U.S. v. Ryan, 06-3517 (7^th Cir., Aug. 21, 2007)

Remember George Ryan, the disgraced former governor of Illinois? In March 2006, Ryan was convicted of RICO violations and mail fraud for steering contracts and leases to a top “unpaid” advisor, who in turn, steered money into Ryan’s campaign and into his pocket. In a 74-page decision, a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirms the convictions of Ryan and his advisor.

As the majority notes in its opening paragraph, “the trial may not have been picture-perfect.” Among other irregularities, we have a juror complaining that her fellow jurors were “calling her derogatory names and shouting profanities;” the same juror subsequently accused by her colleagues of “behaving in a physically aggressive manner;” several jurors who lied about their criminal and legal backgrounds in the jury questionnaires, resulting in a handful of dismissals in the midst of deliberations; and claims that jurors relied on extraneous materials during deliberations. Not to mention the inevitable evidentiary issues and confusion about whether the government established all the elements its RICO and mail fraud charges.

But the majority of Judges Wood and Manion rejects each of these arguments, concluding that although mistakes were made, none were so serious as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Along the way, the Court deepens a circuit split about whether a state official’s communications with his chief legal counsel are privileged. The Second Circuit has held that these communications are privileged, while the D.C. Circuit and Eighth Circuit have rejected privilege claims. Because the Seventh had already ruled against Ryan on this issue, it declines to reopen its analysis.

Judge Kanne dissents, presenting a very different picture. While the majority described the trial as “less than picture-perfect,” he argues that this is “a whopping understatement by any measure.” To illustrate, he complies a long laundry list of several key problems with the jury that the majority decision glossed over. For example, the harassed juror was accused by her colleagues of having been bribed (remember, this is Chicago politics we are talking about); during questioning of the jury about these improprieties, the U.S. Attorney’s office had to grant several jurors immunity; and finally, many of the jurors ended up hiring their own lawyers. Particularly given the high profile nature of this trial, Judge Kanne concludes that the jury’s dysfunction was so corruptive to the deliberations that the verdicts cannot stand.

Posted Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:35:00 and filed under Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.