Blago abandons client files

Oops.

This raises an interesting question:  Blago had clients?

Blago conviced on one count: Lying to the FBI.

Jury hung on all other counts, and all counts against his brother.

This is the great thing about being a prosecutor:  a conviction on one count is pretty much just as good as a conviction on all 24.

Taking their time.

I cannot argue with you. The jury is taking their job very seriously. According to the Chicago Tribune, they have only deliberated on half the counts thus far. The jury has not deliberated on the 11 wire fraud counts. Also, they only agree on 2 of the counts they have considered. All of that sounds like it is good for the defense. However, maybe the jury hasn't voted on the wire fraud counts because they consider them more straightforward. After all, the wire fraud counts are the counts based on the surveillance tapes.

Blago jury deadlocked?

Some people have been wondering what is taking the Blago jury so long.  Yesterday, in an email to Mr. Gillette, I speculated that they could be hung up on a few of the two dozen counts, or they could be struggling with the counts against Blago's brother Robert.  Today, we got some evidence to support this speculation:  the jury is apparently deadlocked with respect to at least some counts.

In short, the jury appears to be taking its job seriously and is going through all the counts against both defendants separately.

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.

More on Blago: who spilled the beans?

Yesterday I blogged about Rod Blagojevich's decision not to take the stand despite his lawyer's promise to jury, during openings, that he would testify.  Today an article in the Chicago Tribune reports that the true reason for the decision was not confidence that the government had failed to prove its case but rather that Blago failed spectacularly during practice testimony:

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. Blagojevich and his wife, Patti, spent several days last week going over his possible testimony with lawyers Sam Adam and his son, Sam Adam Jr., in the South Side's Jackson Park to be away from their office and interruptions. 

It's no surprise that the true reason for the decision not to testify is tactical rather than substantive.  But what it is a little surprising to me is that the Tribune was able to find "sources" to dish this information.  Seems to me that these practice sessions would have been highly confidential, if not attorney-client privileged.  If the person who spilled the beans to the Tribune is an attorney, that person likely violated the Illinois rules of professional conduct.   

Blago shuts up

Another fun thing about moving to the Land of Lincoln is that a former governor is always on trial.  I admit that I haven't followed the Rod (and Robert) Blagojevich trial too closely.  But there was some interesting news today:  the defense rested, and Blago took the Fifth. 

This was a surprise.  Blago's defining characteristic has been the inability to keep his mouth shut.  Arguably, idle talk was his only crime.  But today he took the advice of one of his lawyers (Sam Adams) over his own instinct and the advice of his other lawyer (Sam Adams, Jr.) and decided not to testify.  The theory is that the government didn't prove his case.  In fact, according to Blago, "the government in their case proved my innocence."

Of course, it's not unusual for a defendant not to testify.  But it is unusual when, as happened here, the defense lawyer told the jury during opening statements that the defendant is going to testify.  Trial lawyers are taught never to say anything in an opening statement that they can't back up during the trial.  This is why judges usually let lawyers say anything they want during openings -- because if they say something they can't prove, the jury will remember, and the jury will punish.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out here.