This article I found on the IMC website written on Dec. 12, 2008 and raised the same suspicions the New York Times did:

HAS FITZGERALD FUMBLED ON THE ONE-YARD LINE?

As the media drool over the advertising money to be made from the hourly updates of the slow-moving White Bronco that is BlagoGate, there is a polite aside enthusiastic newscasters keep making that goes something like this, "...of course, the Governor is presumed innocent until proven guilty and this is only a federal criminal complaint..." so they say.

The Governor is presumed innocent? Does anyone believe the Governor might be innocent now that we know the Governor has been audio recorded doing the misdeeds he is "only accused of"? Knowing the contents of the FBI's wiretap has every politician and citizen calling for the Governor's resignation and/or impeachment. Thanks to Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's press release to the world's media, our presumption of the Governor's guilt has us doing what the Rezko trial failed to do: finally issuing our Governor his pink slip.

Should the Governor decide, at the height of his addictions, to plead innocent to any federal charges, we, The People of the United States, are required to give the defendant, Rod Blagojevich, a fair trial. That means Blagojevich's attorneys (and what a prestigious law firm that will be) will be afforded the opportunity to influence the selection of the jury should Blago take this mess to a jury trial.

Imagining a Slick Blago Lawyer questioning a prospective juror, could it sound something like this?:

Slick Blago Lawyer: "Have you ever seen on TV, heard on the radio, or read in a newspaper, any stories about this case against my client?"

Prospective Juror: "Yes."

Slick Blago Lawyer: "And about how many stories about this case have you seen on TV, heard on the radio, or read in the newspaper?"

Prospective Juror: "So many I dream about this case in my sleep."

Slick Blago Lawyer: "And are you aware that in this case there exists audio recordings that may have been made while my client was using his phone?"

Prospective Juror: "Yes."

Slick Blago Lawyer: "And based on your recollection of the contents of those audio recordings, have you been able to form an opinion about my client's guilt or innocence in this case?"

Prospective Juror: "Yes."

Slick Blago Lawyer: "And for the record, what is your opinion regarding my client's guilt or innocence?"

Prospective Juror: "Guilty as [bleep]."*

Slick Blago Lawyer: "Your Honor, that's 220 in a row, and we've been at this jury selection for three weeks. The defense now moves for case dismissed because this defendant's Constitutional Right to a fair trial, partly defined as a trial heard by an objective jury, has been forever denied."

Prosecutor Fitzgerald: "Your Honor, the Government would rebutt Mr. Slick's motion for dismissal with a big Nuh-uh."

Federal Judge: "[Bleep]**, I thought that busload of Amish from Arcola would help our jury pool a little bit. Well, the court is getting tired of this media circus surrounding my SUV in the parking lot for these last three weeks, so the court grants the motion for dismissal because it has been shown this court will not likely find an objective juror in this country, probably not this planet, and therefore, Mr. Blagojevich, you are free to run for president. Case dismissed."

Perhaps only in the most corrupt State in the Union would the Governor get off on such a legal technicality. And yet, the prosecutorial zeal in releasing the written complaint to the media, with the specific nature and contents of the damning evidence against the Governor, cannot hold a presumption of innocence to any rational person who has been exposed to this media tsunami. How will the federal courts find a jury able to walk into that courtroom without already believing the bum did it? Must a federal criminal jury be comprised of individuals who are considered objective and how is that objectivity defined by the courts? Has Prosecutor Fitzgerald's publicity stunt released too much information so as to jeopardize the Governor's right to a fair trial?

Hear the reasons given by Champaign County State's Attorney Julia Rietz to justify her decision to end the 35-year practice of making local police reports public to the media and circuit clerk's office before a trial: On December 19, 2007, she said on WDWS Newstalk Radio:

"I believe we were the only state’s attorney’s office that were putting the police reports in the court file. Nobody else in Illinois does that, and I don’t believe anybody around the country does that. It’s actually not consistent with the Illinois Supreme Court Rules which require discovery- the evidence in a crime- to be kept confidential while the case is proceeding. After the case is over, then the police reports, the evidence, is public. But while a case is pending, it’s not appropriate for police reports and evidence to be out in the public because that can affect the outcome of the trial."

With all we know now about the behavior of Blagojevich, the outcome of any Blago trial seems certain. The prospective jury pool to hear this case will likely have those same expectations assuming they have been exposed to some kind of media lately.

Nonetheless, an acceptable jury could still be found. "Just because a juror has heard about a case doesn't mean he can't decide it based on the evidence heard in court and the instructions of law, " said Presiding Circuit Judge of the Sixth District Tom Difanis in his refusal to allow the Robert Arnette murder trial be moved out of county due to pre-trial publicity.

The judge was right. The jurors only had a vague memory of the media stories about the Naomi Arnette murder, and Arnette's case was heard by a fairly objective group of citizens.

It's also likely that the federal rules Fitzgerald is operating under allow him to reveal the contents of FBI investigations to the media before a trial. The feds have handled lots of big cases before, so surely somebody has figured out the remedies to pre-trial publicity. If Blago wants a day in court, the feds will find a way to accomodate.

The media's role in informing the public of a defendant's guilt before a trial has helped prosecute many innocent people. Prosecutors rushing to tell the media what the police found last night can be frought with errors and dishonest evidence, as we saw in the case against the Duke rugby players a few years back, and the first suspect named in the 1996 Olympic bombing.

Maybe we can forgive prosecutors' use of the media in cases where the defendant is videotaped or audio recorded doing the deed. We don't need the subtlities of plausible explanations, no need for credible witnesses or any analysis to connect the dots in such a documented situation. We can hear it for ourselves straight from the Governor's own mouth at the very time it happened. Sliming the reputation of a person discovered later to be innocent is not a consideration in Blagojevich's case.

As the Governor remains barracaded in his office probably selling the last things of value he still holds, (his silence and the book and movie rights to his story); Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be collecting and revealing more evidence against the Governor before his trial. The charges against Governor Blagojevich will have already been successfully prosecuted in the media by the time a jury is sworn to hear the entire case again.

But is it here, in the media, where we want our criminal trials to be first held? It would be more astounding than the "allegations" if Prosecutor Fitzgerald loses the easiest case to win on a technicality. Hopefully, the lawyers for Mafia Rod won't be able to use the pre-trial publicity to deny the people justice. In Illinois, we've been denied honest government for too long.

*the prospective juror is imagined to have said something other than "bleep".

** the federal judge is imagined to have said something other than "bleep".

Posted by LocalYocal on January 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM