Jury Hung In Black Trial

nothing like a well hung jury to spice up Mr. Black's day.

Wonder what Barbara thinks, after all she is so famous in her own well endowed way.

Hung jury. Now there's a surprise... /sarc.

Well, there ya go....that's the new justice for ya....if you don't like the verdict you hang the jury. ;-)

I win my bets then!

I wonder how long it'll take to resolve.

Think what you will personally about Conrad Black or his business empire or his politics, but his entire trial has felt like a complete sham design to promote the careers of the prosecutors to me. Even before the trial had started, there was the prosecution team posing for professional taken publicity photographs. The details of the trial have made it all the more abundantly clear that a few eager beaver attorneys were trying to launch a career by bringing down the next Ken Lay. Problem for them turned out to be that Conrad Black is no Ken Lay, Hollinger is Enron and something isn't illegal just because it would make a great career move and your competition wants to take you out.

Is the jury hung, or merely well hung?
A lot may depend on that.

The entire trial has indeed been a sham, and an especially ruinous life altering one for Mark Kipnis. This guy has been totally screwed, when he is acquitted of all charges and he will be, he will never, never, get his much deserved reputation back. Patrick Fitzgerald and co, have completely mis read and mis represented the facts, completely, concerned themselves with a so called Canadian "Tax Fraud" the CRA or Rev Can has declined to pursue, and they will pursue anything. It shows the limitless creativity and limitless resources the Federal Prosecutors have at their disposal. They should have prosecuted Radler not Black. Yet, perma tan boy, gets to keep everything, lies under oath, and will be back at the papers he still controls by further lying to Black about the ownership structure through out everything and hopefully in a perfect world will be introduced to KY by somebuddy named Bubba..The rest of the defendants were all to a man, added in the piling on of nonsensical charges. Completely engulfing the reckless malicious prosecutions case.

"deadlocked on one or more charges"

Seems to me we do not have near enough information (YET) to be making statements like those above. Lets wait for the verdicts, and all the jurist interviews that will follow, to find out more about the 12 opinions that will determine Black's fate.

Wow - as if there hasn't already been enough drama surrounding this trial. Either way, the verdict and aftermath will be most interesting.

Ted,

That's probably the first thing you 've said that I agree with.

Ditto Irwin's comment!
This whole trial is a disgrace. The American Justice in this spectacle is inhuman, it's nothing but a Lynchmob. The the prosecutors are showboaters and a disgrace to the legal profession everywhere, well maybe not in places like China or other Commie holes.

The MSM everywhere, including here in Canada where Conrad Black is a native son who was forced out by a prick called Chretien using an and obscure law to prevent Black from a British peerage.
Shame we have to be so disdainful of successful people who contribute to the Country, rich or poor.
Bottom line, Black was born rich and was/is a successful businessman with no reason to scam anyone.

This case is the most disgraceful in memory.

Maybe the US justice system could have used the legal gung-ho jackasses when OJ Simpson got off for apparent double murder.
The same lot who put Martha Stewart in the slammer for telling a fib.

Like I said on an earlier thread, it seems to me that this is like the Gun Registration, there people were freaked about the registration and all that it could entail, while millions and millions went missing. It's smoke and mirrors to cover the gutting of Hollinger.

Here's hoping Mr. Black gets off. I do like his writing.

"The MSM everywhere, including here in Canada where Conrad Black is a native son who was forced out by a prick called Chretien using an and obscure law to prevent Black from a British peerage. Shame we have to be so disdainful of successful people who contribute to the Country, rich or poor. Bottom line, Black was born rich and was/is a successful businessman with no reason to scam anyone."

As I said, I think this trial is a sham but let's not get carried away here. Whatever you think Chretien did or didn't do as PM, or whether he was right to apply Canadian law so strictly to Black or not, it's a little over the top to say Chretien "forced" Conrad Black to leave the country.

And from my humble non-rich/very comfortable experience, being rich or not is not predictor of whether someone wants more money and is willing to scam others for it. One only has to look at Radler in this sorry story to disprove that statement.

I'm not saying Black served his shareholders well - he has always been good at serving himself well and that's business - I just don't see anything illegal in what he did. The shareholders don't like what he did, the prosecutors don't like what he did and, whether or not he acted ethically I don't know but it seems pretty clear he acted legally.

"And from my humble non-rich/very comfortable experience"

By which of course, I mean I've read about as much corruption among the wealthy as the next person, not that I'd scam of course. Typo... not a freudian slip. But I'm sure that won't stop anyone from havin' at me.

Black is a classy guy. He is an elitist for sure, sure but his existence lets us know that capitalism is alive and well. That means it's possible for plebs to prosper. More than you can say for most countries especially socialist cesspools.

His ornate language alone is enough to want this guy to keep on keepin on.

I hope he gets off. The lefties are alway ranting about how non-violent offenders have no business in jail ... this is an opportunity to put that claim into action. Fine him big, but let him have his scotch and cigars.

Lets not forget Patrick Fitzgeralds other famous witch hunt. The conviction of Scooter Libby for a process crime, which apparently occurred while Fitzgerald was investigating the Valerie Plame name leak (who he discovered on day 1 was Richard Armitage - but didn't stop him from continuing to "investigate" until he could snare an appropriate victim.)

This guy decides on the outcome he wants and builds his case around that framework selectively choosing the facts and evidence that are convenient to his desired outcome.

Nothing but a lefty attack dog corrupting justice for the cause of getting a right wing scalp or tow.

Fitzgerald better get some guilty verdict or a hung jury. An acquittal would be be verrrry bad for him. While Black is free to be elitist, rich and pompous, one other thing about the very rich is they can be very vindictive. If he is acquitted, he will go for Fitzgerald's and others' throats, putting them into tort court into their great grandchildren are pensioned off.

I think he will dodge that bullet. I can't know for sure, but my gut feel is similar to Ted's, that there is no evidence to convict. A hung jury on the minor charges and acquittal on more serious charges is what my intuition is telling me will happen.

We will all see, of course.

Good description of Black, Shamrock. He certainly comes across as pompous, but he is not a crook. His biggest mistake was taking Radler as a partner.

And Fitzgerald deserves to be set down a notch or two.

Leaving all personalities aside (which is unfortunately all too uncommon in our justice systems), based on the coverage of the trial that I've read (and that's on the order of a hundred articles from all sides on this issue), if I were a member of the jury I would acquit on all charges. I don't think that on any of the charges the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, I'm not a member of the jury.

Vitruvius, you summed up the thread here well--"based on the coverage of the trial I have read." You have read what reporters have reported. Someone remarked to me how favourable the press are to Black. Recall that Black built Hollinger by acquiring newspapers, upgrading their technology and gutting half the staff. Little wonder reporters give him a soft ride, knowing Black may be back. Instead of reading reporters' reports, read transcripts and exhibits-they paint a different picture. I would, however, say they paint the prosecution as somewhat inept, not malicious. I believe this is Sussman's first major prosecution--he is just a pup who seems in over his head. Even if DOJ has blown this (although we now know at least one jury member has found guilt beyond reasonable doubt on at least one count--obstruction looks like a slam-dunk), Black still has a rough ride ahead in the pending SEC, OSC and civil lawsuits against him.

It is not the case that what I have read, Murray, consists only of the mainstream pop-media coverage of the personalities involved in this case, some of which are for, some against. Indeed, I have as far as possible tried to understand the jurisprudential issues raised by various legal beagles who have commented on this case over its weeks.

Other than that, I disagree with you ;-)

Fascinating and humorous article by George Jonas here that examines the strength of the prosecution's evidence over the non-compete fees.

Obviously Jonas is a Black supporter, but contends that Black's non-compete fees were throughly papered and that the prosecution case basically revolves around allegations that Black knew Hollinger's board didn't really mean to approve them.

Jonas doesn't address the obstruction of justice charge (the video of Black moving file boxes)or the party for Black's wife and the trip to Bora Bora.

Regardless of the outcome Black's rock like defiance stands in impressive contrast to Radler's weasly behavior.

What's wrong with that judge ?

After 9 days of deliberations she sends them back for... what was that ?... more deliberations ?

Is she nuts, or just plain biased ?

As far as I understand it, Coue, sending a deadlocked jury back once is pretty much standard operating procedure, unless there is a very good reason not to. Part of Judge St Eve's instructions given to deadlocked jurors was: "Do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors for the mere purpose of returning a unanimous verdict". That sounds neither nuts nor biased to me.

I disagree that Black has been getting any sort of free ride. The media has had a field day since this vendetta against Black was initiated. Rarely if ever did I see any articles that said "hey wait a minute, he may be innocent".

Even now as the prosecution has been exposed as concocting the case with selective evidence and strong arming of witnesses, much of the media continues to focus on the negative.

There should be howls of protest and outrage at the attempted destruction of Conrad Black, his reputation and empire.

Black is arguably one of the most intelligent, well spoken, interesting, successful individuals in the world. The fact he has an excellent command of language seems to be fodder for ridicule in the media.

In my opinion the biggest grind the media has with Black - though will never admit it - is that he is an unabashed conservative.

I agree with Ted's analysis thus far.

Radler's testimony just looked too shabby, to give the charges any weight.

Was Conrad Black living lavish and flamboyant? Sure, but this isn't the same as stealing from shareholders.

Cheers

ward hits it on the head, as far as I am concerned. The media are hot on Black, particularly the Canadian media, because Black dared to establish a remotely conservative newspaper to challenge the daily leftist dominating rhetoric. They patently hate Conrad Black.

Top that up with his marked penchant for Capitalism and disdain for all things socialist and you have liberal public enemy #1... well, #2. (Forgot about George Bush there for a second.)

Anyway, nobody should be surprised that there's a hung jury. I believe Black and his team chose trial by jury because they predicted, correctly it seems, the details would overwhelm the minds of the majority of jurors and probably result in a hung jury.

Like you said Tedl let's not allow Librano exageration genes to muddy the truth of the matter.

The fact is that Black left the country of his own volition but it was a widely publicized departure in which Black denounced his Canadian citizenship in protest over Chretien's petty bureaucratic vindictiveness with Black's knighthood.

Please don't deny that Chretien was a petty vindictive man as a PM, party wonk and as caucus leader...the stories from liberal partisans to authenticate this are legion.....everyone saw it except Kinsella and other Chretien fart catchers who had their satre fixed on the golden eye of librano fortune.

"Dressed in a camel blazer, subdued tie and loafers without socks, Lord Black arrived by taxicab and lingered in the courtroom with his attorneys after the short hearing in case the jurors sent more news to the judge. " - "camel blazer", "loafers without socks", "lingered" - I would call that journalistic fawning over Black. These markers of journalistic perspective are hardly even subtle. Readers here sniff out liberal bias in the media amile away upwind, yet seem blind in this case.

I disagree, Murray, I had no problem sniffing out your bias in this case.

The prosecution case against Black was weak and I expected him and the others to walk. Unfortunately, there is that 'damning' video of Black hauling off cases of documents in the middle of the night. This is not evidence in itself, but it looks bad, and I wonder how many jurors have been swayed by that.

As for Chretien vindictiveness and pettiness, just search for 'Francois Beaudoin'.

No bias here. I have always been a Black admirer. He turned around newspaper companies, writes incisive opinion pieces and writes great biographies. Very intelligent. Unfortunately, his acquisition binge in the late 1980s and early 1990s created debt problems in Hollinger and Ravelston. Hollinger and Sun Times were milked to fund debt and dividends for the Ravelston principals. Street analysts picked up on this at the Hollinger level in 1997 and Hollinger share prices eroded after that. Sun Times (Hollinger International) shareholders took longer to catch on to what was happening. You can accept that Black stepped over the line without denying he is a giant in many respects.

Love the sinner hate the sin.

I have not followed the trial as close as some here, but I used to be interested in Hollinger stock well before the arrest.
He and his buddies milked Hollinger at the expense of the share holders and hid the evidence.
The video of Black breaking the court order is hard to dispute.

The share holders deserve justice.

Agreed black is an admirable character in so many other ways.

Bart F: Yes, that Jonas piece was good. In addition to the points about having been asked by the purchasers to sign the non-competes and the audit committe approvals, he makes an excellent observation that no witnesses were called to cite the damage done, given that most of the damage was casued by Fitzergerald's witch hunt and the "caretaker" management which pummelled the share price.

Note to lurker-lefties: Remember, in his FDR biography Black actually (!) argues that the New Deal (aka known as American fascism) saved capitalism, which is a work of soaring creativity and sentimentalism, and which should endear you to Black for all time.

I agree with Ted and Vitruvius. I was pretty open minded about this one at the start. The rich are perfectly capable of thieving but being rich and living high off the hog is not proof of such. One reporter's anecdote summed it up beautifully. An observer in the courtroom who'd been following the trial consistently from the beginning asked the question, clearly perplexed, "So what law did he break?".
I believe there should be elected judges, but not elected prosecutors. Patrick Fitzgerald represents the worst of the US justice system, bringing a blatantly political agenda to bear. I hope he joins Nifong, of Duke Lacrosse fiasco fame, amongst the ranks of discredited hacks.

Your bias, Murray, like that of many commenters, is that y'all keep mixing up personalities in what should be solely a matter of law. Such bias raises the risk of pre-judging, whether it's for or against. I don't care whether or not Mr. Black is a "giant in many respects". All I care about is whether or not he legally "stepped over the line", according to the statues in effect at the time of the alleged offences, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am justice; I am blind. That's why I can sniff out bias, but not see it ;-)

Shows the depths of mediocrity the MSM can stoop to when they go on about all the details of a man's dress. Black has been going through pure hell and I'd venture a guess clothing is his least concern.

The Jury is hung and that's about my feeling as to what should happen that large chunk of shit Fitzgerald,a most contemptible show-boater. Oh to be so righteous.
That is as close as we'll see to a legal Lynch Mob.

fitzgerald, a dangerous man who should be jailed for life, in a cell with no light or air.

Your welcome to your sarcasm-on opinion jmorrison.

Some errors here, Black was not knighted, he was made Lord Black of Cross Harbour, he sits in the British House of Lords. The documents that he took from his office was done during the day and he was found not to have violated any court order with respect to those. They were documents that he was allowed to remove.