The Verdict: Two Sides Of David Radler

More than half of the latest episode of The Verdict was devoted to David Radler's testimony and to David Radler the man. There were three segments: the first featured CTV News reporter David Akin, who was reporting on the Conrad Black trial today; the second had a panel of three lawyers, David Frenkel, James Morton and Steve Skurka; the third had a panel of three journalists, Susan Chandler, David Olive and Steve Maich.

Mr. Akin said that we won’t know how strong a witness Mr. Radler is until the cross-examination of him is over. He was “uncharacteristically nice” while on the stand; he laughed, including at himself. He was clearly distancing himself, in terms of character, from the “aristocratic Black.” The prosecution's strategy is to show that they were a close-knit team, and were even close personally. Ms. Todd noted that Mr. Radler has to perform to live up to his plea agreement, which the jury was informed of at the outset. The jury will be hear more about it, especially from the defense. Ms. Todd then asked, why would Radler roll? Mr. Akin answered that it's hard to say, as Mr. Radler is not much of a public figure; he's “notoriously shy” regarding interviews. What's known of him is almost all second-hand knowledge. He seems to be “repentant,” and desirous of changing his ways. His family may have been relevant to that.

Ms. Todd's discussion with the legal panel, Csrs. Frenkel, Morton and Skurka, revolved around plea bargains. They're commonly used in cases such as this one in the U.S., but are, as Csr. Morton disclosed, very unusual in Canada, as such agreements are presumed to colour the facts. The truth may be told, but "whose truth?" One point of disagreement between the three was how efficacious, for the defense, an aggressive cross-examination would be. Csr. Morton ventured that Eddie Greenspan will have to be careful, as too aggressive a cross would alienate the jury. He did note that the defense has a good record regarding skilled cross-examinations. Csr. Skurka disagreed, noting that Mr. Radler is not exactly Andrew Fastow; he opined that the cross should be “hard-hitting” and “aggressive.” He also noted that there are no supporting documents to substantiate a conspiracy.

What will be decisive, will be Mr. Radler's credibility: how will the jury take to him? Csr. Morton noted that the prosecution has painted Mr. Radler as ”friendly and avuncular,” which the jury may see as disingenuous, especially if his business style gets entered into evidence. Csr. Skurka, when asked by Ms. Todd if Mr. Black will go on the stand, replied: not a chance, unless David Radler wows the jury. When Ms. Todd asked Csr. Frenkel if the prosecution team is in trouble, he said that they're “challenged,” based upon what he’s read. This part of the trial is its cusp. Csr. Morton added that, ironically, Conrad Black is still the underdog. This segment ended with Csr. Skurka repeating his line about the prosecution's case, before Mr. Radler's appearance, being “the Titanic looking for an iceberg.”

The third segment was a discussion between Ms. Todd and three journalists, Susan Chandler, David Olive and Steve Maich. Ms. Todd started the discussion off by referring to Mr. Radler's well-known repute as a “fierce businessman and fierce boss.” Mr. Olive answered that what we know and what the jury will find out are going to be “quite different.” Mr. Radler only cared about the money, but the jury probably won’t hear about it. He relayed a rumor that Mr. Radler sometimes demanded employees give him Christmans presents, and opened them in front of the employees. Mr. Maich concurred that Mr. Radler was not exactly known for his charm.

But that might not matter as far as his credibility is concerned. Mr. Maich stated that it is going to be hard to “completely obliterate his credibility.” Ms. Chandler observed that “juries don’t like rats.” So, Mr. Radler has something to live down; the defense will say that he’s been lying all along. Mr. Olive, though, concurred with Mr. Maich. The physical sacrifices that Mr. Radler will have to make during his incarceration might impress the jurors and win them over. In the Enron case, the “rats” won. He noted, after being asked about the monicker by Ms. Todd, that such people are called “rats” because they've cut deals, and have also breached a kind of personal loyalty. Ms. Chandler added that Mr. Radler was not a whistleblower because the prosecution came to him, and (presumably) leaned on him to roll. If the defense team can flesh out his “mean-spiritedness,” then they will have the advantage. Mr. Olive suggested that Mr. Black may not have known whether or not what Radler did was illegal. He disclosed that he puts “a lot of credence” in protestations of innocence, implying that he's prone to believe that Conrad Black is not guilty.

In Ms. Todd's "closing argument" at the end of the show, after a segment on another issue, she said that Mr. Radler has been heavily criticized as a “rat” even before he took the stand. But how can it affect his reputation now, when he’s already admitted to it? What's relevant is, is he still one, or is he now a “repentant rat?” He does have an incentive to shaft Conrad Black, but he runs a huge risk if he embellishes his testimony – he’ll make an enemy out of the Justice Department too.