27 Comments - The original Bill - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 8:15 am: It looks like Sonja was a little too smart for her own good. After lying on her questionaire she should have sat in the back row and kept her big mouth shut. After the verdict is set aside and a mistrial is declared the gov’t and defense should sue the 3 (are there more???) lying jurors for damages. By the way, has anyone ever heard of citizens lying to get ON a jury before?…and how about Sonja’s dry cleaner? Shouldn’t he get some kind of citizenship award? - Pat Hickey - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 8:25 am: The hard-hitting Tribune investigative reporters under the direction of a fair-minded editorial board missed this story? No Way! We landed on the Moon? - L. Christmas - DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 8:32 am: She probably smelled a book deal and movie.I bet she has a dairy of everything they done. - 105th Blues - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 8:51 am: Doh…There goes the neighborhood. Looks like George can continue to polka - DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 9:18 am: This sort of looks like this judge wanted a guilty verdict no matter what.I think GR is guilty but it needs to be done in the right way.If all of this is true than these court proceedings are no better than the corruption case that was being tried. - Deep Water - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 9:34 am: Lets think long and hard about this. First, do you think the Judge and lawyers should tell about their past? Their interactions? The political leanings? Should Ryan have made a complete confession of the truth prior to trial? Anyone that has ever been in court knows it is not perfect. No matter the truths, sometimes you lose. Ryan’s trial just had every microscope in town watching, not everyone gets that. So lets just send the bully to jail where he belongs. Daley is next, I pray. Patrick McDonough - Lovie's Leather - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 9:44 am: Wow! Just picked up the suntimes and saw the story… so I went here… and… yeah… wow… Ryan looks to be in good shape for an appeal. But it makes me wonder if somebody had foreknowledge of this and withheld it. It certainly seems blatant that two jurors were kicked off the jury for having criminal records and one stayed who lied on the questionare. Thanks anyway, Suntimes, you always get the better story…. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 9:51 am: Mabye my two lawyer buddies who told me Ryan had a good case on appeal weren’t so far off yesterday. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 9:54 am: This is George Ryan grasping as straws. Filing an OP is not necessarily a part of a lawsuit so without knowing all of the details jumping to conclusions is premature. Moreover, in a criminal case filing an OP would probably not have got her dismissed in jury selection. A criminial history may have got the others dismissed. Look objectively at the harm done. She would have been on the jury regardless. The others not so likely. This may be a appealable issue, but it is becoming harder and harder to get out of jury duty. Do you want to kick people because they needed the courts at some point. I think not. The issue is that George Ryan will ask the Appellate Court to rule jurors must be kicked for not being truthful regarding court experience. Taken to the full extent, they will ask the court to require prosecutors to run full background searches on each and every juror or risk nullification. In cases with 100’s of potential jurors this is not going to be possible. In short, Harmless error or no error at all. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 10:16 am: the Patriot – I think that the issue isn’t whether the lie was a big one, it is why did she lie on her questionaire in the first place? Most people are not anxious to give up six months of their life. Did she have an axe to grind? Was she planning on a book deal? What does she think she needs a lawyer for? - ColMcCormick - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 10:31 am: I think it would be fun some of George wrongful prosecution friends to file a suit against the Tribune to see if they could get at the real chain of events on the juror background stuff. The depositions would be fun. Maybe Eric Zorn can explain it to us one more time - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 10:37 am: We really have a huge problem people. Our mythical standards of judicial impartiality is becoming exposed and threatens our faith in our court system. Notice, I called it “mythical”. Intuitively, we know juries are not really impartial, and never been. Historically, townfolks knew everyone involved in court cases. To balance this, we once believed in absolutes; right was right, wrong was wrong, without reservations. Judged by a jury of their peers. We used to be able to explain what that meant without smirking. A problem is this generation’s refusal to hold convictions. In our attempt to appear esteemed in today’s society, we have embraced an concept of open-mindedness that fails logic and common sense. Juries can’t convict when jurors hold no convictions and refuse to judge others, too afraid of appearing bigoted or arrogant by today’s social standards. Finally, we are bombarded by opinions presented as factual news. While this isn’t new, being bombarded by ever increasing partisan opinions is deadening our listening and editing skills. There seems to be no one helping us understand the difference between primary and secondary source information. Everyone is squabbling and sometimes the misinformants are winning public opinion. When is a lie not a lie? Today, this question can’t be answered without invoking unsolicited comments by holier-than-thous refusing to believe in absolutes. When potential jurors are more interested in riding public exposure to wealth and fame, than performing public service, we have a big problem. When we discover that the some of the jurors suffer from the same desire of fame and fortune as the defendant in this case, and like the defendant, couldn’t control their greed long enough to perform public service, we have a problem. Whether you liked him based on whatever source of information you depend on, the fact remains that Ryan didn’t get a fair trial due to many circumstances. We saw too much of the defendant, too much of the prosecution, too much of our media hounds perseverating on meritless factoids and gossip. There was no speedy trial. There was no impartial jury. At the end, there was no justice done. We bankrupted the defendant, spent millions of our money for a media circus, and found ourselves guilty of mass stupidity. - Leroy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 10:40 am: Excellent tirade, Vanilla! Sign me up for your newsletter - Anon - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 10:53 am: It must be something in the water. The judges are proposing doing background checks on all jurors. These liberals don’t get it. Always coming up with solutions that require money or more complications. Put these three in jail and you wont be having these types of problems anymore. - Masterlist - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 11:42 am: This just in … Trib ignores juror story to atone for slanted 98 election coverage. Lying to get on jury duty? The woman either was embarrassed by her past or really, really wanted someting to spice up her suburban life. - Viking - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 12:22 pm: I was on on Federal jury for a two week trial. The attitude during deliberations was that the government must be right, he was very guilty and let’s convict him and get out of here. Can you imagine a six month trial? They wanted to get out of there, go home and become a celebrity somehow. It doesn’t appear that they even considered some of the hokey charges against him. They were too busy getting chummy with each other, taking Friday’s off and taking enough “deliberation” time to appear that they were being thoughtful. Now I understand how federal prosecuters can munipulate evidence and frighten potential witnesses. Yes, they have intimidated anyone who could potentially give contrary evidence. They have unlimited resources to strike fear into those people. They had the FBI, IRS, Postal Inspectors and even Federal Dept. of Transportation agents working on this case.(Do we have a pricetag yet on their decade-long investiagation? Do I feel safer from terrorists knowing Ryan is going to jail?) Do you think someone that could help the defense would come forward knowing they could have an IRS audit every year for the rest of their lives? Does that sound paranoid? At the very least such a potential witness would have to spend a lot of money on an attorney. Rich, I take issue with yesterday’s Capitol Fax where you said that the license for bribes “operation” was “ramped up” after those kids died. The connection is not correct. Tickets were sold in facilities, granted, but there was never any “operation” or directive to acquire campaign funds that way. That some greedy driver’s facility workers accepted bribes was unrelated. In fact they were lining their own pockets and used the excuse that they had to take bribes to buy tickets to fundraisers. Come on, a couple hundred bucks in fundraising tickets caused them to take thousands in bribes? Nonsense. Something fell off a truck and a horrible, unusal accident occured. It could have happened to the most experienced driver. The supposed “cover-up” and investigation was the result of an misguided and inept inspector and not some nefarious “operation.” Ryan raised and spent around $14 Million for the governor’s race. Do you really think he needed a few thousand bucks raised through employees that he didn’t know and had no hand in hiring? Does anyone really think that would be worth the risk? Only 20% of SOS employees ever donated money to Ryan during his entire 8 year tenure. (I’ll bet 20% of Chicago Streets and Sanitation workers DO NOT give money and 80% does!) Rant to be continued later. - illrino - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 12:28 pm: Ask a lawyer who practices criminal law. Ask any judge. You’ll hear that the appeals court will affirm the trial court in this case without much debate. There are mistakes and errors in every trial. They only result in a remand if there is some indication that the outcome could have been different had the error not occurred. GR’s attorney on appeal (will Jimbo’s partners let him do this one pro bono?) will have an impossible mountain to climb. This jury worked assiduously; the evidence to sustain conviction was present; there simply is no error that rises to the level of justifying a reversal. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 12:35 pm: I do not think why she lied is relevant. The public has been generally disinterested in this trial so there are no book deals forthcoming. This will put the prosecution in position of having to do extensivie background searches of all potential jurors. Not good. Furthermore, criminal defendants can argue systmatically eliminating anyone with a history in court procedings does not provide a jury representative of the community as a whole. We really don’t want to have cases where, once the case starts going bad for one side, all they have to do is spend enough money to dig some dirt on one of the jurors or find an inconsistent statment on their questionaire. This is harmless error. The court may take a harder look at the issue on a better case but 12 people signed of on 22 convictions. That is not exactly a close call. - cermak_rd - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 12:49 pm: I don’t think this is a harmless error. I think it looks bad enough to throw the court into disrepute which is something in and of itself. The re-starting of deliberations after bouncing the two others I think is the bigger deal than this one, but the fact that they bounced the other two and kept this one on looks bad. The other thing that has to be mentioned, is that it is not about bouncing all the jurors off who have ever been involved with the court system in any way. It’s about asking the jurors to DISCLOSE whether they have done so then letting the lawyers tease out the details and decide if the juror is acceptable to both of them. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 1:21 pm: In reality, in this case there is no harm done. Harmless error is a very controversial idea. Of course the defendant will say any error was harmful, but he was doing serious time no matter what happend. Even the jurors dismissed say they were not going to acquit on all counts. That means he was going to prison anyway. Not to mention the agreement by 12 to convict on 22 counts. As a whole, that says it wasn’t really that close. The harm is had the other two stayed he could face only 25 rather tne 50 or whatever it is years. Not much harm considering he is 72. FACT: no matter what he was going to die in prison. I have a feeling the judge had law to say she did the right thing and wasn’t creating precedent. That means Ryan has to convince the Appellate Court to go in a new direction. Appellate courts want to make law on clean cases where the law is the issue. They don’t want to make it in cases which leave them open to criticism for impropriety because it makes it easier to overturn later. I haven’t seen the briefs but I imagine the issue had been ruled on before by other courts. Odds of new law here are slim. I don’t agree with the phrase harmless error, but from a legal stanpoint that is the case. - Anon - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 1:52 pm: You know, those jury pool questions are harder to answer than you may think. Some time back I was on a jury and answered ‘no’ to being close to anybody who had been convicted of a crime, or who had been involved in a suit or other legal action. Heck I had a couple of minutes to fill out the whole form, and really didn’t think through the questions for any length of time. Then I started second guessing. Gee, my mother in law who lives with me was charged with some crimes 25 years before I ever knew her. Does that count? Technically I’m close to someone who was at one time charged with a crime. Does having worked with one of the witnesses 15 years prior, and having no contact since bias you?? I did bring that up and let the judge know. He called it a ‘passing acquaintance’ and not actuall knowing the witness. The defense attorney didn’t question the matter at all. I guess what I’m saying is that the answers to those jury pool questions are not always as black and white as they may seem, or the media may portray. Having been on a jury, I can also empathize with the fact that they felt like they worked together. We did in the jury I was on, and it was only a 1.5 day trial. It’s easy for us ‘pundits’ to sit in our ivory towers and criticize this piece of the case or that. Bottom line is that there will never be a perfect jury no matter what. Still it makes good fodder for the legal trade. - dumb ol' country boy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 2:52 pm: It would have been harmless, if other members of that jury had not been removed for providing false or misleading information. It does not matter what kind of information was misleading, it’s the fact all memebers were not treated equally. Rich, I also found it ironic that most of the jury members were or have voted democratic in the last sevreal primaries. Hummmm maybe the feds did there homework huh????? - WATCHING THE TRIAL - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 3:44 pm: The lead juror spoke as if she had been prepped by either the prosecution or the judge. She knew excalty what not to comment on. Not to mention, the judge was aware of this development but allowed her to stay anyway because she was the leader of a group of weak people that she easily lured into a guilty verdict on all counts which she had been coaxed to do. This is why she did not get along with the other Black female juror who gave her a run for her money but was not giving in to her. Then she was later dismissed. This seems like prosecutorial misconduct to me, not to mention the judges actions and inactions regarding a mistrial were prejudicial to the administration of the courts business. It is time that the news media exploits this!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What’s taking so long for the Judge to release the transcripts. Is she cleaning them up? - Ex-Newfie - Wednesday, Apr 19, 06 @ 8:22 pm: No matter what jurors did or did not do, the fact remains that Geo. Ryan was guilty as sin of the things he was charged with, as well as being a liar by trying to cover it up. Those facts are not changed by appeal or by miscreant jurors. The government had the goods on him and he knew it but was so arrogant that he thought he could bully and bluster his way out of it all. What a sad excuse for a leader of government. It’s a disease that seems to be rampant in Illinois politics. So we have one down and one to go. Go for it, Pat Fitz. - Been there - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:05 am: While some of the sealed materials are now being released, here are some of the problems with what one suspects went on here…. It was pretty clear early on after the first Tribune revelations that one of the jurors was considered “problematic” and probably supportive of the defense–personally thought that before her son went on the news after her dismissal to confirm this and she did so herself after the verdict. That is only the beginning of the problems with the fairness of the verdict. Jurors are simply not always going to be completely truthful in voir dire (jury selection/questioning process)–who can blame them–would you want to reveal all in your past life in front of a packed courtroom (add in this case with press present)? Are most folks ready and have the skills for public speaking that this requires–most people are afraid to talk in public (think back to school presentations), let alone about personal matters in front of complete strangers–this is one of the flaws of an open court jury selection process. This usually means that some will not be as open and as completely candid as they should be, or at least what is legally expected of them. Why is this important? Well after some jurors are bounced for not being completely truthful, press reports are out there (and courthouse rumors) that this is potentially a criminal offense, you are sitting on a trial involving an EXHAUSTIVE MULTI-YEAR FEDERAL investigation spanning decades (no stone left unturned), a case that includes charges of lying to the federal government (you are in FEDERAL court and lying there is the same thing as lying to the FBI, an agency that is also now (then) looking into all the jurors histories), what would be YOUR own personal calculus if you know that you were not completely and candidly truthful in answering questions, both written and orally, during the jury selection process? Would you vote for the defense knowing that the federal government is looking into these issues or might you lean for voting for conviction and the government and hope that this now all goes away? Who can do you more harm for your inaccurate statements or sins of ommission????? Would you tell any of the others jurors that your opinion is now potentially impacted by what you secretly know is your own personal jeopardy? They personally saw how a fellow prosecutor and US Attorney was treated for daring to challenge unwritten recollections by the prosecution team. Hey, let me even vote for conviction on EVERYTHING to be sure we end this here and end my own personal concerns for not being entirely truthful–let me even convict on the counts where even the IRS agent on the stand said the tax code is not explicit in defining the tax requirments and charged offenses, agreeing the code is very confusing, coupled with the fact that more taxes were paid by the Ryans than were actually due to the government. Taking this a step further… you have a juror who is disruptive and supportive of the defense. She is removed. The fear the defense attorneys would have (as I bet will be borne out as the transcripts and motions are released) is that this juror’s removal BY THE JUDGE/FEDERAL COURT could be interepted by the rest of the jury (or jurors) that her opinions are wrong and unacceptable and that is the reason that juror was removed. We dont even have to wait for the release of the sealed transcripts if “Dennis the dry-cleaner-radio-caller) is to be believed. The foreperson apparently admitted to Dennis that this juror was removed for her views. Ok, how might you vote now knowing that the COURT has apparently removed a juror for her views in support of the defense. How would you vote if you also lied/materially ommitted info (same as an affirmative lie) on jury questions, but was not removed like this juror? What should you make of it that this juror was removed by the COURT (fed government) by not you? Which “lies, deceptions and ommissions” qualify for you being removed as a juror IN THE MIDST of DELIBERATIONS AND why are some removed and not others????????? I could go on, but maybe some of these thoughts, questions, etc. add to the discussion in a meaningful way as to why this verdict will be appealed and highlight that there are substantial questions about the fairness of the process. - Been there - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 1:47 am: Sorry for typos–hard to read and edit in the small box. But did want to correct sentence about attack on fellow prosecutor for challenging the government’s version of the interview of George Ryan. Meant to say unrecorded, not “unwritten”. Despite the ability to record undercover calls to the Governor, they apparently could not electronically record the interview by the FBI agents and prosecutors of a sitting Governor, in no doubt what they considered one of their most important and serious investigations in decades. Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that despite deeply conflicting testimony as to what was said, George Ryan will be convicted for lying to federal agents on several counts in an unrecorded interview, at the same time one of his legacies will be that he caused Illinois law to be changed to require interviews to be recorded by law enforcement in death penalty cases? - Been there - Thursday, Apr 20, 06 @ 11:19 pm: Hmmm, maybe there is more to this than I thought. Today, we see that the FBI agent talks to the press (very unusual, even for a retiring agent) on how confident that he is that the Governor lied in the unrecorded interview and Kass attacks the prosecutor who challenged the FBI’s version of events. Why the effort to bolster the case at this point and these charges? Is their coordination and collaborative leaking we dont know about? What of (going back a little in history in this case after his wife made statements to the press) the “government sources close to the case” still commenting on items after the judge’s gag order and why no outrage and investigation about that? So many, many things are very wrong here and other issues do not seem on the up and up. I aint even going to issue of guilty or not guilty, the process is so corrupted here that it really does not matter. I will pile on with another matter that bothers me…..the prosecution’s offense and the judge’s concurrence that some how it was inappopriate for Mrs Ryan to talk to the press and a gag order ensued. Let’s presume that jurors followed the judge’s instructions not to follow the press coverage of the trial, could any juror have missed the other constant press reports on ongoing investigations against others and election campaigns stories, all of which have a basic conclusion early on that George Ryan is guilty of corruption. Indeed, one wonders did the prosecutors time some of their annoucements in other public corruption cases to influence this very trial? Would be hard to tell since every story, every columnist, presumed we had to move past the history of George Ryan’s corruption. Rich, appreciate your coverage, this all just seems unfair and biased. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.