Phil Rogers' Blog: Trial Of The Century?

CHICAGO -- NBC5's Phil Rogers covered the corruption trial of former Gov. George Ryan from gavel-to-gavel. Check his blog on a regular basis for some of his behind-the-scenes observations.

April 24, 2006: The End?

This may be my last missive on the George Ryan trial. There will be plenty of post-trial hoopla, but today I declare the proceedings officially over.

We have interviewed jurors and parsed over 1,200 pages of transcripts from in-chamber proceedings. That was after a 6-month-plus trial which featured the testimony of 115 witnesses. At times it was exactly what we anticipated. Other times it was infuriating if you hold hopes for good government. Still other times it was crashingly dull.

As I write this, the day is dawning on April 24th. I began this journey on the morning of September 19th, when they began picking George Ryan and Larry Warner's journey. That's a long time to sit anywhere. And a long time to think about one story. You have been kind enough to follow these accounts, and to pay close attention to the events in a legal proceeding which we all believe should have mattered a great deal to everyone. For that, we thank you.

Also thank you to my many friends at the court: My pal and canoe partner, Paul Meincke, maybe this city's best TV reporter and absolutely the nicest guy on the street in Chicago, and Jane his hyper-efficient producer; Matt O'Connor of the Tribune and Natasha Korecki of the Sun-Times; Rob Olmstead of the Daily Herald, and Mike Ramsey of the Copley News Service; Julie Unruh of Channel 9 and Kelly her producer, who may have the best attendance records at the trial; Terry Sullivan, Channel 9's legal expert and all around great guy; Larry Yellen of Fox, Ed Marshall and Dan Blum from CBS; also Mike Robinson of the Associated Press, Carlos Hernandez Gomez, and Diantha Parker of WBEZ who took the only group photo we have.

Our own Verna Sadock, who has spent more time in more courtrooms than some judges, along with Marcia Danits and Andy Austin and Carol Renaud, who drew great pictures for the other networks from the front row. What would Chicago do without you?

Special thanks to Mark Lamet of Channel 5, who occupied the back pew of the trial every single day, bringing with him an encyclopedic knowledge of this case. And Bill Healy of DecisionQuest, our trial consultant who always boiled it down to easy-to-understand terms, and it turns out, was right on everything. And the folks you don't see ... dozens of cameramen and editors who made our stories happen.

To the court security officers who treated us with such respect, a big thank you. And a special valentine to Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer and her staff. You were all wonderful.

This part of the journey is over now. We'll rejoin the team for post trial motions. And sentencing day in August.

'Til then, thanks for reading.



April 21, 2006: What Would Lincoln Think?

"I Don't Think He'd Like It"

When you cover politicians on a regular basis in Illinois, you see them sidling up to Abraham Lincoln on almost a regular basis.

They note that this is the "Land of Lincoln".

Republicans boast that they hail from the "Party of Lincoln". It's like a history-spanning photo-op, where everyone wants to be seen with their arms around a political icon, who can't refute their claims of lifelong friendship.

Wednesday night I was invited to Springfield to speak at an event in conjunction with the anniversary of the new Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.

If you haven't been there, you have missed a thrilling experience. The designers of the museum have created a home not only for Lincoln's artifacts, but also his ideas.

---

Read Also - March 10, 2005: Special Report: Inside The Lincoln Library

---

You see America as it was, less than a hundred years old. Much of that isn't pretty.

One of the first things you are confronted by is a gut-wrenching scene of a slave auction; a mother, father, and child being torn from each other's arms by an auctioneer with an evil grin. That was America. That was the political norm. Or, to use the phrase we've been hearing quite a bit lately, it was the "political culture" of the times.

Lincoln was a product of that culture.

As Richard Norton Smith, the former director of the Lincoln Library, said to us in a documentary last year, the 16th President "outgrew that culture". He saw that it was wrong. And he sought to change it. A merica went through a gut-wrenching war of change which in some respects is still being fought, over 140 years later.

Abraham Lincoln was also a crafty politician. Read any excellent Lincoln biography, and you'll see the stories of the political hangers-on, the favor-seekers who could be seen lining the hallways of the White House seeking access on almost any given day.

But also read Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." You'll see how Lincoln embraced his political enemies to form the government he knew he would need if the country was going to survive the conflagration he could see coming. He could hear the drumbeats of change.

At times, it must have seemed that he was the only one who could.

Change is in the air in Illinois on a much different level now. Talk to the voters and they will tell you they are fed up with the kind of "pay to play" politics which were on view at the trial of George Ryan. Call them crazy, but most members of the public just want their lawmakers to deal with street and sewer and school issues and call it a day.

They don't want them eating steak dinners on some lobbyist's nickel; they don't want to hear that some pal got a contract at half-again-the-going-rate; and they most certainly don't want the system to require so much campaign cash that children end up dead.

Does anyone out there see that the system is soaked in problems that are simply wrong? Or are they enjoying themselves too much to change it?

If so, that's fine. But they'd better not try to pal around with Lincoln the next time they want to curry favor with the electorate.

I don't think he'd like it.

The last thought I'd give you is this: go to Springfield. Over 600,000 people already have in the Library's first year, far exceeding anyone's predictions.

And by the way, do you know what is selling best in the gift shop? Books. People leave, wanting to know more.

That's a scary thing for the politicians of Illinois: voters who want to learn.



April 19, 2006: Near The End ... We Think

The Verdict

The George Ryan/Larry Warner trial was the longest most reporters now working the environs of the Dirksen Federal Building ever covered. Jury selection began in the case in September, so it should come as no small surprise, I suppose, that it refuses to go away.

Sure, we got a verdict on Monday. But now there are new juror issues, which will most certainly lead to post-trial motions for the verdict to be set aside. Plus, we will get the transcripts of the in- camera proceedings over the ouster of two previous jurors. Those are sure to make must-see-TV reading.

People have asked if we were shocked at the verdict on Monday. The answer is ... absolutely. The jury had left early on Wednesday, and again on Thursday (for a dental emergency), then had taken a long Easter weekend. When they returned on Monday, we hardly expected a rapid and sudden announcement that a verdict had been reached in less than an hour. But that's exactly what happened. Most of us had just arrived. I was standing in the hallway when we began to see a flurry of activity and people running toward the courtroom. We had seen this a hundred times before, usually involving clerical issues or the seemingly myriad problems this case had encountered. Not this time. This was it. The jury had been in the building less than an hour, and had reached a decision.

I hope you've been watching our coverage of what the jurors say happened back in the jury room. I encourage you to read the excellent inside accounts in the papers. This is what democracy is supposed to be all about. It's supposed to be a very open and equal process. There were times in this case that too much happened behind closed doors. Way too many sidebars out of earshot of jurors or the public. And way too many proceedings held in the judge's chambers. Now that material, and the accounts of those who took part, are starting to come out, and I encourage you to be a good consumer of all of them. It's important that everyone develop a very informed opinion on this very important case. Because George Ryan's trial has the potential to shape the future of what politics is all about in Illinois. Or perhaps, what people are willing to put up with from their elected officials, and what they will expect of them. And that can only happen if people know what happened before.

April 14, 2006: Freedom Of Speech

32 Days And Counting Since This Case Went To The Jury

It has been some time since I have updated this account of our lives, and for that, I am truly sorry. We have gone through an unusual week, one where it seemed that the Ryan jury was alternately doing nothing, or way too much. And there were questions: did a juror talk to someone outside the court? Why are they working such short hours? Why did they decide to go for a sudden walk on the Federal Building plaza? Why were they hugging each other? Why wouldn't they be working around the clock to get this thing over with?

What's going on in there anyway?

That, of course, is our greatest frustration. We don't know. So we are left outside to speculate. Did Judge Pallmeyer identify which juror supposedly blabbed about the trial to a merchant? You'll recall that tidbit came from a caller to WLS radio. And that story, in and of itself, raised troubling questions. The general manager of WLS told NBC5 that the feds told him they "might" try to obtain the station's incoming telephone records. They get those from the phone company through a court order, and the station wouldn't even know if it happened. Armed with those records, investigators who already know the exact time of the call, could triangulate on the caller and pay him a visit.

How do you feel about that? Isn't a radio talk show just an extension of free speech in the town square? What happens if someone pops off on one of those shows with something the government doesn't like? Should they be able to find out who you are? Where do we draw the line? If the caller is speaking openly of violence? If the caller is talking about jury misconduct? Or if the caller simply doesn't like the war in Iraq? And if a radio station's phone records are seized, do you think they should be told?

And if you think George Bush should be able to do it, how would you have felt if Bill Clinton did it?

One day a couple of years ago, there was a story involving the potential of falling terra-cotta at City Hall. We were standing on the sidewalk across the street, shooting video of the front of the building. A police officer walked across to us and said, "Who are you and what are you doing?" I thought about it for a minute, and said, "I don't have to tell you that." We were standing on a public sidewalk, taking a picture of a building bigger than an ocean liner. It was an absurd question. And this is America. People have a right to do what they want, within reason, without being asked to justify their actions. The policeman went away.

(By the way, it's not just government. One day we had a camera crew on a bridge over the Chicago river, taking a picture of the Boeing building. A guard walked all the way across the bridge to tell them they couldn't take a picture of his building. That's dumb. It's like saying, "Tonight you can't look at the Moon!")

Please understand, these are issues which may not bother you much if they just effect a bunch of pesky reporters. But what happens when they affect you? Put simply, if you are walking down a public sidewalk and you are stopped by an alderman demanding to know who you are and where you are headed, you are perfectly within your rights to say, "None of your business."

These are all areas you should think about. The Chicago Tribune has opened an entire museum on Michigan Avenue, devoted to such important questions. What freedoms do you hold most dear? Where do you think the government should be able to probe? And what should the limits be?

I was standing in the hallway of the Federal building one day, many years ago, when a nicely-dressed man walked up to me, pointed at a courtroom door and said, "Can I go in there?"

"Absolutely," I said. "This is America!" And I felt sad, that he didn't know that something as simple as an open court was one of the rights people fought and died to give him.

In the meantime, the Ryan jury is giving us all plenty of time to discuss such weighty issues. They took off early on Thursday, and won't be back until Monday.

Happy Easter! And stay tuned!

April 5, 2006: More Time Passes

Random thoughts during the jury waiting game

As I write this, I'm sitting on the 21st floor of the Dirksen Federal building, in the elevator lobby outside Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's courtroom. From this spot, we can watch as the jurors come and go.

We see them take their breaks. We see them go to lunch. We see the one juror who relieves tension by running the stairs.

Everyone tries to use their time wisely. I talk to a couple of our on-set guests, to make sure they are still available for when the verdict arrives. I discuss another story with a source. I organize some information from the redacted Ryan indictment.

But remember, we've been doing things like that for three weeks.

As I write this, one of my colleagues is asleep. One is reading Crain's. One has just come in with two bags of popcorn from Garrett Popcorn shop. One is reading that Barry Bonds steroid book. A producer is researching the jury for the milllionth time.

Judge Pallmeyer took her staff out to lunch to celebrate a birthday. Most of us ate lunch today at the cafeteria on the second floor to stay close, just in case the jury reached a verdict. One reporter got adventurous and ran across the street to the much fabled, "Chicken Planet". Another, along with her producer, went to Chipotle. I had chicken. It was exactly the same as the 2nd floor chicken yesterday.

And the day before that.

A reporter decided he would do everyone a favor and replenish the cups on the hall water cooler. He dropped them in the top of the dispenser and they all came out the bottom.

Big laugh.

That led to a pretty long discussion about why those cups are shaped like little cones. One theory is that they are made that way to prevent you from putting them down anywhere, forcing you to eventually throw them away. Another is that they are made from a single piece of paper and thus cheaper to produce.

We reach no consensus. But that discussion got us to about 1:45 in the afternoon.

We discuss prior trials. We discuss Katie Couric's new job. A courtroom artist tells about her trip to Tipperrary, and says they really did sing the song while they were en route, which was, in fact, a long way.

At 2:03 the judge and her staff return.

Yesterday the window washer came by and that was fascinating. There is no such entertainment today. On previous days we have played Scrabble, Backgammon, various card games. Today no one's really in the mood.

We have been told there will be transcripts of the many in-chamber hearings held on the jury issues of the last week. Those would be fodder for great stories.

But they are not available today.

A flower delivery arrives. For Judge Holderman, the new chief judge. We direct the delivery person down the hall.

The subject of Passover comes up. That leads to a discussion of the "Ten Commandments." One reporter offers the interesting fact that John Carradine played Aaron, Moses' brother. A check on the internet confirms this fact.

We learn that the birthday celebration was for Sue, the judge's assistant. We sing "Happy Birthday". It's now 2:30.

We also learn unusual things about each other. We go through everyone's birthday. We discover the creepy fact that the producer from channel-9 can sign her name with both hands simultaneously. She demonstrates.

At 3pm, one of our newsrooms calls to say they have information that a verdict is near. How would they know?

None of us get up.

At 3:24 the cards finally come out. I don't play. The jury is known to go home as early as 3:30.

At 3:35 the print reporters start appearing in the waiting area. From the press room they can't see the jury's comings and goings and everyone needs to know if this panel is working late or going home on their usual schedule.

Its all to no avail. The jury goes home at 3:54. No notes.

Hope springs eternal for tomorrow.

April 4, 2006: Time Passes

Yesterday we talked about history unfolding during the Ryan trial. Today, another look at that with a bit of a twist.

Back when I used to work at WBBM Newsradio, we often featured a wonderful guy named John Bromfield, who talked about hunting and fishing. John was an actor, perhaps best known for his appearance in the horror classic, "Revenge of the Creature."

John died the day before Ryan jury selection began at the age of 83.

But plenty of other people were alive when this trial began, and aren't any more. They actually were alive and well when Ryan and company arrived at the courthouse for the first time, but are gone now.

Take for example, a man named John Parkinson. He actually waved goodbye to the Titanic on its ill-fated voyage; he could have also read about opening arguments in this seemingly endless legal tussle, but died during the course of the Ryan proceedings.

So did actor Don Adams, organized crime boss Albert "Caesar" Tocco, Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, and sportscaster Chris Schenkel.

Constance Moore, who used to star in the "Buck Rogers" films, died during this trial. Also, Louis Nye, Nipsey Russell, Pat Morita, the great political writer Hugh Sidey and Skitch Henderson, Johnny Carson's first bandleader.

We lost Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King during the Ryan Trial, and John Spencer of "The West Wing," William Proxmire, Eugene McCarthy, Curt Gowdy, and Richard Pryor.

Candy Barr, the famous exotic dancer died. So did Sid Luft, who was married to Judy Garland, former Bear quarterback Jack Concannon, Caspar Weinberger, Oleg Cassini, Buck Owens, Ray Meyer, Maureen Stapleton, and Kirby Puckett.

Slobodan Milosovic, facing trial himself, beat the hangman by going out on his own. "Night Stalker" Darren McGavin died, as did Don Knotts, Dennis Weaver, and Shelley Winters.

And Gordon Parks, Lou Rawls, and Dana Reeve.

Ralph Edwards died November 16. Remember him? He used to surprise famous people, with a TV show called "This is Your Life," where friends and relatives would appear on stage to tell the story of the guest’s rise to fame.

In a way, that's what this trial is all about too: George Ryan, "This is Your Life."

Stay tuned.

April 3, 2006: Seems Like Forever

Gee, the George Ryan trial has sure been going on a long time!

When the trial for Ryan and his friend Larry Warner began last September, the White Sox were merely HOPING for a World Series championship. Since then, they’ve won one, had a parade, gone to their homes for the off-season, participated in spring training and already celebrated opening day.

And that's not all.

Tom Delay was indicted. Ariel Sharon suffered a major stroke, initiating proceedings for the formation of a new Israeli government. Hurricane Rita struck.

Harriet Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court, withdrew her nomination, and was replaced by Samuel Alito who has since been confirmed. Somebody most of us had never heard of named Scooter Libby resigned.

Saddam Hussein began his OWN trial. Former Sun-Times owner Conrad Black was indicted.

China launched their second set of astronauts. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" premiered in theatres, was seen by millions, and has already been released on DVD. Evansville, Indiana was hit by a horrible tornado. George Bush conceded "faulty intelligence" was used in the decision to invade Iraq.

Ted Koppel retired.

Elton John got married. Howard Stern went to satellite radio. Disney and Pixar merged. George Bush gave a State of the Union message. Two new moons were discovered orbiting Pluto.

Journalist Jill Carroll was abducted, held for over two months, and eventually released unharmed in Iraq.

The Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl. Haiti had a presidential election. The Winter Olympics were held in Italy. Andrew Card resigned as White House chief-of-staff.

Dubai Ports World tried, and eventually gave up, in its efforts to take over operations at six U.S. ports. Geysers of water were discovered on Saturn’s moon Enceladus. Hamas took control of the Palestinian Authority.

Our trial consultant, William Healy, said jokingly the other day, he wasn’t sure which would last longer, the Dan Ryan reconstruction project, or the George Ryan trial.

Maybe that question isn't so funny after all!

March 27, 2006: Jumping The Tracks

Make no mistake, the Ryan trial has become a train wreck. Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer is doing everything she can to hold matters together. But even if she gets a reconstituted jury to sit in the same room with each other, the vast legal armies at Winston and Strawn most certainly are already drafting the outlines of a Ryan appeal.

It's anyone's guess if all of this would have happened anyway, even IF the Chicago Tribune had not published details of the jurors' past misdeeds. We were getting rumblings of widespread discontent. It was a group which was clearly divided (although HOW it was divided was not clear). The judge said they did NOT indicate they were deadlocked.

At one point on Monday, it appeared it was all over. First the two tainted jurors departed. Then two alternates arrived. Then, co-defendant Larry Warner came strolling into the building, as did his wife and sister-in-law. Add everything up, and you had individuals arriving to be told the trial was over.

But it wasn't. At least not yet. Mr. Warner indicated he just couldn't stand pacing his home any longer and wanted to find out what was going on. After he did, he left. Mr. Ryan never appeared.

Judge Pallmeyer is concerned enough about where things stand, and is so determined that this be an open process, that she actually took a few questions from the bench on Monday. She clearly wants the trial to move forward. She's invested time ...some six months in the case. She has a full court calendar ahead. The government and defense teams have spent millions. It's in everyone's interest to see it through to the end.

Everyone, that is, except the defense. A mistrial only works to their advantage. As Kent College professor Doug Godfrey told NBC5 on Monday, a mistrial is exactly what the Ryan doctor ordered. They've seen the government's case. They know how they would fight it, the NEXT time.

Stay tuned.

March 26, 2006: State Of Confusion?

The George Ryan trial is almost a daily reminder that reporters are experts at virtually nothing. I will never cease to be amazed at how little we sometimes know. Few reporters are attorneys (I know a few -- but not many). Thus, when we get the curve balls of the last two weeks, (jurors with alleged criminal records, reports of infighting and splits in the jury panel), we must seek out the real experts, because we are hardly qualified to interpret such arcane nuances of the justice system.

As I say, we reporters are NOT the experts, we are supposed to FIND the experts. With that in mind, I will never cease to be amazed at how OUR business fascinates others. The height of that was when I spent two days at sea on a Navy submarine. It was easily the most fascinating, thrilling venue of my career. Not many people can say they were aboard a U.S. nuclear sub in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. My cameraman and I marveled at the professionalism of the crew, the technology, and the camaraderie.

Do you know what the crew members said? They wanted to hold the camera and have their pictures taken with it!

Here we were, thinking we were witnessing the coolest thing we had ever seen. And the young men who actually DID that cool thing on a daily basis, thought WE were the ones with the cool job! I still find that one hard to believe.

But I digress.

Someone once said that reporters are "masters of nothing." Ideally, we sit in the back of the room and tell you what we saw. We read back what we heard. In a perfect world, we bring none of our own bias with us. Just the facts.

But the Ryan trial presents a whole new ball game. Suddenly we have a proceeding thrown into turmoil: jurors roaming halls, and hiding pasts, and fighting amongst each other. We seek out the experts. And even the experts can't agree what it all means.

The person with whom I feel the most empathy, is the judge. Throughout this proceeding, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer has been, in my opinion, the model of grace and patience. She is sometimes criticized as indecisive, because she attempts in all ways to be fair. If anything has slowed these proceedings, it has been the latitude she gave attorneys to present their respective cases. To put it bluntly-- she bent over backwards for all sides.

Judge Pallmeyer is absolutely one of the nicest people you would ever hope to meet. She has a sunny demeanor which one equates more to the host of a children's show than a U.S. federal courtroom. While managing a heavy caseload outside of the Ryan/Warner trial, she brought the same game every day: unfailingly solicitous of the jury; concerned about the wellbeing of witnesses and spectators; and yes, even the media. And suddenly, after six months, she sees the entire proceeding, which she has so cautiously managed, flying out of control.

She will no doubt be criticized. But remember one thing: Judge Pallmeyer didn't pick this jury. Nevertheless, the Ryan/Warner trial has become the ultimate example of a no-win situation. No matter who claims victory, the case heads for appeal. That was a likely scenario before. Now, with the circus of the jury uncertainties, it is a virtual certainty. Conviction or aquittal, everyone will wonder if the fiasco of the last week, became the overriding distraction, a pall which made six months of testimony, to all intents and purposes, null and void.

It will all become very clear, hopefully, very soon. A lot of lives are on hold.

Stay tuned.

March 23, 2006: So You Want To Be A Reporter?



Time now, for another edition of, "So you want to be a reporter?"

In a moment I'll tell you about late developments on the jury. But first let's rewind the clock to Tuesday.

As the day begins, you, the reporter, stake out the Ryan jury all day, then transition to your evening assignment, covering the Rod Blagojevich campaign headquarters. It promises to be an uneventful night (which by the way, if you're a reporter, is not something you especially desire).

Blagojevich, as expected, wins big. You stay on late, however, because the opposition is in flux.

Finally, just as you're leaving, controversy erupts at the Board of Elections. Missing ballots. You transition there. And the attorneys for both sides begin to appear. And you cover it. And you listen to the arguments, and the speculation about ballot chicanery.

Until 2 a.m.

If you're this reporter, you have an amazing and compassionate wife who stays up and drives you home. You get to bed at 3 a.m. The alarm goes off at 6:30 a.m. Time to go back to George Ryan.

Which brings us to Wednesday.

I prayed there wouldn't be a verdict, because I hadn't had any sleep. (Doing lots of live pops on such an important event when you can't put one word in front of the other is a really bad idea!) But there was suddenly a flurry of activity.

Attorneys for all sides appeared and disappeared into the Judge's chambers. Eventually they left, at about noon.

The judge, taking compassion on the assembled reporters, came out and took the bench, sans robe, to give a partial explanation of what was happening. There was a new note, which she could not reveal; A jury issue relating to "difficulties in the deliberations...".

The reporters ordered lunch from Giordano's. Jurors began appearing and disappearing from the elevator lobby. Two took two smoking breaks in 20 minutes. One donned her headphones and went to run the stairs. At least three court security officers were seen patrolling the hallway outside the jury room.

At 1:09 p.m. the pizza arrives. One reporter is on the Atkins diet and can't have any. (That reporter is writing this account.)

The juror from the stairwell returns. To the layman, it does not appear a lot of deliberating is taking place.

But what do we know?

Everyone begins to speculate about the potential of a juror actually leaving. Two scenarios would follow: continuing deliberations with 11 jurors, or bringing in an alternate (which would require starting the deliberations over).

At 2:15 p.m., NBC5 producer Mark LaMet calls. He's been doing research. A trial has just concluded in Connecticut where a juror attempted to do research at home, and was removed. In that case, an 11 person jury was sent back to deliberate, but a mistrial was almost immediately declared.

2:43 p.m.: Some jurors enter the stairwell again. Others hit the elevator.

2:55 p.m.: The jurors return and the lawyers for both sides begin assembling in the judge's chambers. We are told there have been notes indicating "personal difficulties" on the jury.

Our trial expert, Bill Healy, of DecisionQuest, arrives. We do two live shots, at 4:30 p.m and 6 p.m.

In bed (finally) by 8:45 p.m.

At 9:30 Thursday morning, we are given copies of a note from the judge to the jury, basically warning them to stick to business.

"I expect you to treat your fellow jurors with dignity and respect," she said. "I remind you that any deliberations...must be conducted only in the jury room among all of you. Private discussions about this case outside the jury room among any smaller groups, is a violation of your sworn duty."

So, the deliberations continue. We assume. What does all of this mean?

The truth of the matter is: We don't know.



March 21, 2006: The Wait Continues

Time now, for another chapter in our series, "So you want to be a reporter?".

Keeping in mind that the Ryan verdict could come back at any minute, you have to keep the same hours as the actual jury. Problem is, they really ARE dealing with delivering a verdict. We're in the courtroom....the EMPTY courtroom, trying to guess what they're thinking.

They sent out a note. What does it mean? Not just, what does the NOTE mean? What does EACH WORD mean? What did the convoluted grammar indicate? Why did the foreman express herself in the manner she did? Does it mean they've already arrived at a decision on count number one? And if so, what is it? And if that's the case, are they close? And why was one of the jurors spotted sitting in a stairwell alone? And why does that same juror eat lunch in the 2nd floor cafeteria when lunch is being brought in for the jury? Does that mean she's disagreeing with the other eleven? Or does it just mean she doesn't like the lunch which is being provided?

We parse all of this in the courtroom. We re-read in the indictment and the jury instructions. We go through each count and vote as if we were the jury. Monday, it was, "This time, let's go through it and give the defense's argument to every count." (I won't tell you how it turned out). We write other stories we've been working on. We read books (mine is "First Man", the biography of astronaut Neil Armstrong. A producer from Channel-2 is reading the account of John Wilke's Booth's escape from Washington after the assassination of President Lincoln).

There are other distractions, other pastimes as the clock ticks. Someone brought a portable Scrabble board. Monday, we watched a video of the canoe trip Paul Meincke and I took to Canada last year. I worked on my taxes. I studied the indictment some more. Astronauts; jury instructions; Booth; canoes; George Ryan.

Remember, this same group of reporters has been together for nearly six months, nearly every day. We will either be lifelong friends or we will never speak to each other again.

Tuesday night ... brought election night. In the courtroom, we were comparing notes about our newsrooms' plans for coverage. Almost every one of us was assigned to...the same candidate!

We are destined to spend parallell lives.

And the waiting continues. Stay tuned.

March 12 2006: Deliberations

As the George Ryan/Larry Warner jury begins its deliberations, I thought we should take a look at exactly what they're accused of doing. The charges break down like this:

George Ryan
Count 1: Racketeering Conspiracy
Counts 2-10: Mail Fraud
Counts 11-13: False statements to FBI
Count 18: Obstructing or impeding the IRS
Counts 19-22: False Tax Returns

Lawrence Warner
Count 1: Racketeering Conspiracy
Counts 2-5, 7-9: Mail fraud
Count 14: Extortion
Counts 15-16: Money laundering
Count 17: Structuring to evade reporting requirements

The instructions for the jury run a staggering 153 pages, and the verdict forms run another 8. This phone-book-sized document is issued to each juror, and that's what they'll have in their hands on Monday morning as they meet and discuss the case for the first time in nearly six months. Their first job, according to the instructions, is to choose a foreman. Then there are some specific directives regarding the jury's general behavior.

Some highlights:
"Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence of the case..."
"Your second duty is to apply the law...you must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them." "Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you."

Instruction No. 4 says, "You should use common sense in weighing the evidence, and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.... A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences."

No. 7 warns the jury to consider only the evidence and not be influenced by attorneys' closing arguments or press accounts, advising "Your memory is what counts ..."

No. 11 states a constitutional fact they should already know, that "A defendant has an absolute right not to testify. The fact that a defendant did not testify should not be considered by you ..." Neither George Ryan nor Larry Warner testified in this case.

With many witnesses, defense attorney Dan Webb always asked the same initial question: "Did you ever see George Ryan take a corrupt dollar???"

Two instructions go directly to that issue:
No. 66 says there did not have to be a quid pro quo. "A benefit or benefits received by a defendant, or given by a defendant with the intent that such benefit or benefits would ensure favorable official action when necessary can be sufficient to establish the defendant’s intent to defraud the public of its right to honest services. YOU NEED NOT FIND THAT SUCH A BENEFIT WAS CONFERRED OR RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR A SPECIFIC OFFICIAL ACTION."

No. 71 says Ryan did not even have to receive favors himself. "A participant in a scheme to defraud may be guilty even if all the benefits of the fraud accrue to others ..."
The public may be deprived of its public officials’ honest services no matter who receives the benefits of the fraud..." The government says in many cases, Ryan's children were the beneficiaries of financial gifts from cronies who received lucrative state leases, contracts, and lobbying deals.

The jurors are instructed to stick to the issue of guilt or innocence, and not to worry about what happens to the defendants:
No. 106: "In determining whether the United States has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not give any consideration to the matter of punishment, for this question is exclusively the responsibility of the judge."

The very last instruction, No. 110, goes to the issue of whether they should stick to their guns or change their mind:
"You should make every reasonable effort to reach a verdict. Express your own views, and listen to the opinions of your fellow jurors. Discuss your differences with an open mind. Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if you come to believe it is wrong. But you should not surrender your honest beliefs about the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinions of your fellow jurors, or for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict."

Think you could do it? You couldn't. You haven't done what these jurors have done. They've listened to over 100 witnesses, and have faithfully reported for duty for over five and a half months. Four alternates have been excused, but have been told not to discuss the case with anyone, just in case they are called upon to become active jurors in the event a member of the panel drops out. They will set their own schedules, and have been told to address any questions to the judge only in writing.

Stay tuned.

March 10, 2006: Collins Makes It Clear

Up to now, there has been a mistaken depiction of this as the trial over "Licenses for Bribes". Those words became a catch phrase for Operation Safe Road over the last six years or so. But this case actually was about contracts, and cronies, about accusations that George Ryan steered lucrative deals to his friends, as he enjoyed favors from them in return.

That all changed Thursday. Prosecutor Patrick Collins began delivering the government's final summation -- the last thing the jury will hear before going into the back room to deliberate. This is the argument the defense doesn't get to answer. And Collins looked at them and made clear. This case was about corruption, and licenses, and fund-raising, and yes, death.

He redefined the entire five month-plus trial. On a giant screen Collins listed the investigations killed by George Ryan's office, then pointed at Ryan and told them essentially, "He could have fixed this, but he did nothing!" He discussed the tragedy of the Willis family accident. Without going into detail, which he is not allowed to do, he mentioned only "a fatal incident involving a truck in Wisconsin". And how Ryan's office made the investigation disappear when it became clear it was tied to Ryan's fundraising apparatus.

"Who made the decision? George Ryan did," Collins told them, pointing at Ryan who sat stone faced as the accusations continued. Here was the man who desperately wanted to be governor. Here was the man who accolytes nominated for the Nobel Prize. Sitting in courtroom, with a federal prosecutor pointing at him, and accusing him of covering up the deaths of six innocent children.

Trial consultant William Healy of DecisionQuest, who has analyzed key moments of the trial for NBC5 was sitting in the courtroom, watching Collins' argument. And he said in that key moment, Collins redefined the proceeding. He told me what Collins was attempting to do, was give the jury a solid reason to send George Ryan to prison. A simple, solid reason to feel OK about such a weighty decision.

The jury is to begin weighing that decision on Monday. As I sat in the courtroom I thought back. We did our first investigation of ticket-selling in George Ryan's office in 1993. Then came the Willis accident. And revelations about Ryan staffer Marion Seibel who had sold over $80,000 in fundraising tickets. With each new revelation, George Ryan declared it was all nonsense and we were just wrong. He thundered at all of us in the media, and anyone else who would dare accuse him of improprieties. He tried to change the subject. Promised to fix the Hillside Strangler on the Eisenhower Expressway if people would elect him governor. Promised to do a lot of things. So George Ryan was elected governor with the scandal swirling around him, but it wouldn't go away and it dogged him every day of his administration. He started "Build Illinois"... a feel-good program to shower benefits in every county. But Operation Safe Road continued, and convicted over 70 people. I thought about Ryan hailing each conviction as a blow for good government. He tried to deflect the issue and be governor. But the scandal was one issue which stuck.

Ryan announced his famous death penalty commutations in the waning days of his administration. He became famous around the world. He began a speaking tour which literally took him to other nations on the globe. But here he sat Thursday, with a federal prosecutor pointing at him and asking 12 Illinois voters to send him to federal prison. And after all was said and done, Collins was telling the jury, it was about licenses for bribes, and killing investigations, and death.

How will it unfold? Stay tuned.

March 9, 2006: Webb Delivers Down Home Justice

When you watch Dan Webb work a jury, it's like watching a square dance. Highly countrified...and the choreography is so subtle, you aren't supposed to know its dancing. The only way I can describe it, is like watching Huckleberry Finn deliver a class assignment on astronomy he failed to write the night before.

"Aw shucks", he starts. And he stumbles. And he saunters. And he winks at the pretty girl in the front row. And he has Tom Sawyer hold his frog. And he shuffles around whether Alpha Centauri is a star or the neighbor's pet cat.

And he gets an A by totally hornswoggling the teacher.

Webb stumbles. He forgets. He mispronounces names. He courteously informs the jury that he couldn't do anything if it wasn't for Courtney (the long suffering legal aide who operates the laptop linked to the cinerama projection screen with Webb's powerpoints). He gets sidetracked. And you can bet your bottom dollar that every moment is in the script.

Webb is a brilliant attorney. He has at times managed to dismantle arguments the government didn't even make. In other words, he props up straw men and effectively knocks them down. Proves George Ryan didn't do THAT!

Problem is, it will be something Ryan's not accused of doing. It goes beyond asking every single witness "YOU NEVER SAW GEORGE RYAN TAKE A CORRUPT DOLLAR..........DID YOU?????" ... which this case is not even really about. Wednesday he went thru all of the Larry Warner evidence, and proved that George Ryan didn't commit those acts. In a trial like this, where all of the evidence has been intermingled, it isn't clear whether that one will slide by the jury, or whether they were nodding in agreement.

Webb thunders. He points at his client, and screams, "They want to send THIS man to prison for the rest of his life!". He talks a lot about, "The govvimint.... the govvimint." He questions the tactics of the FBI. "I'd love to tell you if George Ryan REALLY lied to the FBI.....but THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY NOTES AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE REALLY SAID!!!"

What he doesn't tell the jury, is that he used to BE...the "govvimint". Webb was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in the late seventies and early eighties, the job now occupied by Patrick Fitzgerald. The FBI used to be HIS investigative army, the same FBI he now paints as villians.

He questions why the government didn't call Ron Swanson as a witness. Swanson was the Ryan pal accused of showering him with favors, even as Ryan steered him into lucrative deals. Never mind the fact that Swanson suffers from signifigant health problems, reportedly effecting his memory. Never mind the fact that Webb could have called him as a defense witness. He questions why the government didn't call Dean Bauer, the former inspector general convicted of killing investigations on Ryan's behalf. Never mind the fact that HE could have called Bauer as a defense witness. The question is, whether the jury will notice that.

Ryan is accused of a scheme where he paid a wealthy supporter with checks at his Jamaican villa, only to have that supporter, Harry Klein pay back the exact same amount in cash. The government says it was a way for Ryan to stay for free, while making it appear that he paid his own way. Webb gave an explanation of that charade that was so convoluted even reporters were scratching their heads, saying, "WHAT?".

It must have been exactly the way Tom Sawyer got Aunt Polly's picket fence painted while he dozed in the shade.

So many things in this trial are scripted. Brilliantly. Ryan eats lunch every day in the second floor cafeteria. The same place where the jurors eat. They see him. The hope is they leave thinking, "Wow...he was the governor but he's really just like us!". Wednesday, a group of anti-death penalty devotees sat snickering in the gallery, punctuating the appropriate lines in Webb's script. No accident.

(We are not belittling the death penalty stand the former Governor took. Just taking note).

During the trial's first weeks, Webb's firm employed a jury consultant who sat in the courtroom with a big scorecard. It depicted the jury box. And as prosecutors made points, she would mark jurors with their reactions. It was like watching someone score a prizefight. Webb knows which jurors are leaning which ways. It's one of the reasons he thundered, "Stick to your convictions!" during his close. "Don't let others change your mind!". If he thinks he's got a juror at this point, he intends to keep them.

Remember, NONE of what we've described here is improper. It's just good lawyering. And proof, that what happens in a court, goes way beyond the simple facts of the case. At 26th and California where criminal trials are held, the prosecutors have always had a favorite trick. In homicide cases, they will wheel their files in on a little cart. Strategically placed on the outside of the files, will be one folder with the word MURDER written in black marker. They will always park that cart, so that the MURDER file faces the jury. No accident.

I remember in journalism school, we were taught about the old lawyer who stuck a piece of wire into a cigar. He would light it up while his opponent delivered his closing argument, and slowly, the cigar would develop a six-inch piece of ash which somehow didn't fall off. Miraculously, it just stuck out there, like it was defying gravity. And the jury would watch that, mesmerized, instead of paying attention to the other lawyer.

Mark Twain would have been mesmerized by his good pupil Mr. Webb. Will any of this impact the jury's final decisionmaking? Not clear. But we'll know soon. They should get the case, on Friday.

March 8, 2006: 5 Reasons Why Ryan Is Guilty -- Or Innocent

Closing arguments are an unusual dynamic. Attorneys try to outsmart each other, while at the same time, getting their point across to the jury. Remember. The government went first. Then comes the defense. Then the government gets a rebuttal argument. And that's the one argument the defense can't answer. After that, the case goes to the jury.

In her close, prosecutor Laurie Barsella attempted to defuse what she knew George Ryan's lawyer Dan Webb would say. Webb had told jurors on the trial's first day that the case would boil down to five points. Here they are, beginning with Webb's contention, and how Barsella said they were wrong:

No witness testified they saw George Ryan take money to perform official acts. Barsella told jurors there was abundant evidence that Ryan received payments, as did his family. Currency exchange magnate Harry Klein hosted Ryan on Jamaican vacations. Ryan would write Klein a check after each trip, and Klein would rebate the same amount in cash. Over the years, it came to $13,500. Barsella told jurors it was obvious Ryan knew this was a corrupt arrangement, because he never reported the benefit on his state financial disclosure form.
George Ryan's financial status shows he did not accept any personal benefits. Barsella noted that Ryan often had large amounts of unexplainable cash. She had already demonsrated that a time when he never went to an ATM or cashed a check, his pals like Ron Swanson and Larry Warner were routinely withdrawing tens of thousands of dollars, often hours before they were to see Ryan or host him at an event. She noted Citizens for Ryan had a 2.3 million dollar balance after the 1998 gubernatorial election, how members of Ryan's family received thousands of dollars in CFR funds earmarked as campaign expenses even though they did no campaign work. Son in law Michael Fairman alone received $55,000 to help with gambling debts, and admitted on the witness stand he did no campaign work. Nancy Smith, a caregiver for Ryan's mother-in-law, was paid $6,000 in CFR funds. Ryan also pocketed money from Tony Disantis, the wealthy owner of the Drury Lane Theatre, and asked that it be split up in checks of $500 apiece made out to him and his children. Barsella declared that the tragedy was that Ryan had "sold his office on the cheap".
The state of Illinois was not cheated or defrauded. The government says taxpayers were cheated when they were denied Ryan's honest services, and that he violated his oath of office. The government contends that while he was Secretary of State, cronies who had showered his family with gifts enjoyed leases that were overpriced and negotiated outside the competitive process. They noted unnecessary contracts, chief among them a lobbying deal at McPier for Ryan pal Ron Swanson, where Swanson was paid $180,000 to do virtually nothing. Barsella pointed out the diversion of state resources and workers to Ryan campaigns, and Ryan's decision to dissolve his office's Inspector General, when questions were raised about fundraising tickets. Lastly, she advised the jurors that according to the law, "The government does not HAVE to show one penny of loss!"
Providing benefits to supporters is part of politics and not a crime. Barsella said maybe not, but steering leases and contracts to individuals with whom the officeholder has an undisclosed financial relationship IS a crime; that stealing state resources for a campaign is a crime; that leaking confidential information to friends who then benefit, is a crime; that disbanding the inspector general's office to protect Citizens for Ryan was a crime; and that when Ryan took money from the Phil Gramm presidential campaign as a "consulting fee" and didn't report it, that was a crime too. She noted that when Ryan finally reported the money later to the IRS, he included a letter where he stated, "Some time during the Gramm campaign, I was told the national campaign organization did intend to pay me for my work. I had not expected payment". "This was a boldfaced lie," Barsella said, noting that former Ryan chief of staff Scott Fawell had testified that the payments were Ryan's idea, and that the Gramm campaign was unaware of them.
Key government witnesses were not credible. Barsella declared that no witness had all of the information, but that many corroborated each other's testimony, notably Scott Fawell and ryan pal Don Udstuen. She noted that in Fawell, they had heard the testimony of someone who was Ryan's most trusted advisor.

It should be noted that while the jurors have been subjected to five months of mind-numbing testimony, on Tuesday they seemed absolutely riveted by the closing arguments. At one point, Barsella asked them to recall a big chart about Ryan's unreported income. She mentioned the exhibit number and many of them wrote it down. They were obviously impressed (or troubled) by that exhibit and its huge amounts of money. Some of the money amounts in this case were huge. The government contends co-defendant Larry Warner made some $3 million in deals while Ryan was in office, all the while never even registering as a lobbyist as required by law. Prosecutors said Don Udstuen took in hundreds of thousands of dollars, as his cut from Warner on a deal where Udstuen didn't do anything.

The arguments are nearly over. The jury could get the case on Friday.

March 7, 2006: I Can Smell The Meat A Cookin'

That rather coarse phrase is a favorite of NBC5 Political Editor Dick Kay.

It's a quote from one of the many colorful characters Dick used to cover in Springfield over lo these many years that he has been watching politicians and assorted scoundrels in Springfield and Chicago. In Capitol political parlance it means a deal is in the works. But it's also a perfect assessment of the mood and atmosphere on the 21st floor of the Dirksen Federal Building, where George Ryan's corruption trial is hurtling toward its conclusion.

We wish you could be there. While the trial itself has been, at times, mind-numbingly dull, Monday's closing arguments were electric. The jury -- surely ready to bolt and return to their lives after five months of tedium -- were on the edge of their seats as prosecutors Joel Levin and Laurie Barsella gave laid out the government's assessment of the case they've just heard.

There's an old joke about the military: for effective leadership, tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. That's exactly what's happening now. Monday's close was chock full of, "Remember when this witness said THIS?". It's the chance for the attorneys to put a final spin on the ball before they lob it into the jury box.

Monday's assessment was bitter and pointed. It took a man who had the trappings of the governor's office and wrapped him in the cloak of a two bit crook. Prosecutors painted a picture of a guy who lavished state contracts on pals. Who let his co-defendant Larry Warner walk unfettered through the people's halls, effectively jotting down insider information, cashing in on it after he emerged into the real world.

That's the government's charge. Can defense attorneys for Ryan and Warner blunt it again? That will be their role as the closing arguments wind down. So far, the jury has been extremely attentive. But as we say, they're absolutely, positively, ready to go home. One last bit of business. And then we learn what this all meant. You see, it's one thing for all of us to give you our take on the testimony. But the only opinions that matter are in 12 heads on the right side of Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's courtroom. And they're about to make those opinions known.

The meat's a simmerin'. And that jury is about to serve it up. Stay tuned.

March 6, 2006: Final Jury Instructions I couldn't sum this trial up better than the attorneys or the judge.

I invite you to read the instructions to the jury, which they will receive at the end of closing arguments this week.

It includes the actual verdict forms they will use to vote on Mr. Ryan and Mr. Warner's guilt or innocence. Click here to read the jury instructions (.pdf file).Ryan Trial - Final Jury Instructions



Feb. 28, 2006: And Now A Word From The Media

The Ryan trial has a gag order now. I'm not sure if I can really be telling you this, but we're going to go out on a limb and say that we are still permitted to communicate directly to you.

It all started last week when prosecutors became furious at Lura Lynn Ryan's series of television interviews. They insisted the Ryan defense was attempting to poison the jury pool, and asked the judge for an immediate gag order on the proceedings. She declined. Then on Friday, word began leaking out that a Ryan juror had been removed.

We had that tip, as did some other Chicago media outlets. We did not do a story on Friday. The matter was under court seal, and no one would discuss the juror's removal on the record. But the judge was aware that word was getting out. And when a Chicago newspaper ran a story on Sunday, albeit one that was heavily couched saying it appeared the juror had been removed...that was enough.

Judges don't like their orders to be defied, and when matters are placed under seal, they are usually put there for a reason (although in this trial, the seal seems to have been wielded broadly. We can't say if it's appropriate, because by its very nature, it's a secret.)

On Monday, Judge Pallmeyer made clear she was none too happy that someone had revealed the juror's removal. She imposed an immediate gag order. And with that, everyone quit talking.

And when I say quit talking, I mean, QUIT TALKING. You know the old expression, "If I could be a fly on the wall..."? Well that's exactly what reporters have become at the George Ryan trial. No more discussion of scheduling in the hallway with the attorneys. No more previews of tomorrow's witnesses. No releases of court exhibits as has been the practice for five months. We are now the typhoid Marys of the Federal Building: get caught talking to a reporter and you will turn into a pillar of salt. We can watch from the back of the room. But that's. About. It.

The ironic thing is that all of this was wielded without any confirmation of what exactly had happened. No sources were revealed, so it isn't clear to the court how the information leaked.

The judge doesn't know if it was a lawyer or a defendant or a prosecutor or a clerk, people who would be covered under the seal. Or if it was the juror herself or a member of her family, or her neighbor, or her milkman. You know, "Hi Mrs. X, here's the ice cream...bet you'll be happy when the trial's over!" "Actually, it's over now, I got kicked off the jury!". "Wow, I'm going to call a reporter!"

I'm not saying that's what happened. And since more than one reporter knew, the information may have gotten out in more than one way. But things like this often get started from the unlikeliest of places.

Wielding a broad brush which puts people in the awkward position of being afraid to say, "Hello", may not be the most efficient way to deal with it. At any rate, it may t be academic. Testimony has concluded in the George Ryan trial, and closing arguments are set for next Monday.

Stay tuned.

Feb. 23, 2005 -- No Ryan? Now What?

Two important things happened in the George Ryan trial this week, and they were no coincidence.

First of all, defense attorney Dan Webb made the decision not to put his client on the stand (as did Edward Genson, lead counsel for co-defendant Larry Warner). For Webb, it was probably a no-brainer. He had every reason to believe that a big dose of reasonable doubt had been delivered to the jury by his last two witnesses: George Ryan's defense former defense attorney, now a downstate prosecutor; and a forensic accountant who testified that he was unable to find the piles of cash prosecutors contended Ryan had secreted away.

Both witnesses were good for the defense. They were not without their problems, and prosecutors scored big points in cross examining both. But on balance, there is little doubt they left jurors with the impression that Ryan MAY NOT have profited from his alleged ill-gotten gains. And he MAY NOT have lied to the FBI.

Keep in mind, those are only two elements of a very complicated government case. And in fact, the idea that Ryan personally profited is NOT the overriding theme of this prosecution. But it HAS been the number ONE theme of the defense: "Show us where Ryan took a dime."

It works like this: If you can't dismantle the main part of the government case, dismantle a minor part, and then convince the jury that THAT'S the real heart of the indictment.

I said there were two events. The second, was the appearance of Lura Lynn Ryan on every television station in Chicago.

It was no accident, and it was a calculated strategy by the defense. She had the same theme in every interview: "I believe this prosecution was revenge for my husband's stand on the death penalty." Make no mistake. Even though jurors are instructed not to watch television or read the newspaper, it is the hope of the defense that maybe some do, and if they do, that they saw that interview.

Prosecutors were not happy that it happened. Because, they too, know that jurors sometimes peek at the press.

Now comes the part which REALLY is not like L.A. Law. Closing arguments. On television, those last a minute and a half. Both sides in this case have asked for a mind numbing 10 hours for closing arguments. Then, the jury gets to really begin their work.

Stay tuned.



Feb. 22, 2005 -- Should Ryan Testify?

George Ryan had a good day Tuesday. He hasn't had many good days since last September, so it's one he likely will remember.

What's more, it's an important factor in the complicated calculus over the never-ending debate over whether Ryan and his co-defendant Larry Warner should testify.

Ryan's team put a forensic accountant on the stand to say he had found no evidence of ill-gotten gains in the Ryan family income.

That accountant said basically that if there was a secret hoard of cash somewhere, the Ryans wouldn't have regularly carried balances on their credit cards or written checks for relativelly small amounts.

He was a good witness and it was convincing stuff (keep in mind, the indictment is about much more than that. In actuality, charges that Ryan himself profited are only a small part of the government's case).

Still, reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt. And it has a tendency to seep into other areas.

Lawyers I've talked with, lawyers who have put plenty of clients on the stand and kept plenty of clients sitting down, say you don't do it unless the defense case is absolutely in flames. In other words, if you're riding a loser, you put your client on the stand in the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. You have nothing to lose. Otherwise, you keep him in his chair.

Once again on Tuesday, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer reminded both Ryan and Warner that they have every right to take the stand, no matter what advice they are getting from their attorneys.

Ryan wants to testify. Most observers think it would be ugly if he did. And it looks very likely that that is a scenario the public will never see.

Of course, in this trial things sometimes change ... very quickly.

Stay tuned.



Feb. 17, 2005 -- Decision Time

George Ryan and his attorneys now have a decision to make, and that decision could be revealed soon after President's Day.

After five months of testimony, nearly every witness has been called, nearly every exhibit has now been shown, and the last two witnesses of the trial must contemplate whether they will take the stand: George Ryan and his co-defendant Larry Warner.

Thursday the trial erupted in anger with charges and counter charges hurled across the courtroom, concerning the testimony of Ryan's former attorney Ed McNally. Defense lawyers called McNally to give his version of an FBI interview with Ryan, where prosecutors said the former governor lied. McNally is now the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, and defense lawyers attempted to paint him as a patriot and a hero, one of the government's own who would dispute their case.

Prosecutors lashed out, accusing McNally of being a Ryan zealot so devoted, that he might have secretly tape recorded the FBI interview, and tampered with a potential witness. They said he was disqualified from the Ryan case as he and his firm, Altheimer and Gray, represented potentially conflicting clients, all paid for by Ryan's campaign organization Citizens for Ryan. At one point, the jury was sent from the room for over an hour as the two sides argued.

The day ended with a string of Ryan character witnesses, including former MASH star Mike Farrell, who, like the others, extolled Ryan's virtues on a "public policy issue". That issue is the death penalty, but the judge has ruled it cannot be mentioned in court.

Will George Ryan and Larry Warner take the stand? Stay tuned.

Feb. 16, 2005 -- Ryan Testimony Winds Down With Busiest Day Yet

Thursday promises to be the busiest day yet in the George Ryan trial, with a showdown between prosecutors and a downstate U.S. Attorney, and at least half a dozen Ryan character witnesses slated to take the stand.

Edward McNally is Ryan's former attorney, who now is the U.S. Attorney for Southern Illinois. He will be called to give his version of Ryan's meeting with an FBI agent, a version defense attorneys contend varies sharply from that of previous prosecution testimony.

Prosecutors say a McNally-authored memo following the meeting is "filled with inaccuracies", and suggested a combative meeting between the two sides in court.

Ryan will call half a dozen character witnesses. Among them, Sister Sheila Lyne, the former Chicago Health Commissioner; Mike Farrell, actor and death penalty opponent; Bryan Stevenson, another death penalty act