The Verdict: Whittled Down Indictment

Tonight's episode of The Verdict had an entire segment on the restriction of count 10, with three guests on to discuss it. The first, interviewed one-on-one by Ms. Todd, was former prosecutor Ted Chung. The next two, interviewed as a pair, were journalists Margaret Wente and James Bone, both regular trial-watchers.

Ms. Todd started off by asking Csr. Chung if the jury will know about the dropped charges. He answered that there is a chance, depending on how much the jury remembers of the original charges (or how copiously they had taken notes during those times.) Ms. Todd then asked about the effect on the jury regarding Judge St. Eve's instructions to ignore some of the indictment - specifically, will the other charges seem more substantiated by comparison? Csr. Chung said that they won’t be told why, and will be instructed not to speculate on the reasons.

Regarding Mark Kipnis, Csr. Chung said that he has a chance of being acquitted outright. The granting of a motion to acquit is normally a rarity, but it is conceivable in Mr. Kipnis’ particular case.

Ms. Todd than asked what the effect of the narrowing of the scope of the closing argument will be. Csr. Chung replied that the prosecution can minimize the damage if they handled it “skillfully.”

He continued by noting that a short defense is the best defense in cases of this sort; in fact, he believes that the defense might have even been too lengthy. But the reasons for why doesn’t apply to the closing arguments! All of them are likely to be long, because they’re the last chances to reach the jury.

Regarding the relevant law, and the interpretation of it, the judge will deal with all relevant points in her instructions to the jury. It’s up to the lawyers to make those points of law understandable.

Ms. Todd then interviewed James Bone and Margaret Wente; both of them turned out to be assertive regarding their conclusions. Ms. Wente forecast that Mr. Black will probably be convicted of 1 or 2 minor charges, or walk entirely; he'll likely receive no more than a 2 year sentence. Mr. Bone objected, but Ms. Wente said that she was relating the consensus opinion of the trial-watchers. Mr. Bone then changed his objection to: why should Conrad Black get a light sentence when David Radler got 29 months after his plea bargain?

Ms. Wente answered to this by noting that there has been no backup documentation from Radler, but Mr. Bone pointed out there’s “evidence” in Conrad Black’s bank account. He added that Joan Maida was, in his estimation, very unconvincing as a defense witness. Ms. Wente pointed out that no additional evidence supposedly missing from those boxes was ever found. Mr. Bone averred that she was still a bad witness, especially with regard to her testimony about where Conrad Black was pointing to in the photo that shows him (at least evidently) pointing at the security camera. Ms. Wente then noted that the members of the audit committee had been bad witnesses. According to Mr. Bone, though, they merely showed previous inappropriate permissiveness. Ms. Wente mentioned that the jury made careful notes when the Osgoode Hall law professor had testified that non-compete payments to individuals were both legal and tax-free in Canada, which is inconsistent with a settled belief in Mr. Black's guilt.

Mr. Bone then gave his own call: Mr. Black will be convicted on the charges that pertain to the non-compete agreement that result from self-dealing. He's likely to get off on count 10. A conviction on the obstruction of justice charge is uncertain; it depends upon the judge’s relevant instructions to the jury.


[This episode of The Verdict will be broadbanded as of 10:30 pm tonight, and will stay up until about 10:30 PM or so tomorrow.]

----------

A side note: The segment just previous to the one described above, and Ms. Todd's "closing argument" editorial, dealt with that $54 million lawsuit by Judge Roy Pearson over a lost pair of pants by his dry cleaner. Leaving aside the degree (if any) of frivolity in that lawsuit, I note that the murky woods of Canadian penny-stock business have come up with a legal tool to make such lawsuits, whether meritorious or not, impracticable. This legal technic is the use of "buffer corporations" to insulate principals from lawsuits. Any such effort in America is likely to be more difficult due to deep-pockets permissiveness in civil actions, but the allowance of mega-lawsuits of that sort will prompt such a countermeasure in the business world.