Colonel Mustard in the library.

The New Yorker (abstract only) had a very entertaining article about Blago's rise and apparent fall. Maybe I am naive, but I can't imagine that a lawyer is the source of the Tribune article you cite. The risk of being outed as the source seems much higher than the reward of talking to the press. For that matter, what is the reward in talking to the press in this context? Is the hope that the jury will disregard the instruction it received not to read about the case and read the Tribune article?

My guess is that at least some of Blago's practice sessions took place in front of a mock jury. Perhaps a jury member or the jury consultant is the article's source. Or Colonel Mustard, he is always a good guess.

As you note, the decision not to testify creates a problem for the defense attorneys. No attorney wants to be in the position of having promised the jury something in opening statement and then not being able to deliver it afterwords. This is especially true when it is, like this, a big promise. This summary of the closing remarks does not give this reader a lot of confidence that the defense offered a good explanation to the jury. On the other hand, that maybe the only explanation that the defense can offer to the jury. It will be interesting to see if any jurors comment on the significance, or lack thereof, of Blago's decision not to take the stand.