The Verdict: High Lifestyle And Contempt

This episode of The Verdict had one segment on the Conrad Black trial, in which there were three guests: Margaret Wente, columnist for the Globe and Mail; Pat Woodward, a former U.S. prosecutor [cited in this article]; and, Steve Skurka, the regular trial analyist for the show. The topic under discussion was the relevance of Mr. Black's lavish lifestyle to the charges, but it drifted to speculating on the possibility of Conrad Black also being charged with contempt of court for speaking about the trial to the media.

Ms. Wente began by noting that the timing of the introduction of the Bora Bora evidence was a little surprising; she described it as "comic relief." Csr. Skurka then noted that comedic moments in a criminal trial are not very good for the prosecution, as the charges are quite serious. (It does tend to humanize the defendant[s].) Csr. Woodward said that evidence documenting and relating to the Bora Bora trip was not introduced for show; it had to be introduced because of the “jaw-dropping” cost of the trip. That cost makes it look like Mr. Black was scamming the company. With regard to Mr. Black's alleged abuse of corporate perks, Ms. Wente reported that the prosecution was “hammering in” the concept that Black treated company property as if it were his own, which forms the heart of count 10 of the indictment.

An approach that broaches luridity can backfire on the prosecution, Csr. Skurka commented. He believes that prosecution has a different agenda: they want to encourage Conrad Black to get on the stand, to try to refute their allegations of perk abuse.

Csr. Woodward did stipulate that the timing of the Bora Bora evidence was decided on, in part, to keep the jury from being bored, but any timing decisions were subordinate to the overall purpose of its entry, to attempt to prove the relevant allegation. According to him, American law with regard to executive-perk abuse, in and of itself, is not that strict, but when the dollar amount involved is serious, and when perk abuse is combined with alleged tax fraud and allegedly draining money from an American company that's entitled to it, then it is treated seriously by the Department of Justice. Csr. Skurka noted, though, that the perk-abuse is a side issue, as the non-compete payments are at the heart of the charges.

Ms. Wente disclosed that Conrad Black is using the media in general (not just her as a plantee) to “disparage” the evidence, to get his side across, and to “minimize” the seriousness of the charges. Csr. Woodward expressed surprise at Mr. Black’s lawyers, as he does risk a citation for contempt of court, and his statements can be used in court because Mr. Black is speaking in public. Csr. Skurka ventured the opinion that the reason why Mr. Black's lawyers haven't restrained him from from 'media management' is that they simply can’t control him. Csr. Woodward then expanded on the possibility of a contempt charge, observing, at the end of his brief discourse, that to “lock [Black] up” might give him “laryngitis.” The prosecutors hasn't bothered to do anything about it because they want Mr. Black to hang himself, Csr. Skurka himself observed, and Csr. Woodward agreed with him. Margaret Wente had the last comment in this part of the show, in which she observed that she's only a journalist, and not any kind of insider.

This segment formed the basis for Ms. Todd's "Closing Argument." She started by wondering if Conrad Black looked like a sympathetic character through his Bora Bora E-mail, which she earlier read excerpts of on the air, or condescending. The underlying point, though, is that E-mails, text messages, and other forms of saved electronic communication can all provide evidence against oneself, at the expense of a now-dwindling privacy. What about the person who mixes personal and business communications in their E-mails? How would you like to see a letter of that sort, which you wrote, winding up in a court transcript, as has happened to at least one person in the trial?

(This issue has actually come up long ago, though not at the level of a trial. About twenty-five years in the past, at least one Toronto brokerage firm began recording stockbrokers' calls, in large part to provide records to be used in later disputes, but that experiment was called off because of brokers' protests.)