This is Joe Schmoe's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Joe Schmoe's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Joe Schmoe
Recent Activity
Crazy thing is, folks... if they had admitted ALL of the tapes (as requested by the defense) they might of had him on every charge. Of course, anybody familiar with Illinois knows that nothing ever happens in the state without Mayor Daley's approval. I bet that's why they didn't go with a more substantial outlay of recordings - they would have implicated Mayor Daley, as well as most all the rest of the politicians in Illinois for having participated in many corrupt acts while in office on official time. Mayor Daley should be thanking his lucky stars right now, and trying to keep the State's Attorney from re-opening a chance for far reaching evidence to be presented which might implicate him on racketeering and other more ominous charges.
This is pretty much what Blagojevich said to expect, right? And since when is a mistrial declared, yet a charge from that trial accepted anyway? If the jury is presented with a list of charges, and is only able to say "guilty" on one of those charges, does that not somehow imply innocence on the remaining charges? Within our Constitution, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. While some non-Constitutional mandate might require a jury to specify either "guilty" or "not guilty", an initial plea of not guilty is supposed to apply to all counts not found to be worthy of a jury's "guilty" verdict. That is not just a matter of this trial (for all those who would call me a "Blago lover". A "not guilty" verdict is supposed to be returned whenever "a reasonable doubt exists" regarding the guilt of a defendant on a particular count. If a hung jury is said to exist simply because the jury is not unanimous on a count, doesn't this prove a reasonable doubt exists? As such, that response alone should stand as a "not guilty" verdict for the count. Besides folks... if "innocent until proven guilty" is more than just a bunch of judicial rhetoric used in closet meetings of bench-riding politicians to demonstrate that they at one time in their often sketchy backgrounds heard of the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, not being said to be guilty of a count is automatically supposed to mean "not guilty", even if only on the greatest basis for such a verdict - a reasonable doubt exists. The outcome of this trial should have you all thinking about just what could happen to you if you ended up on trial for some trivial thing. Would you, using this same demonstrated approach to conducting a Constitution and Bill of Rights "compliant" trial, be found "guilty"? Or just not "not guilty".
Joe Schmoe is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 17, 2010