Rezko Verdict Watch

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:00 AM EST
Tags: Tony Rezko (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: Today should be the day for a verdict in the Tony Rezko trial. There seems to be some consensus among trial watchers that count 16, the attempted extortion count, is the one the jury did not agree on. We'll see if a good night's sleep and a dynamite charge from the judge made a difference. Or, if they decided last night and the judge just held the verdict until this morning.

Bump and Update: The jury went home without announcing a verdict and will return in the morning. It may be they reached one but due to the late hour, the judge is holding it until the morning. That's not uncommon in high profile cases.

***

The jury deliberating the fate of Tony Rezko sent the judge a note today saying it cannot agree on 1 of the 24 counts against him. I guess that means they've decided on the other 23 counts. The judge told them to keep deliberating. [More...]

Rezko is charged with mail fraud in Counts One, Two, Seven, Eight, Eleven and Twelve, and with wire fraud in Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Nine, Ten, Thirteen, Fourteen and Fifteen.

Count 16 charges Rezko with attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, pertaining to "Investment Firm 7" or "Individual J."

Counts 17 through 22 charge Rezko with aiding and abetting Stuart Levine’s bribery concerning a federally funded program in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B).

Counts 23 and 24 are money laundering.

< Will He or Won't He Declare Victory Tonight? | Venezuela Slouching Towards A Police State >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Rezko Verdict Watch | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Rezko who? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:09:38 PM EST

The way press covered Obama's inner circle, it is not surprising that people here would say Rezko who?

Yes, Rezko is the same person whom Obama said was just an ordinary donor, nothing more!

Rezko verdict (none / 0) (#41)
by PamFl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:13:50 AM EST

Verdict won't come out today (Tues.) because the are 2 primaries left.
The entire trial has been dragged out and manipulated to coincide with the end of the primaries.


: WTF? (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:08:30 PM EST

The jurors and the judge are conspiring with the DNC, Obama or Hillary? That sounds extreme to me.

hmm, considering who the prosecutor is, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST

i tend to lean toward at least some if not most of the counts being guilty. in my view not good for the defendant.

Even though (none / 0) (#1)
by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST

you think this has nothing to do with Obama, could this kind of news come on a worse day for him? Especially if they come back with the 24th count tomorrow or Wednesday when he is proclaiming himselg king of the world? He'll have to share the news cycle with Tony Rezko....

: Well, Sen. Obama will just have (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:58 PM EST

to "haul" out another SD to draw attention away.

: On the other hand, if Rezko is (none / 0) (#7)
by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST

acquitted, there will be dancing in the streets.
It's taken them a long time to wade through all these counts, so I have to think there will be some convictions.
The question will be whether convictions are on the "bigger" charges or the smaller ones.

: I lost track of how many times he's brought that (none / 0) (#36)
by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST

crown out, gee it must be pretty worn by now.

: You are assuming the msm (none / 0) (#39)
by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST

will bother to give it wide coverage. I doubt they will, especially if it is bad news for Rezko.

More tea leaf reading (none / 0) (#3)
by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:16 PM EST

Ok, since I am not a lawyer and never played one, the 24 they agreed on could be a mix of guilty and not guilty, right?

absolutely (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST

it means they are unanimous on 23 and not in agreement on one. It says nothing as to how they have agreed on the 23, whether guilty or not guilty.


: What do you think Jeralyn on the 23? (none / 0) (#12)
by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:22:49 PM EST

Does that suggest 23 not guilty (none / 0) (#5)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:16:04 PM EST

and 1 split? I'd think that the 1 would be easier to decide if there are other guilty verdicts.

To borrow from Forrest Gump, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:19:52 PM EST

"verdicts are like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get."


no (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:23:08 PM EST

again, it just shows they are in agreement on 23 counts. Whether guilty or not guilty, we don't know. There could be some of each.


Sure (none / 0) (#17)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM EST

Just wondering what one tends to see in n-settled/one-split verdicts where n >> 1.


this is not susceptible of statistical (none / 0) (#23)
by scribe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:51:22 PM EST

prediction - every case is unique and all one can really tell from the note is that they are split on one count.

Like I said last week in a post noting the jury was still out, when someone asked if that was positive or negative for the defense: "All that the jury still being out means, is that the jury is still out."

Time to go to the Courthouse cafeteria and get some coffee.


Every recurrent event (none / 0) (#28)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:44:21 PM EST

can be evaluated statistically. You may say, factors x and y dominate the outcome, and we don't know x or y. But who knows, maybe the above info has some predictive value via the mechanism I described.


every case is unique (none / 0) (#30)
by scribe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM EST

and therefore, by definition, not a recurrent event. The facts presented to the jury, the jurors, the lawyers' presentations, the judge's rulings, everything varies from trial to trial.

One can model and say: every time an offense of X is charged, the prosecution has Y likelihood of winning a conviction. But, that's meaningless as a predictive model for a particular case.


: Every weather pattern is unique (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:55:24 PM EST

But there are still times when one can intelligently and informedly say it's likely to rain tomorrow, even if it turns out to be sunny. That's why it's called statistics, not Newtonian mechanics.

Obviously I don't know what the decision is (none / 0) (#37)
by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:40:51 AM EST

but I seriously, seriously doubt that all 23 would be "not guilty" and 1 count would be given 3 days worth of deliberations. Just gut feeling.


Relatively speaking (none / 0) (#6)
by rilkefan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:18:08 PM EST

Isn't it fairly usual to get mixed results given that number of counts? If so one needs to compare the one-split case to the standard.

My guess is it's Count 16 (none / 0) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST

The attempted extortion charge.

that was my thought as well (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:06:11 PM EST

it's the only one of a kinder. And it requires the Government to show he acted with intent of causing fear and that the victim was reasonable in being afraid. The Gov't. submitted this instruction:

Attempted extortion by the use of actual and threatened fear means the wrongful use of actual and threatened fear of economic harm to obtain or attempt to obtain money or property.
"Wrongful" means that the defendant had no lawful right to obtain money or property in that way. "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.

The defense wanted this one:

Attempted extortion by the threatened fear means the wrongful use of threatened fear to
obtain or attempt to obtain money or property. "Wrongful" means that the defendant had not lawful
right to obtain money or property in that way.
"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.

I don't remember which the Judge gave. Also, they have to prove Rezko's conduct had an effect on interstate commerce.


: Thanks for the details ... (none / 0) (#29)
by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:59:28 PM EST

That was essentially my logic. The one-of-a-kind status. And my guess that attempted extortion charges probably required some complicated intent to be shown.
I guess we'll find out soon enough, if we were right.

Not Necessarily.. (none / 0) (#19)
by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:37:38 PM EST

I've been called to Jury Service twice and sat through 4 trials.

With 24 counts there will be a lot to discuss, some individuals won't make up there mind until they have heard everyone out.

If you remember they said last week that they were trying to conclude the case which means they have been discussing this one count for approx 3 days. That means the other 23 counts were decided in 5 1/2 days. Given the complexity of the case that's pretty quick.

jeralyn, typically how long will a judge (none / 0) (#21)
by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST

give a jury to debate a mixed result like this?

: They'll send another note (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST

when they are done or when they feel they've reached the end of the road again and can't agree. She can tell them to keep trying or she can accept their word that more deliberations won't change their positions.

If one count is "hung" (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:45:52 PM EST

Does that mean the whole trial has to be done over?

No (none / 0) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST

it means the government can ask to try him again on the hung count.


Can they ask for a majority verdict e.g. 10-2 (none / 0) (#27)
by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST

: Maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM EST

they can ask the DNC to determine how all the jury pool that wasn't picked would have ruled. They were disenfranchised!!!

: In federal court (none / 0) (#38)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST

all verdicts must be unanimous.

I served on the grand jury (none / 0) (#40)
by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:23:29 AM EST

in Cook County, IL in the mid-70's. It was one of the more interesting episodes in my life. Not the life and death stuff you might get on a regular jury since you're only deciding if there should be a trial, but some of the DAs were a great teachers, and we learned a lot. Here in MA we have "the one day or one trial" system for jury duty, and I get called every time I'm eligible while I have some friends who have never served. I've sat on a drive-by shooting, a laundromat vs. service tech dispute, and a young man accused of breaking and entering for climbing in his girlfriend's bedroom window. Mostly, I show up sit and read a book for a couple of hours and then get sent home. But I don't mind going.