If I had been sitting on Governor Blagojevich’s jury, I would have voted “not guilty.” There are several reasons for this, but I’ll start with the One Great Reason:
Since the playing field in US courtrooms isn’t level, I would never vote “guilty” against any defendant. And I would say so up front, before even being selected for a jury. The state simply has too much power at its disposal; when they really want to get somebody, they get him.
Indented comment: As far as letting a guilty man go free: First of all, no juror sealed within the bubble known as a courtroom could possibly know that. Second, the guilty never really go free. Yes, I’m talking about karmic retribution here. One of the biggest problems in the West: We’re so arrogant, we feel we have to act like little Gods meting out justice.
Apparently, though, nobody bothered to ask one very important question: Why must it take a unanimous jury to convict? The US Congress can pass any bill into law with only a two-thirds majority in each House. And yet, in a jury trial, unanimity is the standard. Why not 9 out of 12? Three-fourths to convict compared to two-thirds to pass a law – sounds fair enough to me.
And yet, not one single commentator has even mentioned this in passing.
As for We-the-Sheeple, we’re so programmed to accept things “because they’ve always been done that way,” we’re doomed to keep spending our way to bankruptcy for our complacency.
However, I will add this: I happen to think Rodney wasn’t guilty of trying to sell Obama’s seat in the US Senate. The only thing he was guilty of was trying to deal on the phone and getting carried away. Translation? He was speaking straight from the id, without having engaged his filters.
According to one juror*: “There were several times we had to vote and revote and listen to the tapes and go through all our notes.” If the jury had to “vote and revote” and “go through all our notes,” that tells me they weren’t really sure. And yet the Governor, speaking in real time with his filters disengaged, was faulted by the prosecution for not being more subtle. For that’s what this is all about – subtlety. Since Guv B’s approach was ham-handed, he gets to hang, while other operators who are smoother manage to stay in business.
The truth of the matter is, Governor B had a valuable commodity at his disposal. And why not call it that? Hell, he could have even appointed himself to Obama’s old Senate seat. Then what could people have said? Not this: “He’s illegally profiting from his office,” since the law did not prevent him from self-nomination. [That law is still in effect!]
He should have appointed himself.
The jury taking 10 days to weigh the evidence is pretty telling. Frankly, I thought – for that reason alone – they were tempted to let him walk. However – and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise – juries can be cowed by overbearing prosecutors and prejudiced judges. That judge and those prosecutors knew there was too much at stake to let this guy walk. And, I’m sure, in all their subtle little ways, they bullied the jury.
An example:
QUOTE*:
The real drama in the case began, said the juror who is a computer programmer, when lead prosecutor Reid Schar stood up to begin cross examining Blagojevich and said, “you are a convicted liar” referring to [his] conviction of lying to investigators after his first trial.
“That scared us all to death,” the juror said, laughing. “We were so nervous after that little segment of the trial. We were unanimous on that one. The trial up until then had not been very dramatic…until he came out and did that.”
:UNQUOTE.
· “You are a convicted liar” – Highly prejudicial and irrelevant to the cross-examination. And the judge allowed this? The Governor had been convicted of lying to the FBI – that much is true. But that conviction is pending appeal and has nothing to do with this current trial. The prosecutor hoped to plant this broader meaning: “Once a liar, always a liar. If he lied once, he’ll lie again.”
· “That scared us all to death” – which was precisely Schar’s intention – as endorsed by the judge.
· “We were unanimous on that one” – a very important first step toward building the unanimity needed for conviction.
I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some members of the jury thought, “I better go along with the game plan in case our deliberations are being secretly recorded [and, yes, this has happened]. I don’t want our homegrown Gestapo knocking on my door at midnight because I dared to doubt his guilt.” Yes, the G-men knocking on your door isn’t too far off. A jury’s deliberation room is one of the few areas where an ordinary citizen’s free speech rights still mean something. Do you think for a minute that Neo-Con micromanagers (including Obama) aren’t scheming to violate even that sanctuary?
Blagojevich and (??) are guilty
So what did I mean by this article’s title?
The Governor was “guilty” of poor form and of giving the appearance of impropriety – though neither is against the law.
The Illinois Senate was guilty of voting to bar him from ever again holding public office in
The jury was guilty, since they were asking themselves the wrong question: “Is he guilty?” They should have asked: “If he is guilty, to what degree do we want to say so?” By failing to ask that question, the jury hands over to the judge the right to hand down a 300-year sentence. Legal experts are saying that “probably” won’t happen – more likely is 10 to 15. In any event, the judge has too much latitude in sentencing which I, had I been one of those jurors, would not have cared to allow him to exercise. It will be interesting to see if juror’s remorse raises its timid head – after sentencing.
We-the-Sheeple are guilty for going along with a legal system in desperate need of a fundamental overhaul. An example:
QUOTE [written back in 2010**]:
[NOTE: This is pretty much a confession that those who can’t pay the “going rate” won’t get much of a defense – Searle.]
If the case is retried, taxpayers will have to pick up the entire tab, including $110 an hour for his court-appointed lawyers, and whatever expenses are racked up.
That is the maximum a court appointed lawyer can charge in a federal case, but well below the going rate for a top defense attorney.
The prosecutor’s office is guilty of bringing this case to retrial after their first (overall) failure to convict. They could have been satisfied with a prison term for lying to the FBI or with knowing the ex-guv has suffered a financial burden defending himself and has next-to-zero in the way of future job prospects. They could have been outright gleeful that he was barred from serving in elective office ever again in
They could have…but they didn’t.
The Dem/Pubs in
Other
Several factors keep the current system in place: Fear of change, fear of the unknown, the incumbents’ institutional and financial advantages, and the power of advertising. Especially that last. After getting beaten over the head for generations with flurries of political messages, we’re too numb to say more than “whatever.”
We’re not entirely powerless, though. I have a message for those of you who still have your wits about you: Take a little trouble to find out what the incumbents’ financial interests are, and those of their backers. And boycott their products or services. Doesn’t sound like much, but it wouldn’t take much of a boycott to be effective.
Example: Start with the Chicago Tribune newspaper, which is close to bankruptcy anyway. They’ve sold us out for so long, they deserve to be buried.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Just because we can’t do much doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything” – Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* source: Chicago
No comments:
Post a Comment