* As I told subscribers this morning, Michael Mahoney’s acquittal was big news in Springfield last night for obvious reasons…
A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted Michael J. Mahoney, a nationally known corrections expert, on charges that he schemed to bribe Illinois’ former top prison official to win lucrative state contracts for his lobbying clients. […]
Federal prosecutors alleged that Mahoney used a former business partner as a “bag man” to deliver about $20,000 in bribes to Donald Snyder Jr. while he headed the Illinois Department of Corrections from 1999 to 2002. […]
But U.S. District Judge James Zagel, who heard the case without a jury, found that prosecutors had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mahoney participated in the scheme.
Zagel said the evidence showed that, at most, Mahoney suspected Robinson of paying bribes and chose not to interfere.
* More…
Zagel said he discounted the testimony of one key witness against Mahoney, former Illinois Corrections Director Donald Snyder, and had doubts about another, former Cook County Undersheriff John Robinson. […]
But Zagel said Snyder’s repeated memory failures on the witness stand rendered his testimony unreliable and Robinson’s demeanor on the stand suggested he might be ‘’inflating Mahoney’s role.'’
Snyder and Robinson have pleaded guilty and await sentencing.
A star witness with a bad memory, no direct link between the defendant and the alleged payoffs… Hmmm.
The big difference is that this was a bench trial, not a jury trial. Jurors have shown of late to be very willing to believe whatever the feds put in front of them in corruption cases. In this case, the judge wasn’t buying the line.
* Meanwhile, over at the Rezko trial…
While meeting with lawyers in a jury instruction conference this afternoon, Judge Amy St. Eve said it wasn’t a certainty that witnesses who pleaded guilty will receive shorter prison time. “There’s no guarantee any of them will get reduced sentences,” St. Eve said. […]
Her comment is particularly interesting when it comes to main witness Stuart Levine. Levine faced up to life in prison but negotiated a 67-month sentence with prosecutors.
As one commenter over there pointed out…
Wow. Makes people really want to run right up to Fitz et al and confess. If St. Eve is going to take a hard line on those who confessed wonder how she’s going to feel about sentencing Rezko if found guilty…?
Yep.
* Other stuff…
* Blagojevich should ‘clear the air’ on Rezko, Quinn says
* Key Rezko witness Stuart Levine saved $351,000 on property taxes over 11 years
* Levine’s tax break by year
- Ghost - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:10 am:
This does bring forth a very interesting point, perhaps Rezko should have waived his jury.
- Leave a light on George - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:26 am:
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 - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:41 am:
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 - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:46 am:
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 - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:16 am:
Quinn was the one at the Rezko Party, perhaps he should clear the air too
- GofGelnview - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:29 am:
“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 - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:51 am:
MEMO TO BLAGO: Go with judge only and no jury. It will better your chances of staying out of the slammer.
- Abby - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:48 pm:
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" - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:09 pm:
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.
– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
- walter sobchak - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:18 pm:
Perhaps having been head of the State Police gave Judge Zagel a different perspective on the issues involved.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:44 pm:
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.