I'd imagine the issue is that on most counts the jury agrees that he's guilty, but on some of the harder counts, the juror(s) holding out don't think there is enough there.

That's my guess as well, so he'll end up being found guilty on some counts.

 

The jury has a verdict on only two of the 24 counts and is hung on the rest. Judge sent them back for further deliberations.

The jury has a verdict on only two of the 24 counts and is hung on the rest. Judge sent them back for further deliberations.

Trib clarifies - they are sure on 2, deadlocked on some, but have not yet begun deliberating on the wire fraud counts. Judge sent them back out to deliberate those.

 

Trib clarifies - they are sure on 2, deadlocked on some, but have not yet begun deliberating on the wire fraud counts. Judge sent them back out to deliberate those.

 

This jury seems to be making a career out of this case

Sounds like the verdicts are in.

 

I think he'll be found guilty on the conspiracy charges.

Edited August 17, 201015 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Guilty only of lying to the FBI, hung jury on 23 other counts.

Haha

 

There is a reason why drug agents wait for the sale to actually happen instead of busting them when they are merely talking about it.

 

Haha

 

There is a reason why drug agents wait for the sale to actually happen instead of busting them when they are merely talking about it.

 

yep. should have waited to bust him.

BTW, if you want a good laugh, put Blago into Google news and click latest. Do not pause, let it scroll. The Twitter posts are hilarious.

I read he faces up to 5 years on just that one count alone. I wonder what the sentencing guidelines call for, and what that means in terms of real time.

 

Also, if he was broke before, a retrial will absolutely kill him financially.

yep. should have waited to bust him.

 

The Tribune blew that...

pretty shocked they were deadlocked on the consipiracy charges.

yep. should have waited to bust him.

They were in a bind, both due to information that was about to get out (Trib) and due to the pending action on the Senate seat.

 

Well, at least he's a convicted felon now facing prison. And the Feds will of course re-try on the other counts, at least some of them.

A few potentials in my mind:

 

1) The government's case was very, very weak.

 

2) The jury, for whatever reason, simply was not going to find him guilty (political bias?)

 

3) The laws against corruption and fraud in this country are hopelessly pathetic.

 

I'm leaning towards 3.

3) The laws against corruption and fraud in this country are hopelessly pathetic.

The Supreme Court stripped (probably correctly) a lot of the heft out of the corruption laws in this country back in June.

Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting.

 

One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense.

Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting.

 

One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense.

I agree they will narrow and clarify the case, but I think they may actually call more witnesses. They will just have fewer counts to focus them on.

 

As someone who served ona jury for a murder case that ended up to be a hung jury, I can understand the overal frustration of not only the lawyers but also the jurors. In my case, we had two people that were 100% unmovable form their position that this person was innocent. After 2 days of deliberations, we were let go.

Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting.

 

One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense.

 

I also heard that they were unanimous in deciding innocent in the extortion charges with Rahm Emmanuel.

I also heard that they were unanimous in deciding innocent in the extortion charges with Rahm Emmanuel.

This can't be right. If they were unanimous, they would have reached a verdict on those charges, no?

This can't be right. If they were unanimous, they would have reached a verdict on those charges, no?

 

whoops misread this quote.. my bad.

 

Jurors set the stage for Tuesday's verdict when they told Judge James Zagel last week they were unable to reach a decision on all but two of the 24 counts. Zagel urged jurors to keep trying, and by Tuesday that unanimity had dropped to just one count.

 

The count they ended up losing 100 percent agreement on was a bribery charge alleging the ex-governor tried to shake down former U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, juror Stephen Wlodek said.

 

Wlodek, 36, of Bartlett said between one and five jurors sided with Blagojevich on every count.

Hearing what the jurors have to say, they were pretty close (11-1) on some counts. But it sounds like the jurors were confused with the evidence and time line the government presented. I'm confident on retrial they'll tighten things up, maybe present fewer witnesses, and try to be more clear in what they're presenting.

 

One thing seems pretty clear - they all didn't buy the "Blago is just a loud moron" defense.

 

I am wondering if Blago is smart enough to cut a deal now and if it would be accepted. His hubris may get in the way. I just do not see this going to a second trial.

They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years.

 

I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives.

They wont settle at this point, not because Blago wouldnt, but because Fitzgerald is looking bad right now. Its becoming vindictive. You got the guy, hes in financial ruins, he could go to jail for a few months or years.

 

I think thats enough, lets save some tax payer money and move on with our lives.

 

Or convict the guy for being a corrupt ass politician.

 

More insight from the jury. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08...evich-jury.html

 

I think if I were Blago I wouldn't feel very good about my chances.

They have convicted him.

 

They just want their pound of flesh. It didnt work out well for the shylock and I hope it doesnt work for the US govt.

 

People who commit violent crimes are often given less time than what the govt wants Blago to do. I just dont believe they have their priorities straight.