Prosecution Files Evidentiary Submission Against Rod Blagojevich

A federal judge today unsealed a 91 page evidentiary submission by the Government in its case against former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. (Available here.)

The submission, called a "Santiago Proffer" outlines the co-conspirator statements the Government hopes to introduce against Blagojevich and his brother Robert at trial in June.

Anton Rezko is very prominent in the filing. So is Blago's alleged failed attempt to control the selection of a U.S. Senator from Illiniois.

The proffer also details what it calls unearned real estate commissions paid by Rezko to Patti Blagojevich which was used to renovate their home.

Blagojevich has released a statement in response to the filing saying there's nothing new here:

"It's the same old false allegations and lies," he said. "I'm looking forward to trial so the truth comes out and everyone will see that I am innocent."

In a nutshell, here are the players and the gist of the allegations [More...]:

Rod Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s wife, defendant Robert Blagojevich, Christopher Kelly, Antoin Rezko, Alonzo Monk, Stuart Levine, Sheldon Pekin, Joseph Car, Jacob Kiferbaum, William Cellini, John Harris, Deputy Governor A, Individual I, Advisor A, Advisor B, and others conspired to use the powers of the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois to take and cause governmental actions in order to obtain financial benefits for themselves and others, including campaign contributions for Rod Blagojevich, and employment for Rod Blagojevich and his wife.

Patti Blagojevich has not been criminally charged.

More details here.

< AG Eric Holder: No Decision Yet on 9/11 Trial Forum or Venue | Wednesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hey, TL (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    ... just curious.  Why do you think some courts continue to require these pretrial showings in co-conspirator cases? I thought the Supreme Court's 1987 opinion in Bourjaily had made them unnecessary. (In Blogo's case, do you think the pretrial disclosure is more helpful to the defense, as discovery, or harmful, as generating a new round of prejudicial publicity closer to trial?)

    some of our judges do them too (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:28:42 AM EST
    even make the Government do a chart with every statement and then the defense has to fill in its objection to every statement. Some of the charts run over 500 pages. They don't call them Santiago hearings, but James proffers. Other judges in our district conduct James hearings where the Government has to put the witness on pre-trial, even if they have to writ them in from prison. Only one or two of our judges say no hearing or proffer, the Government can connect up at trial after establishing the existence of the conspiracy and both the witness and defendants were members and the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

    How do they do it in PA?


    The Third Circuit held (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    in 1983 (US v Ammar, 714 F2d 238, 245-47) that a pretrial hearing (a la US v James, 5th Cir. en banc 1979) was unnecessary under FRE 104(b-c).  I thought Bourjaily was to the same effect, in part.  Anyway, it's just not done around these parts.  What do you say to my other question -- whether the pretrial disclosure works to the defendant's advantage or disadvantage?