First Closing Argument: Prosecution

Rick Westhead of the Toronto Star has the first report on the contents of Judy Ruder's closing address. From it: "Conrad Black and his co-defendants conspired to 'take a slice of their company's profits' and 'created a phony paper trail to make their actions appear legitimate,' prosecutor Julie Ruder told the jury at Black's criminal trial today.... 'Did they try to cover their steps? That's exactly what they have done,' Ruder told the jurors. 'It is your job to expose the cover story for what it is....'" The rest of the report is mostly other excerpts from Csr. Ruder's closing address, with some background added.

Mary Vallis of the Financial Post has also written a report on the beginning of the prosecution's closing argument, which implied that the four defendants were a gang of thieves. It notes that "Ms. Ruder went on to praise the jury for their attentiveness and note-taking during the trial, which has stretched over more than three months. 'You already have the tools you need...You know this case and you have your common sense.'" The latter half of the report contains background on the trial itself, including the identity of the last defense witness.

Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail has a report on the closing address out too. In addition to reporting on her opening statement too, it relates that "Ms. Ruder went through each transaction at issue in the trial pointing out that Lord Black and the others routinely inserted themselves into non-competition agreements and skimmed off some of the related payments. She added that they a 'hid, lied and concealed' their actions." Also, Csr. Ruder pointed to memos between Mr. Black and David Radler as evidence that they worked closely together, referred to the buyers' testimony that they did not request the non-competes in advance, and said that the onus was on the defendants to point out the suspicious non-compete agreements to the Audit Committee.

Andrew Stern of Reuters covers the points that the above reports have, but also has Csr. Ruder's argument for why the other three defendants are guilty: "'The others went along because it enriched them,' she said. 'They decided to take a piece of the pie. There is a great divide in this criminal trial. David Radler and others knew the truth ... Shareholders did not know the truth.'" The rest of the report, all of page 2, summarizes the evidence and foreshadows the defense's arguments.

The Associated Press has issued a summary report, as webbed by WQAD.com. A more detailed AP report, by Mike Robinson, has been webbed by the Chicago Daily Southtown. It carries the standard note that non-compete agreements are common in the newspaper industry, but adds that the prosecution contends that any proceeds from them should have gone to Hollinger Int'l shareholders. It also notes that "Ruder paced in front of the jury box, sometimes pointing to a large video screen where prosecutors projected black-and-white photos of the witnesses when she mentioned them. Also projected on the screen in green letters were specific quotes from testimony given by the witnesses." It ends with this part of the closing argument: "Turning to the defense table and pointing at Black, she said: '[The non-competes were] a pretty easy way for people who know how the system works to use it as part of a cover story.'"

An updated report by Ms. Vallis, as webbed by Canada.com, contains an additional part of Csr. Ruder's argument: "She went on to argue that non-compete money that was paid to Hollinger Inc. as part of a 'template' allegedly devised by Lord Black was then used to pay back Hollinger International for a outstanding loan." Csr. Ruder also said that this device was for the purpose of "'stealing from International to pay International back with International's own money.'" The second half of the report adds that another juror has been excused, leaving only 12 jurors and three alternates. "The missing juror is a middle-aged blonde woman who paid close attention to the testimony and often turned her chair so she could directly face the witnesses, including David Radler." (Whether or not that juror was the one with the feather pen wasn't mentioned.)

Other details were filled in by Amanda Lang, in a BNN interview aired at 1:54 PM. (Quotes are the words of Ms. Lang.) Judy Ruder started off "very strongly." She referred to the defendants ditching out on their fiduciary duty. Csr. Ruder also brought up Horizon, and American Publishing Company where there was no sale of a newspaper but there was a "phantom" non-compete agreement. "Defamatory" words that "would be illegal in any other context" are being used in her closing address. The prosecution should be finished today. What to watch for when the defense starts: the degree of cohesiveness of their closing arguments. The prosecution has explicitly attacked Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis, though using a shoulda-known argument. The exused juror, mentioned above, was one of the best jurors in terms of attentiveness and note-taking.

The Reuters report has also been updated, with new excerpts on page 2 of it dealing with the subtlety of the alleged fraud and Csr. Ruder's ridiculing of the defense case. "Ruder, repeatedly ridiculing defense contentions by saying, 'It's ridiculous,' took the jury on a tour... In [one other case], the businessman who paid $14 million for a number of newspapers including the Jamestown, North Dakota, Sun 'cared less' if Black and the others signed such agreements because he knew they were not about to open another newspaper in Jamestown, population 10,000, she said."

An African Website has taken an interest in the closing arguments. A report from iAfrica.com is entitled "Lord Black 'deserved' stolen cash." It carries excerpts from Csr. Ruder's closing argument and has a brief profile on Conrad Black near its end.

CBC Newsworld had an interview with John Hueston, lead prosecutor in the Enron case, aired at approx. 3:30 PM ET. Csr. Hueston said that a good closing argument should be a "reminder" of what's been brought out in trial. Introducing surprises are not good. The prosecutors needs to match their case to its opening statement as best they can; they should be dramatic in the closing argument too. The trouble for them with respect to this criterion is that they were let down by some of their important witnesses, especially the chair of the Audit Committee. They have to face the possibility that the case will turn into one of corporate negligence. Csr. Hueston acknowledged that the ostrich instruction doesn't gibe with the prosecution's original theory. Conrad Black not taking the stand didn't hurt him that much. (Csr. Hueston had gotten Lay and Skilling on cross-examination.) It was the prosecution that had most to gain.

The report by Andrew Harris and Joe Schneider of Bloomberg shows how Csr. Ruder tried to keep up with Jeffrey Cramer's opening statement: "Ex-Hollinger International Inc. Chairman Conrad Black and two of his executives 'systematically stole' more than $60 million from the company and used 'a phony paper trail' to hide the crime, a prosecutor told jurors." It relates that Csr. Ruder dealt with the fact that non-compete agreements are common in the newspaper industry by saying: 'It's pretty easy for people like them, who know how the business works, to use it as a cover story,'... [while] gesturing toward the defendants she said used the agreements to lay a paper trail." She also claimed, "'Unless the buyers required the noncompetes, there is no reason for them to get it.'"

[An updated version of the same report says that Csr. Ruder has in fact concluded. It also mentions two themes in the closing argument: "the buyers of Hollinger's newspapers didn't ask for noncompete agreements from the individuals and Conrad Black doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else.

"'Rules don't matter to Mr. Black,' Ruder said as she reminded the jury of video showing him removing boxes of documents from his Toronto office despite a Canadian court order that said nothing could be taken out without approval from inspectors appointed by a judge. 'This is classic, classic Conrad Black.'"]


James Bone of the Times Online wites in his report that the prosecutors "mocked Lord Black of Crossharbour’s pretensions to be a 'proprietor'” and that Csr. Ruder "taunted the former Telegraph chairman with his own words." His summary refers to the American Publishing non-compete, which Ms. Lang above had deemed a non-sale because it was a subsidiary of Hollinger Int'l, thus making it a transfer of assets according to the prosecution.

[The Reuters report has been updated to conform to a theme in the prosecution's closing address, that Mr. Black and Mr. Radler were 'co-responsible'. Also, Ms. Vallis' most recent report has gotten an entry in the National Post blog "Posted."]

Crain's Chicago Business has webbed an updated AP report, which contains near its end a concession from Csr. Ruder regarding the audit committee: "The committee chairman, former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson, testified he didn't remember what happened at the meeting. He also said he didn't know about the payments because he 'skimmed' [the relevant] reports... 'They did fail the shareholders,'' Ruder said. 'They should have read these things word for word, paragraph for paragraph.''' It then quotes the punchline, to the effect that the committee members were too gullible.

BNN aired another interview with Ms. Lang at 5:50 PM. She described Csr. Ruder’s closing argument as a “knockout job.” (All quotes in this paragraph and the next two are Ms. Lang's words.) Ms. Lang said that Csr. Ruder did a good job of showing that the transactions were at least fishy; her presentation of the facts was “rock-solid.” Ms. Lang believes that American interest is picking up now that a verdict is close. The Brits have come back to the courtroom.

At two points in the address, Conrad Black looked “irritated” and “not very happy.” The weak point in the prosecution's case are the perks and tax fraud. When Csr. Ruder discussed the latter, a couple of defense counsels looked “pleased.” The argument she really used is a circular one, and falls flat if the transactions are legal. The defense will likely focus on Mr. Radler.

Ms. Lang described the jury as showing real “seriousness,” like the prosecution has. A couple of jurors, though, nodded off near the end of the day. The closing arguments for the defense start tomorrow, although it might not be first thing tomorrow. Ms. Lang had left the courthouse when Ms. Ruder was approaching the end of the closing argument.

The Courier-Mail of Brisbane, Australia has a report which excerpts the section of the closing address that dealt with the perks. "DEPOSED media tycoon Conrad Black stole millions from shareholders because he thought he 'deserved' the money... [a]nd he used that money to support a lavish lifestyle that included a $US2.6-million ($3.1 million) ring he bought for his wife, prosecutor Julie Ruder told the jury.... 'There's no justification for taking the money away from shareholders," Ms Ruder told the jury. 'They stole the loyalty and the trust that the shareholders had every right to expect.'... Lord Black stole because of his "need for money" to support this lifestyle. She showed jurors invoices for a series of personal expenses, including a $US2.6-million ring Lord Black was unable to pay for until he received the money from one of the deals in question."

Trial-watcher Hugh Totten was interviewed by CTV NewsNet, as aired at 6:49 PM. Csr. Totten mentioned the recording of Conrad Black which Csr. Ruder used in her closing argument. (The quoted words in this paragraph are his.) There were no surprises in the argument, but the prosecution's "secret weapon" may be Csr. Ruder herself. Csr. Totten claims that the female jurors have a "real respect" for Csr. Ruder, and that she has a "real connection" with them. He thought she did a great job. Her tactics are the use of long speeches, with video & audio interspaced, and with her moving around the courtroom lithely. Regarding the rumour that Edward Genson will close: Csr. Totten though that this decision was wise. Eddie Greenspan is too rough-hewn to connect with the jury; Csr. Genson is more folksy and easygoing. [There's an associated webbed report at CTV.com]

Stephen Foley of The Independent has a summary of the prosecution's closing argument, as does BBC News.


----------

Mark Steyn has a running commentary on the prosecution's closing address in his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. As of 8:10 PM, there are fourteen entries today. One of them reports that the start of Csr. Ruder's argument was delayed by procedural issues; another mentions an objection by defense counsel Edward Genson. A third mentions how Csr. Ruder is accounting for the punctured testimony of the audit committee: they were lax, but trusting. A fourth says that part of her closing argument approached a mock cross-examination of Conrad Black.


There's another story in the white-collar-crime world, from 680 News: Kenneth Rice, the head of Enron's broadband unit, has finally been sentenced. He pleaded guilty to securities fraud, turned state's evidence, and even apologized in court for his part in the scandal. He got 27 months, plus sundry seizures. (He faced a maximum of 10 years.)


A different kind of argument for acquitting, or going lightly on, Conrad Black has been written by David Bolchover and webbed by the Times Online: Mr. Black is no more of a crook than the typical executive. The opening paragraph is quite explicit about this uncommon perspective: "All this sanctimonious carping about Conrad Black is getting me down. He and three accomplices are accused of stealing $60 million from shareholders. Everyone is up in arms, as if stealing from shareholders wasn’t entirely commonplace. Every day employees and their managers plunder huge amounts of money from the owners of public companies. Nobody even lifts a finger. If Lord Black of Crossharbour is convicted, he will merely be guilty of clumsiness, of a lack of nous. He should have just awarded himself a larger bonus instead...."


Closer to the action is Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, who describes Judy Ruder as the perfect choice to skewer the defense's case.

Also, Steve Skurka in "The Crime Sheet," has a pop quiz on differences between the Canadian and American trial systems in his latest entry.