NorthSideSox72 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 10:45 AM) I'd imagine the issue is that on most counts the jury agrees that he's guilty, but on some of the harder counts, the juror(s) holding out don't think there is enough there. That's my guess as well, so he'll end up being found guilty on some counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 The jury has a verdict on only two of the 24 counts and is hung on the rest. Judge sent them back for further deliberations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) The jury has a verdict on only two of the 24 counts and is hung on the rest. Judge sent them back for further deliberations. Trib clarifies - they are sure on 2, deadlocked on some, but have not yet begun deliberating on the wire fraud counts. Judge sent them back out to deliberate those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) Trib clarifies - they are sure on 2, deadlocked on some, but have not yet begun deliberating on the wire fraud counts. Judge sent them back out to deliberate those. This jury seems to be making a career out of this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Sounds like the verdicts are in. I think he'll be found guilty on the conspiracy charges. Edited August 17, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Guilty only of lying to the FBI, hung jury on 23 other counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Haha There is a reason why drug agents wait for the sale to actually happen instead of busting them when they are merely talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) Haha There is a reason why drug agents wait for the sale to actually happen instead of busting them when they are merely talking about it. yep. should have waited to bust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 BTW, if you want a good laugh, put Blago into Google news and click latest. Do not pause, let it scroll. The Twitter posts are hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I read he faces up to 5 years on just that one count alone. I wonder what the sentencing guidelines call for, and what that means in terms of real time. Also, if he was broke before, a retrial will absolutely kill him financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) yep. should have waited to bust him. The Tribune blew that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 17, 2010 Author Share Posted August 17, 2010 pretty shocked they were deadlocked on the consipiracy charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) yep. should have waited to bust him. They were in a bind, both due to information that was about to get out (Trib) and due to the pending action on the Senate seat. Well, at least he's a convicted felon now facing prison. And the Feds will of course re-try on the other counts, at least some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 A few potentials in my mind: 1) The government's case was very, very weak. 2) The jury, for whatever reason, simply was not going to find him guilty (political bias?) 3) The laws against corruption and fraud in this country are hopelessly pathetic. I'm leaning towards 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:37 PM) 3) The laws against corruption and fraud in this country are hopelessly pathetic. The Supreme Court stripped (probably correctly) a lot of the heft out of the corruption laws in this country back in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 18, 2010 Author Share Posted August 18, 2010 Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense. I agree they will narrow and clarify the case, but I think they may actually call more witnesses. They will just have fewer counts to focus them on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 As someone who served ona jury for a murder case that ended up to be a hung jury, I can understand the overal frustration of not only the lawyers but also the jurors. In my case, we had two people that were 100% unmovable form their position that this person was innocent. After 2 days of deliberations, we were let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:32 PM) Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense. I also heard that they were unanimous in deciding innocent in the extortion charges with Rahm Emmanuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) I also heard that they were unanimous in deciding innocent in the extortion charges with Rahm Emmanuel. This can't be right. If they were unanimous, they would have reached a verdict on those charges, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) This can't be right. If they were unanimous, they would have reached a verdict on those charges, no? whoops misread this quote.. my bad. Jurors set the stage for Tuesday's verdict when they told Judge James Zagel last week they were unable to reach a decision on all but two of the 24 counts. Zagel urged jurors to keep trying, and by Tuesday that unanimity had dropped to just one count. The count they ended up losing 100 percent agreement on was a bribery charge alleging the ex-governor tried to shake down former U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, juror Stephen Wlodek said. Wlodek, 36, of Bartlett said between one and five jurors sided with Blagojevich on every count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting. One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense. I am wondering if Blago is smart enough to cut a deal now and if it would be accepted. His hubris may get in the way. I just do not see this going to a second trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years. I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 19, 2010 Author Share Posted August 19, 2010 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 18, 2010 -> 02:36 PM) They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years. I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives. Or convict the guy for being a corrupt ass politician. More insight from the jury. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08...evich-jury.html I think if I were Blago I wouldn't feel very good about my chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 They have convicted him. They just want their pound of flesh. It didnt work out well for the shylock and I hope it doesnt work for the US govt. People who commit violent crimes are often given less time than what the govt wants Blago to do. I just dont believe they have their priorities straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts