Friday, June 22, 2007

Media Roundup: Theatrics and Ethics

The media reports, webbed overnight and today, on the Conrad Black trial have gone into weekend mode once again, both dwinding in number and broadening in focus:

1. Peter Worthington's latest column, as webbed by the Ottawa Sun, begins with an anecdote about a juror who (briefly) took ill, and then turns to a summation of Michael Schachter's closing argument for Peter Atkinson's defense. His main tactic, according to Mr. Worthington, was the pointing out of discrepancies in the prosecution's case: "Like his colleagues, Schecter attacked the prosecution's summation and, aided by graphics, showed how the prosecution was selecting evidence, misleading and even misrepresenting previous testimony in order to bolster their cause." Also focused upon is the main theme of Csr. Schacter's closing argument: there is no evidence presented by the prosecution that implicates Mr. Atkinson. In addition, Mr. Worthington notes the point, also brought up during the closing argument for Jack Boultbee, that "CanWest insisted that Atkinson and Boultbee be included in non-competes, because they didn't want these two top newspaper executives being employed by the rival Globe and Mail or Toronto Star."

2. From Business Week, an article entitled "The Trouble With Business Ethics." The "trouble" that the article focuses upon is found in the narrower area of whistleblowing, and how the protections guaranteed by new laws are clashing with the more traditional right of the accused to face his/her [according to the article, it is sometimes "her"] accuser. This clash surfaces when the whistleblower is found to have made a mistaken accusation, indicating that there's a little more than outraged guilt behind a consequent tendency for a whistleblower's life to become harder after blowing the whistle. (One of the unintended consequences of whistleblowing, and being right, is simply becoming the centre of attention, a role that some employees find too stifling for them.)

3. Ameet Sachdev's latest report from the Chicago Tribune highlights the more theatrical moments of Csr. Schachter's closing address, including the point made that Mr. Radler's testimony hadn't implicated Mr. Atkinson in any criminal activity, nor had any other witnesses. (The article hints [or I discerned] that, had Csr. Schachter not made the last point, he would have left himself wide open to the prosecution saying that he's depending on the testimony of a "'proven liar'" [his own words describing Mr. Radler] to de-implicate his client.)

4. Andrew Clark of the Guardian has a feature that begins with a brief description of Jeffrey Skilling's first six months in jail. After doing so, he reviews the case as it stands, noting that the outcome is still uncertain. He also makes a point long known by public-choice theorists: that it's possible to victimize a large group of people a little, so as to not severally cause them enough pain to complain vociferiously but to bilk them by a large amount jointly. (Trivia note: how many people know that this economist is the grandaddy of public-choice theory?) Mr. Clark does note that there is a difference between Enron and Hollinger Int'l: the former went bust, while the latter hasn't. That difference in outcome, though, is likely to be reflected in the length of the sentence should any of the four be found guilty. America is going through a phase of severity towards white-collar crime.

5. A CP item, webbed by 1130 News, notes that the proceedings are over with for the week. The closing argument for Mr. Atkinson isn't done yet, and the one for Mr. Kipnis has yet to begin. In order to fit in with Judge St. Eve's schedule, those two plus the prosecutorial rebuttal have to be finished by Tuesday.

6. The Toronto Star has webbed a report by Rosie DiManno that compares the Conrad Black trial to the Frank Calabrese, Sr. trial. (Mr. Clark, in the report linked to above, was scrupulous enough to note that the two cases are different.)

7. Rick Salutin suggests in the first part of his latest column, as webbed by Rabble.ca, that the fortunes and misfortunes of Eddie Greenspan have overshadowed those of his client.

8. Chicago Public Radio has an interview with Diantha Parker, the reporter who has been watching the Conrad Black trial for that station. In it, she gave her assessment on how the closing arguments have gone. In the introduction, before starting the interview with Ms. Parker, the interviewer described Conrad Black as "eccentric," and Edward Genson as "ubiquitous." Once Ms. Parker began, she averred that the closing argument had salvaged the government’s case, and described the delivery of it as “compelling.” Julie Ruder’s strength was in tying the prosecution’s case together in the address. Ms. Parker highlighted this phrase from it: “he paid himself not to compete with himself” and said that “there was something about it.” Ms. Parker also noted that the other defendants have tried to “distance” themselves from Conrad Black, and speculated that it’s making the Black defense team “uncomfortable.” She also mentioned the David Radler factor, and brought up the prosecution's statement that the defense's claim that Mr. Radler acted alone is ridiculous. Csr. Genson added the comments on Black’s less-than-pleasing personality, according to Ms. Parker, because it may be a factor in the jury’s reasoning. She ended by opining that there would be something “fishy” if the verdict is returned before July 4th.

9. One of Eddie Greenspan's lines has made a Bloomberg list of quotable quotes from the past week from the world of business: "'The government doesn't have a smoking gun, because there isn't one. David Radler is all they've got.'"

10. A feature piece from Reuters looks at why Canadian shareholders tend to be less assertive complainers than American shareholders do. The perspective showcased in it - that people who hold their tongues are "wimps" - is an interesting one, as it comes from a worldview that respects complainers instead of holding them in contempt. (It did miss an important reason behind such a Canadian custom: lawyers are more respected up here than in the States, so there is a general self-expectation that any complaint you make had better be solid enough to stand up in court, if need be. In my own home city of Toronto, the 911 operator yells at people who make an unserious 911 call, and this raises no hackles. There's a subsidiary, but not universal, custom up here as well: the tendancy to expect people who complain to do something about it themselves.)

11. A third piece comparing the Conrad Black trial to the "Joey the Clown" trial has been written by David Litterick and webbed by the Telegraph. Mr. Litterick, in contrasting the two trials, says that Conrad Black is no Joey the Clown - as the buzz does show.

----------

Steve Skurka' latest entry in the blog "The Crime Sheet" contains a few items suggesting that the American justice system isn't as stellar as it was presented as this past week.

In his summation of the top reports for the Toronto Life Conrad Black trial blog, Douglas Bell relates that any observer in the courtroom yesterday would have seen "a lot of giddy school’s-out behaviour among journos, lawyers and defendants alike." He also takes Mr. Clark to task for being sophistic in the feature report linked to above (item #4.)

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dan - a while back we asked you if you made any prediction - It was a few weeks ago and we're not sure where we asked - But to follow up, did you?

Daniel M. Ryan said...

Yes, I did; I predicted acquittals for all four. My original line of reasoning is here. I wrote what I wrote before the closing argmuents began.

Given the subsequent proceedings, I see no need to alter that call. Many found the prosecution's closing address quite stirring, but it's been picked apart subsequently by the defense. I have to say that the portrayal of the prosecutorial team as gamesmen (or gamespeople) was a telling point. In retrospect, the well-crafted closing statement for the prosecution will be seen as a big one-day "whipsaw," to use a stock market term, if my prediction comes to pass.

One codicil: the criminal law and the civil law are different systems of law. If the defendants do in fact get off, such a verdict will imply nothing about the outcome of any future civil trial, that pertains to the conduct of the four defendants while they were employed by Hollinger International.

Anonymous said...

Just as many creatures act up when a storm is coming - before scientific instruments detect it - We'll know if Conrad is convicted beforehand if Barabara states aggressively agitating the Bureau of Prisons to redecorate the conjugal visit rooms.

Daniel M. Ryan said...

Very witty of you!

Actually, there is one part of my earlier call that I'd like to modify. Before Michael Schachter's closing argument, I assumed that the jury would interpret Peter Atkinson's actions in '02 and '03 as evidence of secret guilt, which would have put him at risk of doing time. Now, I think that Conrad Black is the only one at risk of doing time.

Anonymous said...

Barbara will probably request a private meeting with the warden and suggest (softly, at first) the conjugal rooms be done up in an English country manor house style - with a playfull Gitmo/Bagram airbase motif.

If Conrad gets more than a few years - then she may throw caution to the wind and demand mirrors on the ceilings and digital surround sound stereo systems...