Another week of testimony in the Conrad Black trial is over; this week ended with a bit of fireworks, when Mr. Black's personal assistant testified about her role in moving the 13 boxes that form the heart of the obstruction-of-justice charge. The media reports, webbed overnight and today, show it:
1. CBC News has a report that sums up the testimony of Joan Maida, Mr. Black's Toronto assistant, and mentions the testimony of two earlier witnesses. She testified that it was her idea to pack the boxes; that she knew she had needed permission to remove them, but not from whom; and, that she knew nothing about any SEC probe at the time she tried to take the boxes away for Mr. Black.
2. Also from CBC News, a brief summary of her testimony. It also notes that the trial will resume Monday with Kenneth Whyte still on the stand.
3. The Vancouver Province has an abridged Bloomberg report on her testimony. It ends with her reply, after being asked by Jeffrey Cramer where she thought the boxes were going: "'I didn't think about it.'"
4. Mary Vallis' report, as webbed by the Ottawa Citizen, concentrates on Ms. Maida's testimony, but summarizes that of the witness after her, Kenneth Whyte. It relates that "Ms. Maida said [under direct examination that] Lord Black never asked about the boxes' contents or looked inside them."
5. The Daily Herald has an abridged version of the Bloomberg report on Ms. Maida's testimony.
6. Janet Whitman has written a New York Post exclusive, entitled "Trump Set To Take The Stand On Black's Behalf." From its start, right after the opener: "The Post has learned that New York real estate mogul Donald Trump is jetting into Chicago on Monday to take the witness stand on behalf of Conrad Black, who's on trial for allegedly looting millions from investors in his company Hollinger International." It notes that Mr. Tump's agreement to do so is "a bit of a surprise" because "his name came up and embarrassed Black in testimony from a government witness." (I puckishly suggest that this spin on Mr. Healy's testimony would all-but-guarantee that The Donald would show up, after being re-asked to.)
7. The Chicago Sun-Times has a report that focuses on one moment of Ms. Maida's testimony: the pointed finger. When shown a picture of Conrad Black pointing at the camera, she at first suggested that he was pointing at her. (She was with him at the time.) It also relates, "At one point, she said she did not know that a security camera had been recently installed at the back door of Hollinger Inc. in Toronto, which captured Black actually hauling out the documents. Then she said she knew the camera was there."
8. Michael Sneed, columnist for the Sun-Times, discloses in the "Top Tip" part of her latest column that Conrad Black has gotten an invite to a party, whose theme is a "75th Anniversary Salute to FDR." He's one of 6,000 on the invite list.
9. The Guardian report on Ms. Maida's testimony is entitled "'Black did not know what was in boxes.'"
10. A report by Paul Waldie, webbed by the First Post, assesses the performance of the defense witnesses so far as "decidedly mixed." When discussing Ms. Maida's testimony, it says "under cross-examination by prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer, Ms Maida contradicted herself several times and became confused about details." She is the same witness who, the report states earlier, "may have done him more harm than good."
11. The same Mr. Waldie has put the same theme in a report webbed by the Globe and Mail. It described the questioning of her by cross-examiner Jeffrey Cramer as "tough."
12. A third from Mr. Waldie, also webbed by the Globe, reports on a motion filed by all four defendants to get the entire case dismissed. They're based on the "'federal rule of criminal procedure 29 (a),' are common and they generally come after prosecutors have rested their case. Defendants can argue before the judge overseeing the trial that the government's case is so weak the charges should be dropped without the jury even deliberating." (It's the same motion mentioned by Mr. McClern, linked to below.) The motions for Peter Atkinson and Jack Boultbee have already been filed as of last night.
13. Another report from CBC News has a check-up on Ms. Whitman's scoop about Donald Trump testifying on Monday - specifically, with regard to whether or not Mr. Trump was served with a subpoena: "A lawyer for one of the defendants in the case refused to confirm the Post story but suggested journalists would find Monday's events in court interesting. 'I would be there early,' the lawyer told CBC News." [A brief NewsMax report carries the item straight.]
14. Mr. Waldie appeared on a BNN interview with host Amanda Lang, aired at about 2:45 PM ET. He reported that there was a brief hearing this morning regarding jury instructions and “other motions.” Also, the witness list for the defense was handed over and discussed. Donald Trump wasn’t on it, but he was on the earlier list of potential witnesses. His name has also entered into the trial thanks to the prosecution's case - specifically the annual meeting held in 2003, and Mrs. Black's 60th birthday party. The defense case, for all four defendants, will be relatively short. This disparity in case length is not atypical, since the onus is on the prosecution. Experts in relevant fields are likely to appear. It's not likely that any famous people (with the possible exception of Mr. Trump) will be called. There will also be a couple of (unnamed) character witnesses. Ms. Lang asked if either or both of Izzy Aspers's CanWest-ensconced sons will show up, and Mr. Waldie replied that it was “not likely.”
15. Some of those other motions were brought up in a Bloomberg report, by Andrew Harris. Ron Safer has filed a written request for a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutors misleading the jurors "about the existence of evidence against him." The fact zeroed in on was the $150,000 bonus, which David Radler himself had testified, while under cross-examination, was unrelated to any alleged illegal activity. "'The government emphatically declared that Mr. Kipnis committed these crimes in order to receive $150,000 in bonus payments. Unfortunately these are statements the government knew couldn't be proven at trial,' defense lawyer Ronald Safer wrote." Counsel for Jack Boultbee is seeking dismissal of two of the charges against him. Also, "[a]ttorneys for Black and Atkinson told St. Eve they too will seek dismissal of charges[, which are unspecified in the report,] against them." Also disclosed is a no-comment from Randall Samborn, a spokesperson for Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about Csr. Safer's motion. (Unlike the several other mistrial motions, Judge St. Eve did not render a swift decision on Mr. Kipnis'.)
16. Romina Maurino has picked up on the contents of the above Bloomberg report in one of her own, webbed by 680 News, that quotes more extensively from Csr. Safer's motion to dismiss. An excerpt: "In a lengthy motion filed Friday, Kipnis' lawyers argued that he is 'entitled to a judgement of acquittal because no reasonable juror could conclude, based on the evidence presented, that Mark acted with the intent to commit mail and wire fraud or that he wilfully assisted in the filing of false tax forms.'" [An update, webbed by the Toronto Star, includes some analysis from Hugh Totten, who noted that such motions are hardly ever granted, and are done mainly to prepare for a possible appeal. He did, though, note that Csr. Safer's motion is "far more extensive than ones typically filed".]
----------
From the "In-House Counsel" section of Law.com, an article describes Mark Kipnis' defense strategy as passing the buck: "How does a general counsel stay out of jail if he's been accused of helping company executives line their pockets with millions of shareholder dollars? If he's Mark Kipnis, the former legal chief at Hollinger International Inc., he pleads lack of experience and shifts the blame to the company's outside counsel. In a few weeks Kipnis will find out whether this defense strategy worked."
Matthew McClern has posted his assessment of the prosecution's case in his latest entry for the Canadian Business Black trial blog: "The prosecution ended its case against former Hollinger International executives Conrad Black, John Boultbee, Peter Atkinson and Mark Kipnis on Wednesday afternoon with both a bang and a whimper." The "bang" was the 13 boxes; the "whimper" was the dropping of the money-laundering charge. He also reports: "The prosecution’s case will now undergo something of an acid test.... [According to a later report, not all of the defendants are asking for all charges against them to be dropped. Mr. McClern write this entry yesterday.] The court must now consider whether the government has shown sufficient cause for the remaining counts (17 in total) to be put before the jury for consideration."
Also, Mark Steyn concedes that the defense didn't get off to the best start in an early-morning entry for his Maclean's Conrad Black trial blog. He also mentions that "[t]he day climaxed with some reference to a memo by The National Post’s marketing hottie Alex Panousis, at which point the lawyers went into a huddle and the judge recessed for the week." (Yes, Alex is a she.)
And finally, Douglas Bell, in the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, has penned an interesting think-piece about disclosure, one well worth spending some time thinking over. His own report on reports discusses a recent Wall Street Journal Law Blog entry, which I missed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment