Plea for bail in high-profile jury misconduct case
on Nov 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Update 3:15 p.m. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday asked federal prosecutors to respond to the application discussed here by 2 p.m. next Monday.
Attorneys for former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan, Sr., and a longtime associate, Lawrence E. Warner, on Wednesday asked Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to allow them to avoid going to prison next week as they pursue an appeal challenging a long list of claims about juror misconduct that made their trial “deeply and fundamentally flawed.” The emergency application for continued bail (07A373) can be found here. The two men are scheduled to report next Wednesday to begin serving federal prison terms of 78 months (for Ryan) and 41 months (for Warner). Their lawyers plan to file a petition for review by the Supreme Court by Jan. 23, and asked that the two remain free while that appeal unfolds.
One of the key issues they plan to raise in the appeal is the constitutionality of changing the composition of a jury after a considerable period of difficult deliberations. “For the first time in the history of American jurisprudence,” the bail application said, “a federal trial court significantly changed the composition of a jury over defense objection eight days into deliberations at a time when the parties knew the jurors’ likely views of the evidence.” Another issue is the validity of a trial in which jurors, in the midst of deliberations, are quizzed about their own potentially illegal conduct.
The two were convicted of fraud and 21 other criminal charges after a trial lasting more than six months — a trial that their attorneys contend was tainted by the jurors’ use of materials found by one juror’s Googling the Internet about removal of jurors, a move by jurors to intimidate and remove one of their members who was inclined toward the defense, questioning of jurors about their own alleged false statements on juror questionnaires, a grant of immunity to jurors while the juror misconduct charges were probed by federal prosecutors, and removal of two of the jurors and substitution of alternates after eight days of deliberation instead of declaring a mistrial as defense lawyers requested.
The Seventh Circuit Court was divided 2-1 in upholding the convictions, split 6-3 in refusing en banc review of the case, split 2-1 in rejecting a plea to stay the mandate so that the two could remain free while they appeal to the Supreme Court, and divided 2-1 in refusing to put that bail issue before the en banc Court. The dissenting judges in these actions complained of a “travesty” at the trial and suggested that the Circuit Court majority had turned “a blind eye to the realities of what occurred.”
The application argued that “the only pont of contention” at this juncture is “whether the difficult legal issues presented in this case warrant continuing the grant of bail” pending final action on their petition for certiorari.
The filing acknowledged that a grant of bail pending actions on an appeal to the Supreme Court has come “only in extraordinary circumstances,” but added: “If there is ever a case that warrants bail pending appeal through certiorari, this is it.”
Justice Stevens has the authority to act on the bail request on his own, or the option of sharing it with his eight colleagues. Federal prosecutors will no doubt respond before Stevens or the Court acts.
