The Sentencing...The Forthcoming Appeal, And The Rest Of The Sentences

On CTV NewsNet, Jacob Frenkel and Paula Todd both concurred that it would be reasonable to expect the prosecution to appeal the sentence. Csr. Frenkel noted that the prosecution could argue that the tougher 2007 sentencing guidelines should have been used.

Andrew L. Frey, one of Conrad's appeal lawyers, said that he was disappointed in the sentence, but that there are good chances for Conrad's appeal. One ground, with respect to the obstruction-of-justice charge, was that the prosecution's case for intent was quite flimsy given Conrad's overall co-operativeness with the SEC. As far as the fraud charges were concerned, the evidence indicates that Conrad acted (though for his own benefit) in good faith; he didn't know that the non-compete payment to him could be illegal because David Radler told him differently. Thus, the ostrich instruction doesn't apply, as wilful blindness implies clear sight of a crime was reasonably available. If Conrad had bad advice, then he couldn't have reasonably been expected to see any possible illegality. He added that the case against Conrad was "a weak case," and estimated that an appeal will take 8 months to a year. He also said that the bail issue, given the appeal, has yet to be settled definitively. Ms. Todd added afterwards that Csr. Frey is planning to argue that the considerations he mentioned imply that the ostrich instruction should not have been included.

Conrad's lead co-counsel, Edward Genson, was also interviewed while Csr. Frey was in the middle of his own statement. He noted that it was an interesting trial for him, complimented Judge St. Eve, and also noted that the appeal is up to the appeal lawyers. As of 2:57 PM ET, Conrad's other lead co-counsel, Eddie Greenspan, noted that Judge St. Eve took the lower side of the sentencing guidelines. He also said that that outcome, though disappointing, was far less than what it could have been. He also expressed some disappointment regarding the pre-planning element of the sentencing, saying that even the prosecution all-but gave up on it in trial. He also noted that even the prosecution implicitly conceded that the Breeden Report was largely bombast with respect to its figures, and that the 5.3 million amount implied by the verdict was miniscule by comparison. In addition, he disclaimed blame for the guilty verdict, stating that the zealouness of the prosecution, and complications which got by the jury, were impossible for him to control.

Continuing his interview, with BNN's Amanda Lang, he noted that it was not a victory if Conrad is in fact innocent. Conrad himself left with his family as of 3:10 PM ET. He didn't look that crestfallen (although his daughter Alana did.) In a statement to the press he said that "it speaks for itself." [I had a different version earlier, based upon a mishearing of mine.] That was all that he said. Later, BNN host Martin Cej said that the 2 years of post-prison release that Conrad got was supervised release.

Jeffrey Steinbech, Conrad's chief sentencing counsel, said on CTV NewsNet as of 3:18 PM ET that Conrad being put into Eglin prison camp is not a fait accompli. The decision is up to the Bureau of Prisons.

As of 3:23 PM ET, Patrick J. Fitzgerald was interviewed. He disclosed the identity of the person who supplied the shareholder-victim statement: Mr. Fox of Cardinal. (Mr. Fox dumped most of the remaining Hollinger International shares held by Cardinal close to the point where it bottomed earlier this year, although on an upspurt if I recall correctly. Mark Steyn noted that Mr. Fox showed up in person.) He also claimed that the outcome wasn't a failure in his eyes. He refused to comment about the shrinkage of the number of dollars that Conrad was culpable for, and about any appeals. He also said that the use of the ostrich instruction was, in his eyes, justified.

Ms. Lang's interview with Csr. Frey, broadcast on CTV Newsnet as of 3:41 PM ET, had him saying that the events of this day have changed nothing regarding the appeal. He repeated his contention that the use of the ostrich instruction as not warranted, and that the prosecution failed to prove intent. He also added that an inappropriate use of the instruction could prejudice the jury against the defense, and brought up the fact that the only court order extant at the time Conrad carried out the boxes was an Ontario, Canada one. He was never prosecuted for violating it, either. Csr. Frey also disclosed that Conrad is not embittered with respect to America proper, but has been disappointed by the American justice system. After that interview, as of 3:48 PM ET, Ms. Todd sugggested that the difficulty that the prosecutors had in getting access to those boxes was the fount of the obstruction-of-justice charge. She also said flatly that a Canadian court's decision regarding that order is irrelevant to the U.S. justice system (naturally, because Canada and the U.S. are different countries with two different justice systems.)

At 4:03 PM, Mr. Akin supplied a kind of closure to the case, noting that it's the last high-profile corporate-fraud case that the United States Attourney's Office is pursuing. Perhaps it's the end of this trend.


As of now, there's been no word about the sentences that the other three defendants received, although Maclean's blogger Stephen Maich has some information from his own liveblogging. One of the pieces of info there is Conrad's total score on the sentencing chart: 28. Peter Atkinson scored a 22.

A printed report on Conrad Black's sentencing, by Romina Maurino, has been webbed by 680 News. She concurs with Mr. Akin about this case being the last one of its kind on the horizon. Paul Waldie has written another webbed report for the Globe and Mail.

And, Mark Steyn is also back on the beat,