Blagojevich Chief of Staff on Stand: Testifying for Reduced Sentence

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 08:39:00 AM EST
Tags: Rod Blagojevich (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The trial of former Illiniois Governor Rod Blagojoveich continues. Tuesday, his former Chief of Staff, initially indicted along with Blago, takes the stand. He's expected to testify for a few days.

Here's a copy of his plea agreement. His guidelines call for 70 - 87 months. If his cooperation against Blago goes according to plan, the Government has agreed to ask for 35 months, a fifty percent reduction off the bottom of the guideline range.

Harris will insist his only job is to tell the truth. But it's the Government's version of the truth. If he insisted the truth was that Blago didn't commit any crimes, the Government would say that's not the truth, and he wouldn't get the reduction.

It's testimony purchased with promises of leniency. Freedom is a commodity far more precious than money. It's a practice that renders our system morally bankrupt.

< Peru Court Calls on Media to Report Responsibly on Joran Van der Sloot | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Blagojevich Chief of Staff on Stand: Testifying for Reduced Sentence | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Thanks for update and (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Cream City on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 05:57:59 AM EST

a strong conclusion

Freedom is a commodity far more precious than money. It renders our system morally bankrupt.

But said conclusion needs a bit of editing, if you don't mind, courtesy of this pronoun cop. The "it" in the last sentence refers back first to the noun "money," but that does not make sense, as you state that money is not in play here. So the pronoun "it" refers back to the prior noun "freedom" -- but you certainly do not mean that freedom bankrupts our moral system.

I know that you would not want to be quoted as saying so. So the "it" needs to be replaced with the (compound) "noun that you mean: plea bargaining, I presume. And again, I appreciate the ongoing education here on your perspective on plea bargaining.

you are right (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:01:13 AM EST

about the pronoun, I left out what the "it" is -- I added "a practice." Probably still gramatically incorrect, but hopefully clearer.


: Perfectly clear now (none / 0) (#5)
by Cream City on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:12:21 AM EST

and grammatical as all get out, I think, too. :-)

morally bankrupt. (none / 0) (#2)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 07:13:21 AM EST

That seems a bit much. A conflict of interest does not necessarily equate to moral bankruptcy.

In this and similar cases without a deal, there would be a conflict of interest against the confederate testifying. It is completely appropriate for the state to balance that conflict of interest with another. A jury is perfectly capable of taking this into account.

: it's way more than a conflict of interest (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:12:05 AM EST

Years ago a federal appeals court opined (Singleton case) it was bribery, in violation of 18 USC 201. Of course, on rehearing before the full panel, the appeals court over-ruled the decision but that's how I and many others still view it. The three judge panel ruled:

The judicial process is tainted and justice cheapened when factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or money. Because prosecutors bear a weighty responsibility to do justice and observe the law in the course of a prosecution, it is particularly appropriate to apply the strictures of [the bribery statute] to their activities.
More here. Before it got overruled, Congress was so nervous it introduced bills to trump it. After the decision was overruled, the bills died.
From the defense brief:

Promises of leniency are strong inducements to testify falsely. The use of purchased testimony is not only unethical, it is unlawful and dangerous. While the courts have been willing to admit the testimony of "paid" witnesses over challenges arising other than out of §201(c)(2), the courts have also recognized that the government's paying witnesses and offering reduced sentences in exchange for testimony breaches established ethical standards and "patently permits perversion of the trial process."
....When the government offers the paid testimony of a admitted and convicted felon, it enters into a compact with evil. The result is the ultimate erosion of respect for government which all people must have in order to maintain a free society. The courts should not allow the law to be used to aid the government in this process.

: It creates exceptions from the norm (none / 0) (#7)
by Cream City on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:16:05 AM EST

for some and not for others, which makes the system arbitrary and capricious (and so not really a system) -- and in an extortive way, I think. All that makes it problematic on what may be a sort of sliding scale of moral bankruptcy . . . because is would see the all-too-common cop practice of entrapment as even worse. I could tell a story of a situation of entrapment of a colleague that would raise the hairs on your neck . . . but he went through enough public humiliation, and at cost to a career of service that cost us all, so I won't do so here again.

I abosutely agree with this (none / 0) (#6)
by esmense on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 11:12:42 AM EST

"It renders our system morally bankrupt."

Also, the "jailhouse snitch" -- what an abomination that ploy is.

He has two choices (none / 0) (#8)
by ytterby on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 01:29:35 PM EST

One, the potential witness can be subpoenaed and testify, then be prosecuted for his own misdeeds.
Two, he can make a deal for reduced time, then testify.
Either way, he has to testify.
But he only gets the reduced time if he says what the government wants him to say.How is that different than "You only get the money if you say what I want you to say?"
It's purchased testimony, it's disgusting, it's unethical and (dare I say it) it's un-American

Point to consider (none / 0) (#9)
by nyjets on Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 02:14:29 PM EST

"It's a practice that renders our system morally bankrupt."
I will admit I disagree completely with that opinion.
That being said, plea agreements in order to get someone to testify is sometimes the only way to get at some people. If the practive was not used, a lot of cases could not be made. I agree that the process should be regulated but not abandoned.

: And (none / 0) (#11)
by jbindc on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:22:41 AM EST

Criminal defense attorneys also like to make deals for their clients in exchange for testimony - it gives them a bargaining chip and gets their clients less time than they may actually deserve. That's why it works - even though people don't like the idea.