This does bring forth a very interesting point, perhaps Rezko should have waived his jury.
Leave a light on George
· 1 year ago
They'll still get a break for cooperating. I do think the comment from the judge shows her disgust for the whole lot of state officials and the gov's kitchen cabinet who testified and/or were implicated in Rezko's trial. If I were TR I cut a deal with the fed's because he is not going to get any sympathy from the judge come sentencing time.
Plutocrat03
· 1 year ago
Bench trials are an existing variation of the trial system.
You are gambling that a judge does not have any bias toward the defense or prosecution. It is not hard to imagine how a bench trial can be biased one way or another based on the judges peccadilloes.
Remember that judges are member of the political class as well as being jurists. It may be difficult to remain objective if you perceive the case in front of you to be an attack 'on one of your own'
wordslinger
· 1 year ago
I read St. Eve's comments to mean that the Rezko jury will be instructed that they cannot assume that convicted felons who testified will get a break on their sentences.
That strikes me as a victory for the prosecution.
Wumpus
· 1 year ago
Quinn was the one at the Rezko Party, perhaps he should clear the air too
GofGelnview
· 1 year ago
"He suspected" his busienss partner may have been making bribes but did nothing about it? Yet he benefited from those bribes and still the judge said that's OK.
Well I have to say that here in the State of Illinois there is certainly a different level of understanding as it relates to making bribes- the bar has been set pretty high.
Talk abou the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. With that kind of parsing: if you were the driver of a car that was involved in a drive-bye you should be allowed to walk on all charges becasue you didn't pull the trigger- the passanger did.
What a joke and what bribe did that judge take?
Catch-22: "NUTS"
Little Egypt
· 1 year ago
MEMO TO BLAGO: Go with judge only and no jury. It will better your chances of staying out of the slammer.
Abby
· 1 year ago
I Think the Rezko is more of a problem for Obama.
The reason Hillary has not dropped out yet is the rezko verdict and the fallout for Obama.
so-called "Austin Mayor"
· 1 year ago
GofGelnview,
The judge did not find that Mahoney suspected Robinson of paying bribes.
The judge said that such a conclusion was the absolute limit of what could be inferred from the prosecution's evidence.
I'll give you an example: At most, you willfully misread the judge's finding to anonymously smear a man found NOT GUILTY of the crime for which he was accused. But that does not mean that you are a cowardly slanderer.
It could be that you are merely intellectually sloppy -- a careless reader and a slapdash logician.
But in neither event is anyone accusing you of a Federal crime.
Perhaps having been head of the State Police gave Judge Zagel a different perspective on the issues involved.
paddyrollingstone
· 1 year ago
One of the biggest difference between State and Federal criminal proceedings is that in Federal Court, both the defendant and the Government have a right to a jury trial, while in State court only the defendant has a right to a jury trial. What that means is that it is extremely rare for a defendant to have a bench trial because the Government has to agree. My experience is that they will rarely agree to this and therefore bench trials never happen. I have tried many federal criminal jury trials but no bench trials. It makes me wonder why the G would agree to a bench. They must have felt it was a garbage case.
All Comments
You are gambling that a judge does not have any bias toward the defense or prosecution. It is not hard to imagine how a bench trial can be biased one way or another based on the judges peccadilloes.
Remember that judges are member of the political class as well as being jurists. It may be difficult to remain objective if you perceive the case in front of you to be an attack 'on one of your own'
That strikes me as a victory for the prosecution.
Well I have to say that here in the State of Illinois there is certainly a different level of understanding as it relates to making bribes- the bar has been set pretty high.
Talk abou the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. With that kind of parsing: if you were the driver of a car that was involved in a drive-bye you should be allowed to walk on all charges becasue you didn't pull the trigger- the passanger did.
What a joke and what bribe did that judge take?
Catch-22: "NUTS"
The reason Hillary has not dropped out yet is the rezko verdict and the fallout for Obama.
The judge did not find that Mahoney suspected Robinson of paying bribes.
The judge said that such a conclusion was the absolute limit of what could be inferred from the prosecution's evidence.
I'll give you an example: At most, you willfully misread the judge's finding to anonymously smear a man found NOT GUILTY of the crime for which he was accused. But that does not mean that you are a cowardly slanderer.
It could be that you are merely intellectually sloppy -- a careless reader and a slapdash logician.
But in neither event is anyone accusing you of a Federal crime.
-- SCAM
so-called "Austin Mayor"
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com