiot has returned. Ho hum.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:02 amWhy don’t you go somewhere else, Chris? Nobody wants you here.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:03 amI refuse to use sarc/ tags. I’m afraid that the paraphrasing of Monty Python lines will have to serve.
Icy Texan (754d31) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:18 amWas that you, Icy? Heh, should’ve known Chris wouldn’t be that nuanced.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:21 amLOL, I caught the reference, but it actually is pretty damn ho hum commentary from that particular Chris. Even the kkk nick isn’t that hard to believe.
He’s a moby, tho.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:25 amIn regards to this juror, there IS one way in which Chris was kinda sorta half-right: as Ron White says, “You can’t fix ‘stupid’.”
Not to say that this juror is stupid because she’s African-American; my point is that stupid people making stupid decisions DOES hurt our society.
Icy Texan (754d31) — 8/19/2010 @ 3:32 amPaterico said
I carry about three carloads of cynicism regarding what is called the system of justice, so please forgive me this question; it is not meant to be a troll. It is a real, honest to goodness question.
Here goes: do you think that because you are seeking justice, or do you say it because you seek more scalps on your belt regardless?
Yes, Blago likely really IS a stinker. The 11-1 jury votes stick out like a sore thumb. But let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Would a white listener to Michael Savage, NRA member, and tea party movement participant be any less damaging to a prosecutor’s case if the defendant were someone who defended themselves from an assailant who is in of the government’s protected classes?
the friendly grizzly (74b518) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:20 amWell this is one time that the bias worked against Fitz, in the Libby case, one of the jurors was a diarist for one of the netroots, another had worked
ian cormac (8e4d9a) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:24 amfor Bob Woodward, who had been briefed by Armitage, one of the other leakers in the situation
I listen to NPR, live in Chicago, and have passed out campaign literature. I would have voted to convict Blago, had I been on the jury.
Get a grip.
Amiable Dorsai (e42c99) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:36 ami don’t know. there is alot of recieved wisdom on juries that prove wrong in individual cases.
Like let me give a kind of bad example. One time we were just doing practice jury selection in law school and I was playing prosecutor. So we had a guy up there and we asked a few questions and discovered this guy had a criminal record, for crack possession if memory serves, and served time in prison for it.
Everyone else on my team thought he should be struck. alot of people consider it gospel that a prosecutor never wants a person with a criminal record on the jury. But i got a sense from him of repentance, of him being very forthright in admitting his past, and feeling he got exactly what he deserved. So i persuaded them not to use a challenge.
Then the Defense got their hands on him and he admitted that in truth, he tended to believe the cops over the crooks and on balance if they accused you of anything, you were probably guilty. so the judge struck him for cause, and rightly so.
So i wasn’t there, i didn’t hear how she responded to questions, so i don’t know.
And we also don’t know the quality of the jurors they did strike. she might have been one of the milder ones, for all i know.
i guess to me there is too much art and not enough science in lawyering to definitively say X did something wrong in alot of cases, especially on matters of trial strategy.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:39 amChicago chilluns
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:54 ambeing gunned down in street why
crucify Blago?
I listen to NPR, live in Chicago, and have passed out campaign literature…
Get a grip.
Colonel long to get
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:57 ama grip on the throat of this
constituency
Wait… If “he tended to believe the cops over the
crooks” accused, that’s a BAD thing?I mean, “tended” doesn’t mean that you always trust the cop to be telling the truth. I wouldn’t. But I also would tend to expect the accused to be under a lot more pressure to bend the truth in their own favor than the cop is.
Guess that (along with my profession) will keep me from ever serving on a jury.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:59 amI think the point of this trial was to NOT be fair and, thus, she would be the perfect juror. Perhaps the prosecutor did not make it apparent to her that this was a hit job from the beginning and that of paramount importance, was to protect POTUS.
J (2946f2) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:06 amjury selection
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:08 am“kill them all let God sort out”
work best for Colonel
Sorry Ace, but doesn’t FOX Chicago News deserve the real credit?
ID (9284aa) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:24 amPat, Beldar
I can only imagine the difficulty level in creating a successful voir dire – I think the other way to circumvet this is possibly to be able to convict on 9-3 votes but the sentence would have to be reduced
In other words – if count one was 20 years – – the if the jury was unanimous then they are eligible for the max sentence, but if 1 to 3 jurors disagree the the sentece should be 25% of the max – life or death should still be unanimous jury verdicts
EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:25 amRegarding Patterico’s statement of the prosecutors’ truism that “Cases are won or lost in jury selection,” friendly grizzly (#22 — 8/19/2010 @ 5:20 am) asked:
This truism is honored — gospel, really — not just for prosecutors, but for all trial lawyers on either side of the bar, civil or criminal, plaintiff/prosecutor or defendant. If someone just isn’t buying what you’re selling under any circumstances, then once they make it on the panel, the only question is whether you’re in civil court (or perhaps non-felony criminal court), when a less than unanimous verdict may suffice.
It hasn’t got anything in particular to do with scalps. What any trial lawyer is trying to do during jury selection is to get rid of the potential jurors whom he has no reasonable prospect of persuading no matter what — that’s an effort commanded by the canons of ethics for all lawyers, as part of their zealous representation of their respective clients within the bounds of the law.
Put another way: The system is designed, in theory, to deliver a jury in case after case in which the jurors are capable of delivering a verdict based on the evidence they hear at trial, unaffected by their pre-existing biases and prejudices. The system is planned, executed, and overseen by humans, and therefore subject to error. And yes, it’s an error of the system when you have even one juror get onto a felony criminal jury who’s not basing his/her votes on the evidence, but on something else. Fortunately, this is the kind of systemic error which doesn’t prohibit the prosecution from retrying the defendant who’s benefited from the rogue juror’s faithlessness to his/her oath.
This is the classic Pyrrhic victory for Blago. For a variety of reasons, of all U.S. Attorneys in the nation, the sitting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, a Mr. Fitzgerald, is probably less likely to be fired by the sitting POTUS. He will indeed take Blago back to trial on all the counts on which a mistrial was declared. Blago, convicted already of a felony, has not much upside in his potential retrial, and must likely await its conclusion before he may even appeal the count on which he’s just been convicted. There are press reports, credible ones I think, that he’s already spent a lot of money on legal fees for his defense; I wonder how much he’s got squirreled away that he doesn’t consider fair game for legal fees, but the prospect of a retrial can’t be very appealing.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:30 amIt’s also possible, I should note, that this is a moment when there’s a renewed incentive for both sides to revisit their last positions during plea bargaining. Were I advising Blago, I’d be looking for the opportunity to exploit — and lock in — all value that can be gotten from the short-term tactical victory represented by the hung jury on most counts. Fitz has the resources and freedom to do a retrial, but it’s inevitable that he and his team are sorely disappointed. Sometimes deals become possible for the first time when Reality has delivered both sides a whallop to the nose.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:37 am“this is a moment when there’s a renewed incentive for both sides to revisit their last positions during plea bargaining”- comment by Beldar
Every high powered defense attorney and former U.S. Attorney in Northern Illinois-dozens of them-who have been used regularly for analysis and background during the Blago news coverage say this is what should happen. To a man/woman they all agree Blago will never do it. That’s just not in Blago’s ahem, character.
elissa (846f6f) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:57 amWhy is this trial being held in Chicago? Wouldn’t Springfield be a more proper venue
quasimodo (4af144) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:01 amI listen to NPR, live in Chicago, and have passed out campaign literature. I would have voted to convict Blago, had I been on the jury.
Get a grip.
Oh, I have a grip, all right. A death grip — on logic.
What liberal talk radio stations do you listen to? (And what are your ties to the Chicago Urban League?)
Why did you ignore the aspects of this juror’s background that I put in bold?*
I often listen to NPR myself. Nobody listens to liberal talk radio.
*HELPFUL READING TIP: When the author puts something in bold, it means he thinks it’s important. Pay special attention!
Patterico (c218bd) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:01 amWell part of the reason he had decided to auction off the Senate seat was his 500K in legal fees, around the time of the arrest. This juror knows that
ian cormac (8e4d9a) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:02 amwhat Blago did is not out of the realm
Did Roland Burris belong to the Chicago Urban League?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:18 amSorry, kkkris but this particular episode exhibits blacks total lack of judgment and sheer incompetence rather than their low iq. You didn’t have to have a brain to figure out this guy was guilty. Can anyone here seriously tell me they were not thinking “black” or “woman” when the 11-1 verdict was known?
Chris (b6cb48) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:37 am“Wouldn’t Springfield be a more proper venue”
Many are suggesting a change of venue is in order for the next trial. Probably Springfield is not the right place. Much, much smaller population area and (gross generalization here) apart from some very good farmers and lawyers, Springfield is mainly inhabited by lifer government employees, hospitality industry workers, political party hacks/staffers, and lobbyists. Not necessarily the best pool to draw a jury from, IMO.
elissa (846f6f) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:38 am“Can anyone here seriously tell me they were not thinking “black” or “woman” when the 11-1 verdict was known?”
Chris – Yes.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:42 amAmiable (#24 Amiable Dorsai — 8/19/2010 @ 5:36 am): I think 19 out of 20 lawyers looking at the self-supplied disclosures of this juror would have pegged her as a model defense juror. Her occupational info alone — retired government worker — would have been a red flag. Urban League would have been a red flag, by itself. And yeah, liberal talk radio would, too, as would liberal blog readership. NPR fits the pattern, although I’d consider it less probative than the others. In any event, there’s just no legitimate argument about how this juror would be evaluated under the “conventional wisdom,” which is to say, the set of rank stereotypes in which all prosecutors, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and defense lawyers (civil or criminal) routinely rely (along with their gut hunches and, sometimes, the opinions of highly priced jury consultants).
But there were almost certainly many other “model defense jurors” in the venire, and some of them might have been reasonably evaluated by prosecutors as even more likely to be a rogue juror.
Any lawyer with much trial experience will have multiple examples to cite — from both hearsay and personal experience, usually painful — to show that the stereotypes can be unreliable. But any lawyer with much trial experience will also agree that an ability to examine jurors about their potential biases during voir dire, and the ability to strike at least some jurors peremptorily, without having to show cause — when an opponent is doing the same — contributes in important ways to the achievement of justice, and as part thereof to the avoidance of hung juries.
It’s the nature of the beast. And it’s an ugly beast, the worst in the world and the worst in all of human history — except for all the other systems that have ever been tried instead.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:45 amChris is obviously unfamiliar with the dynamics of Chicago and Illinois politics to proffer such an ignorant statement.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:51 amKKKris is an idiot racist. A good little Dem.
JD (c13155) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:54 amIt may well have been a mistake. It turned out badly, for sure. I’d just be more cautious in making that determination on this somewhat limited fact pattern.
Would you keep these jurors?:
On a murder case: Woman with a non-natural hair color whose father went to prison. For murder.
On a theft case: Heavily tatted up restaurant worker who “hates attorneys.”
On a murder case: Woman who was involved in a very unpleasant divorce from a police officer three years prior, and retains gobs of unhappiness toward that officer and some of his friends.
Those were voluntary, successful keeps I’m familiar with. I’ve also been close to running out of challenges and kept an ex-military prosecution investigator who I did not want to keep (and I should have kicked, anyway.) It went badly.
There’s another potential reason to keep her. Suppose you’ve got a couple of other jurors near retirement age, involved in democratic campaigns and unions, and who are very similar except for the liberal talk radio part. And who feel like very good jurors. And who look rather more pale.
You might decide that your chances at having to retry this are greater if you kick (or worse yet, try to kick and fail) the subject juror. “Liberal talk radio,” might well be viewed as a thin reed if you end up in Batson-Wheeler land.
One more note:
(Patterico, in comments.)
Being out of challenges strikes me as only marginally relevant (and I know California courts disagree on this regarding defense issues with jury selection.)
Suppose I have two challenges left and the defense has four, and the defense just passed. If I get rid of Undesirable Juror – the worst juror, by far, still on the panel – the defense is going to be able to strafe the panel of some strong jurors I want on there, and Other Undesirable Juror is going to end up on the panel for sure. I might well quit while I’m less behind.
–JRM
JRM (cd0a37) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:02 amComment by Beldar — 8/19/2010 @ 12:18 am
And the legal community wonders why the “man in the street” has such contempt for the “Criminal (In)Justice System”?
AD - RtR/OS! (4228f5) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:12 am(From Aaron Worthing’s comment.)
You were right about the individual case, of course. But I think you’re way wrong about the received wisdom.
Anyone who thinks a prosecutor should kick someone with a criminal record automatically is inexpert in jury selection. Period.
Defendant Joe is on trial for DUI. Potential juror Steve has a DUI conviction. With ONLY that information, I wouldn’t look unfavorably on Steve, because I’ve been to the dance before.
Of course, I don’t have only that. Usually, I have conversation with Steve that goes like this:
JRM: How long ago was that?
Steve: Three years ago.
JRM: Do you feel you were treated fairly?
Steve: Well, yeah. I mean, I was guilty.
These jurors, as a rule, are great prosecution jurors. (The ones who say they weren’t treated fairly are booted either for cause or with a peremptory challenge.)
–JRM
JRM (cd0a37) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:15 amAD – RtR/OS! (#47 — 8/19/2010 @ 8:12 am): The man on the street should stop voting for Democrats, then.
Beldar (a47d40) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:20 amI hope somebody is paying attention when juror #106 stops by the local machine headquarters to pick up her check.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:23 amThey Gerrymandered my street.
AD - RtR/OS! (4228f5) — 8/19/2010 @ 8:23 amStupid question, but can a juror be held in contempt (I know *I* hold her in contempt) of court for refusing to keep an open mind, and talking about how she will vote to not convict no matter what? is that not in violation of her oath as a juror and the explicit instructions to the jury? Why isn’t this woman in jail for refusing to do her duty as a juror?
Rorschach (c5574d) — 8/19/2010 @ 1:03 pm“talking about how she will vote to not convict no matter what”
Again, I’m not an expert, but if that can be proven I think she could be in serious trouble. Then again, prosecutorial discretion is another thing I am no expert on.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/19/2010 @ 1:23 pmBut…what kind of countertops does she have?!
I find it unbelievable that you would be anything but horrified at this level of scumminess.
Well, maybe I shouldn’t be. Seeing as you made your “name” by digging up the identities of blog hosts and online commenters.
Truly disgusting.
Scrumptious (146ea8) — 8/19/2010 @ 5:18 pm^said the pot to the kettle.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/19/2010 @ 6:40 pmYou want the truly
ColonelHaiku (2deed7) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:13 pmdisgusting? I give it to
you. it chris hooten
?
Did I miss this episode?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:20 pmScrumptious – Do you have a point, other than the one on top of your head? And yes, you are likely truly disgusting.
JD (cf3b04) — 8/19/2010 @ 7:21 pm40. Sorry, kkkris but this particular episode exhibits blacks total lack of judgment and sheer incompetence rather than their low iq.
— So, what does it say about the black jurors that voted to convict? And to you my name is Mr. Texan.
You didn’t have to have a brain to figure out this guy was guilty.
— It certainly didn’t stop you.
Can anyone here seriously tell me they were not thinking “black” or “woman” when the 11-1 verdict was known?
Icy Texan (2c6af9) — 8/20/2010 @ 2:43 am— I was thinking “liberal” . . . that’s it, just “liberal”.
“When the author puts something in bold, it means he thinks it’s important.”
Eh, you might as well type in ALL CAPS. They do as good a job of making you look like a crank.
No ties to the Urban League that I can think of, but I once had a summer job raising money for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
Still would have voted to convict. So, I suspect, would most Chicago liberals.
Amiable Dorsai (43e818) — 8/20/2010 @ 4:30 amI think we see how Chicago liberals vote, Amiable. They vote like clowns and they get the government they deserve.
If you really think a single sentence in bold, meant to highlight an important point, is as crankish as a nut using boldcaps in a comment, you’re showing the judgment I associate with Chicago liberals and the Rainbow Coalition shakedown artists.
This juror was a political animal and that’s why she voted the way she did.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/20/2010 @ 4:34 ambut I once had a summer job raising money for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
Which makes you an unqualified stooge – Jackson was called on his decades of bullsh-t when he tried shakedown Nike for it’s alleged lack of Black corporate directors (even though they had John Thompson on board for many years at that point). Phil Knight (Nike Chairman and CEO) said fine, we’ll consider your request if you agree to open your financial books to inspection by independent auditors. Jackson immediately ran away, never to be heard from again on the subject.
So in summation you’re a bloviating idiot who was taken in by one of the premiere race – hustlers of our time. Congrats, wear that dunce cap with pride!
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/20/2010 @ 7:11 amEh, you might as well type in ALL CAPS. They do as good a job of making you look like a crank
But he didn’t use the caps button, yet you…why bother at this point?
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/20/2010 @ 7:55 amAs a lifelong Chicagoan, I certainly did not think the holdout juror(s) was black.
Urban League-NPR listener-black-liberal-has politically active relative
does not say Blago sympathizer to me. Until fairly recently, there was a pretty deep gap between the “reform” wing of the Democrats and the “Machine”. Only in the last 20 years has that breach been filled in.
Which it has been – much of today’s so-called “reform” Democrats never actually challenge the Combine. They keep their own hands clean, but lool the other way when the dirty deals go down, and support Combine Democrats against Republicans. Obama is a classic of this type. He was never a Blago “crony”, but he worked with him quite willingly.
I don’t think it was a mistake by the prosecution to leave her on the jury. Who would expect a black liberal reformer to protect a white ethnic crook?
Rich Rostrom (f7aeae) — 8/20/2010 @ 2:05 pmWTF does her listening to npr or liberal talk radio or the chicago urban league have to do with anything. What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? That’s a normal person you would expect to find on a jury.
Chris Hooten (15bd03) — 8/20/2010 @ 4:48 pmThink about this! 59 state senators from both political parties unanimously agreed to throw this bum out of office. Tell me anything of importance that you can get both parties to agree on unanimously.
Yet 12 jurors can’t be found to agree. Maybe one of the questions the jurors should be asked is “Are you stupid?”
Richard Mueller (e65806) — 8/20/2010 @ 7:03 pmChris Hooten – You should really have a brain enema or read some of the other comments before you spew on a thread.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/20/2010 @ 7:31 pm