An appellate court late this afternoon denied Rod Blagojevich's plea for a trial delay.
Lawyers for Rod and Robert Blagojevich asked that the June 3rd trial date be delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on an honest services statute.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel had said the trial could go on as scheduled even without guidance from the high court on a disputed law that both defendants are accused of violating.
The defense appealed Zagel's ruling to a higher court, which denied the request today.
See full contents of the order just issued by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals below:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
May 11, 2010
By the Court:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH and ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH,
Defendants - Appellants
Originating Case Information:
District Court Nos: 1:08-cr-00888-1 & 1:08-cr-00888-6
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
District Judge James B. Zagel
The following are before the court:
1. PETITIONER ROD BLAGOJEVICH'S MOTION FOR STAY OF TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPEAL FROM ORDER
DENYING TRIAL CONTINUANCE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed on May 7, 2010, by counsel for the appellants.
2. GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS
DEFENDANTS' INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,
filed on May 7, 2010, by counsel for the appellee.
3. GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS MOTION TO DISMISS & RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY, filed on May 10, 2010, by counsel for
4. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS, filed on May 11, 2010, by counsel for the appellants.
No. 10-2135 Page 2
IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal is
from neither a final decision nor otherwise immediately appealable.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative request for mandamus relief is DENIED.
The more appropriate manner in which to seek review of the challenged order would have
been to file a separate petition for a writ of mandamus and counsel will be expected to do
so in the future, but we consider the alternative request in the interest of not delaying
matters further. If the charges for deprivation of honest services had been the only pending
counts, the denial of the request to continue the trial pending the Supreme Court's
resolution of the cases pending before it might give us pause. However, the defendants
face additional charges. In addition, the defendants cannot demonstrate that the
challenged orders are effectively unreviewable at the end of the case. United States v.
Vinyard, 539 F.3d 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1295
(7th Cir. 1995). A challenge to an order denying postponement of a criminal trial can be
raised on appeal following resolution of the district court proceedings. See, e.g., United
States v. Santos, 201 F.3d 953, 958 (7th Cir. 2000).
form name: c7_Order_BTC (form ID: 178)