Jack Boultbee Gets A Break

According to a report by Mary Vallis, webbed by the Financial Post, that's who's the first beneficiary of a granted drop-charge motion. The specific charge dropped for Mr. Boultbee is count 10; Judge St. Eve concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence "for the jury to conclude a crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt." That count was only dropped for Mr. Boultbee in that ruling.

Paul Waldie has more details on this ruling, added into an earlier article webbed by the Globe and Mail. According to Mr. Waldie, a charge wasn't dropped; what was dropped was "an aspect of one charge against Lord Black and Mr. Boultbee. The charge related to allegations they misused company benefits including a Hollinger jet. Prosecutors alleged Mr. Boultbee played a role in Lord Black's use of the company jet to go to Bora Bora in July 2001. Lord Black billed part of the trip to Hollinger.... Judge St. Eve ruled that prosecutors have not proven that Mr. Boultbee played a role in how the trip was expensed." Mr. Boultbee still faces the same number of charges; this ruling mandates a constraint on the prosecution's closing arguments.

Mr. Waldie repeated the ‘aspect’ description in a BNN interview, aired at 2:36 PM ET. Regarding the role of Mr. Boultbee in approving the trip expense, it was pretty “peripheral,” but it wasn't with respect to the other expenses mentioned in Count 10. There was a three-hour meeting regarding jury instructions; the judge even needs to find a definition of a “related-party transaction” that's acceptable for jury instructions. Mr. Waldie also mentioned another of the defense's arguments to bar the ostrich instruction: it allows convictions for mere negligence. Judge St. Eve seemingly hasn’t ruled on the other defense motions, including the motions to acquit, as of yet.

Bloomberg has a write-up, written by Andrew Harris, on the same constraint imposition. Mr. Harris describes it as a dropped charge, but he does specify that Mr. Boultbee is not off the hook for that part of count 10 which deals with the purchase of the Manhattan apartment. Mr. Harris also reports that "Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to comment on St. Eve's ruling." The attorney for Mr. Boultbee, Patrick Tuite, also declined to comment.

The Associated Press's report, as webbed by the International Herald-Tribune, links the mandated constraint to the earlier testimony of Fred Creasey, which was supposed to implicate Mr. Boultbee in the Bora Bora part of count 10. It makes the same point that Mr. Waldie did: Judge St. Eve did not drop a full charge against Mr. Boultbee; she only lessened the scope of one. Near its end, it recounts the substance of the allegation in count 10 about the Manhattan apartment. [The version webbed by Forbes.com credits Mike Robinson explicitly.]

----------

Mark Steyn has written an entry in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog that was devoted to Mark Kipnis. In it, he concurs with Steve Skurka regarding the oddity of a regular middle-class guy paying about $800,000 for an expert witness to go through the documentation, but reaffirms that Mr. Kipnis will be acquitted, which (in Mr. Steyn's words) "will be small consolation for a victim of malicious prosecution whose life has been ruined."

Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has an anecdote about the kidding that Alan Funk received outside the courtroom after his testimony was over. Several monickers were applied to him while there.

Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star has a feature on how long the jury is expected to deliberate, with a few precedents that yield a rough estimate of the time. (One angle that he didn't broach: does a short deliberation mean a likely acquittal?)

Tthe Brandon Sun has webbed a story about the Canadian authorities letting the U.S. Department of Justice doing the prosecuting for them, with this line of reasoning justifying it: if Conrad Black is convicted, then a Canadian prosecution would be superfluous; if he's acquitted, then a Canadian criminal-level case would be all but unwinnable. It mentions that the RCMP has already looked into the case and declined to press charges. The only possible exception to this refrainment would be a possible charge of tax evasion by the CRA. [This same story has been credited to Romina Maurino by 680 News.]

There's a second posting from Mr. Bell: an evocative depiction of Conrad Black in the courtroom these past two days.