The Outfit on trial

Steve,

I've never actually been to a trial during jury deliberations, and i'm 200 miles from Chicago as it stands. Obviously the jury is away in one of the rooms, but what of the judge, the defendants and the media? Do you all just sit in the courtroom quietly?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: The judge is likely back in his chambers. The four defendants who are in custody are over at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a few blocks away. And the media either waits outside the courtroom where there's seating or down in the press room.

The prosecutors have offices in the building, and the defense attorneys have offices either across the street or a few blocks away.

Let the waiting begin.

There is no way of knowing what (if anything) this means.

But standing alone, this may represent a problem for the prosecution.

It seems that the best evidence that the government has relates to the various murders that Calabrese and others allegedly participated in.

If the jury believed that they were part of the same conspiracy to commit those murders, they would not have to get to the "usury" part of the conspiracy, would they?

But maybe they're just being thorough.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: My guess - and it's only a guess - is that the jury was being thorough and reading the indictment page by page and came upon the word usury, which is on the second or third page.

Any word from inside sources in regards to the two jurors who were sent home because they made up of their mind before deliberations began?

You got to figure they had judged not guilty prematurely on some count, rather than guilty before deliberation?

And if thats the case, is this an issue the defense will bring up in any appeal? But for a frail 78 yr old Joe Lombardo, what difference does a strong appeal case really mean?

In the miraculous event Lumby is acquited, Im throwing a party. No joke. Grilled sausage & peppers, anisette, and we're gonna throw dice on my patio all nite long. Here's to you Uncle Joe. All the best.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: It likely would not be an issue for appeal. They still have 12 jurors, who presumably can deliberate with an open mind.

If I had to guess, the two jurors who were dismissed had made up their minds that some or all of the defendants are guilty. Of course, they can't do that. They have to keep an open mind until they begin deliberations.

Obviously the case is fairly weak against Schiro, but what of Doyle? The video of the visit was pretty damning, but is it going to stick?

Also, I know this isn't really your concern, but my school has stopped carrying the Sun-Times, though they still boast the fact that they carry it. I have to follow you and Richard Roeper online exclusively now. Okay, the rant is over.

Any guess on how long the jury will be out? Do you know if the names of the jurors will be released, or kept private for their safety? Zagel said he would release a lot of stuff about the case after the fact.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: I've covered enough jury trials to know it's fruitless to speculate. At times, they come back faster than you expect. Other times, more slowly.

If this jury in the Family Secrets case goes step by step, it may be out a while because there's a ton of evidence to look at in this case.

I doubt Zagel will release the names of the jurors after the trial is over.

As for the evidence against retired Chicago police officer Anthony "Twan" Doyle, the most potentially damning recorded conversation the jury has before it is when Doyle appears to be talking about beating up or hurting Nick Calabrese if he's a snitch.

Doyle, of course, denied he was talking about that.

Steve, why do you think the dismissed jurors assumed the defendants were guilty ?

Jimmy I want in on the peppers and sausage !

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: I think it would be a stretch to look at the evidence against Frank Calabrese Sr. and assume jurors jumped to the conclusion that he was not guilty.

If they jumped to any conclusion, they would presume he is guilty.

That's why I speculated that the two jurors had made up their minds that some or all of the defendants are guilty.

It's also the speculation commonly held by other people who watched the trial.

I thought most jurors did make up their minds prior to deliberations.

I mean, they're looking at all the evidence and hearing all the testimony during the trial.

That's the basis that they're supposed to use to judge guilt or innocence, right?

So by the time they get to deliberations they usually have an opinion, then they listen to what other jurors say to see if maybe other people picked up on things they missed or see it from a different perspective or somesuch that might change their opinion.

And anyway, unless they told someone else, how would anyone know they had made up their minds?

How firm does an initial opinion of a juror have to be before it's considered that their mind is made up?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: I think you've hit the nail on the head.

There's a difference between having a tentative opinion on the facts and having made up your mind completely and not being open to persuasion.

And you're right that no one is going to know what's in a juror's mind, unless of course a juror writes a note to the judge or somehow communicates it to other jurors.

Steve-

First, I would like to say that you have been doing an incredible job following this trial !

Have you heard of any criminal attorneys that have stated an opinion of the prosecution's case or the defense's case ? or an overall overview of the trial ?

Was Lopez as flamobyant as evryone made him out to be ?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: Let me take the easy question first. Yes, Joe "The Shark" Lopez was pretty flamboyant at trial.

If a lawyer wears pink socks to court to match his pink tie, I think that qualifies as flamboyant.

I heard a variety of opinions, informally, from defense attorneys who have nothing to do with the case but have followed it.

In general, they have agreed that the government's evidence came in pretty well, but the weakest case is against Paul "The Indian" Schiro.

They also generally agree it was suicidal for the defendants to get up on the stand and testify, even if they felt they had nothing to lose.