Blagojevich defense rests; Rahm spared

Blago decides not to rat on his White House buddies....
And in return?????
Did anyone say "pardon"?

I hate to say this because Blago is an idiot and he was a terrible governor, but he just might be found innocent of all charges. The feds have Blago on tape bloviating about alot of things that he'd like to do that aren't legal, but they don't have him or anyone else on tape actually acting on those things. We shall see...

Warm up the cell next to Ryan. That would be amusing to watch them together at the chow line..
"Pardon me Geoge, no pardon me Rod". But neither former Governer of IL should get a pardon for their abuse of power.

I wonder how much Obama and Emanuel paid Blago not to testify so their names wouldn't come out?
Another democrat cover up by the obimbo administration.

As far as tactics go, Blago's decision not to testify in his own behalf could well turn out to be a terrible blunder. His defense team promised the jury that he would testify. His failure to testify now gives the jury the impression that his lawyers were less than truthful and that Blago has something to hide. In addition, juries like to hear the defense side of a case from the defendant. It's harder for a jury to convict when a defendant looks the jury in the eye and asserts his/her innocence.
.
Given the pros and cons of testifying, it could well be that Blago's attorneys advised him not to testify because the value of his testimony would be outweighed by the danger that he might expose himself to damaging cross-examination. That’s a decision that should have been explored, and made, prior to trial. Of course, in closing argument, Blago's lawyers will try to explain away his failure to testify by claiming that he believed the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, needed no further evidence to secure his acquittal. Unfortunately for Blago, if the prosecution’s case is strong enough to demand some explanation, his failure to testify could tip the scales against him. It’s happened before. [Hint: The presumption of innocence is merely an evidentiary presumption which, in practice, is often a legal fiction to juries.]

While the jury's out, Blago might want to slip over to Oxxford's to get measured for some prison striped suits.

Posted by: Equal time | July 21, 2010 1:28 PM
******************

"Equal time", "Lost in Space Donny from Plainfield", and whatever other sock-puppets you're using today,

I've been trying to find out exactly how it is that the White House is some how tied into any wrong doing by Blago and I just can't find anything......oh yeah...I've got it now.... you just made it all up, because that's what Repugs always do.... Sorry about that, I should have known better. My bad.

John W Bircher,
Blago, just like anyone else in America, has the right not to testify in his own trial, no matter what he may or may not have said OUTSIDE of the court room. Even an unemployed phony online lawyer like yourself should know that.

Media power reigns today with the present occupant of the WH.
Need we wonder why tha a major case such as this, and Obama's name hardly mentioned?!

Posted by: nana | July 21, 2010 3:48 PM
***************

nana aka equal time aka Plainfield Donny etc etc.

No matter how many phony post names you use on here while desperately flailing around trying to tie the White House to the Blago mess, it won't work. Blago is already on tape cursing out an assistant because he's NOT getting anything from the White House, period, end of story.

Oops, try again...

* * * * *
Posted by: Rob | July 21, 2010 3:42 PM
.
1. You’re absolutely right about Blago’s right not to testify. You might even be happy to know that he is probably entitled to a jury instruction that tells jurors that they cannot use his failure to testify against him as evidence of guilt. In ideal world, juries would actually follow these rules and not take into consideration the fact a defendant has exercised his right to remain silent.
.
However, those of us who actually try cases know that juries don’t always follow these rules, and that it is better to avoid prejudicing a defendant by changing tactics mid-trial. We know that when you promise a jury that a defendant is going to testify and explain away the prosecution’s evidence of guilt, a jury is likely to hold a defendant’s failure to testify against him if the prosecution produces enough damning testimony to warrant an explanation. The better method would have been to: (1) consult with his client ahead of time and decide before trial whether, and under what conditions, the defendant will testify; and (2) NOT promise a jury testimony they will not hear, especially if it’s the defendant’s testimony. If there is any doubt that a defendant will testify, it is better to simply omit any mention of it in opening statement.
.
AGAIN: I am fully aware that juries shouldn’t act this way, but that real juries don’t always follow these rules in the real world. If you had intelligently read my previous post, you would have seen that I described a situation much more complex than Blago’s assertion of his right not to testify. If his lawyers had not promised his testimony in opening statement and then he simply failed to testify, the situation would have been very different.
.
2. I am still not a Bircher, you racist twit; and I don’t feel like expending any more energy trying to prove my status.

One thing that came out of this trial is that Blago did very little work as Governor. The State was allowed to send more than it was taking in and is now 13 Billion Dollars in the hole. Major tax increases ad Cutbacks are coming. But it will not be not be until after the November Elections because politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, have no backbone. Taxes will have to be raised dramatically and there may have to be big cut backs in State Government and Services or both. The State Tax increases will be added to the Federal Tax increases once the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire at the end of the year. Anyone making more than $25,000 will be hit with a tax increase. And there is more to come after that when Obama Care goes into effect. Hold on to your wallets folks because the Government and the Politicians are coming after your hard earned money.

John W. Bircher,
If the jury is reading Blago press accounts, then Blago would have good reason for a new trial if he were to be convicted. The court deals in FACTS, not insane ramblings from a Teabagger claiming to be a lawyer on the internet.

Hey Dimwit Rob

I go by one name and one name only.
You do realize everytime you post something it is very obvious of your past ID's since the content and name calling never change.
One of these days you might want to try and have an intelligent discussion. I know that will be difficult for you but try anyway. You never know, it may help you learn something.

Posted by: Lost in Space Donny from Plainfield | July 21, 2010 2:39 PM

Oh the damage he could do!

The reason he is not testifying is because his brother, Rob, on the stand yesterday did not do very well under cross-examination according to a story on NPR. Given Rod's usual bloviating, I'm sure his attorneys decided it is in his AND Patti's best interest to not take the stand.

I don't think the WH would ever try and stand iin the way of justice. You just think so because you hate our president. United we stand, divided we fall.

* * * * *
Posted by: Rob | July 21, 2010 5:13 PM
.
Dear dim-witted, racist Rob (aka dim-witted, racists JohnEEE-boy, Hulk Smash!, Huh?, janet, etc.)
.
Blago’s lawyer promised in his opening statement to the jury that Blago would testify. See http://cbs2chicago.com/governor/blagojevich.opening.statements.2.1738556.html and particularly six paragraphs down where it states, “Adam [Blago’s lawyer] promised jurors that Blagojevich would take the stand to tell his side of the story.” Thus, Blago’s attorney was the one who promised Blago’s testimony, and now the jury knows that he will not testify. That is made explicit by the fact the defense rested without Blago taking the stand. These are the circumstances the jury could very well use against Blago (albeit improperly), if the prosecution has a creditable case. Thus, the prejudice to Blago could very well come from what the jury saw and heard in open court, because they have been deprived of testimony they were promised.
.
I wasn’t referring to any of Blago’s press accounts, or anything outside the courtroom. I don’t know where you got the idea that I was talking about anything the jury may have received outside of the courtroom. Of course he would have good grounds for a new trial if jurors receive any evidence from sources not in open court. That’s considered jury misconduct. But you have told me nothing new by saying so.
.
If you don’t think that jurors act the way I described, I have news for you. But, then again, there is no telling you anything, is there? You can’t argue with experience, so you launch into another personal attack. And, as before, I am not a Bircher and not inclined to become one, you twit.

Another thing I'd like to ask, are the bills his minion signed because Rob was nowhere to be found (hiding in the bathroom) really legal? They weren't signed by the Governor.

Fitzgerald failed to prove his case. I predict that Blago walks
out a free man and in turn files
a lawsuit against the State of Illinois and other individuals. I don't even like the guy. And he'll probably win the lawsuit too.

Paul, you may be right.

He could very well be acquitted.

I remember during the Scott Peterson murder trial in California most folk were predicting an acquittal, but I said he could very well be convicted of 1st degree murder.

Here, it's the other way round.

I don't see that anything changed hands.

A lot of talk, a google search, a telephone call? Is that all the G has?

Of course, you'd have to be in the courtroom and have watched the jorors for tells.

But Blago seems very upbeat all the time.

As if he's catching a good vibe from jurors.