Rezko trial: Jury's schedule

| | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Though it seems as if the jury has been out for awhile in the Tony Rezko trial, jurors really haven't had that much time together in the deliberation room.

Today is the eighth separate calendar day jurors have met. But not counting today's half day, they've deliberated just shy of five full days.

Here's the breakdown:
On the first day, May 13, they just chose a foreperson and left.
On two separate occasions, they cut talks short, at noon or 1 p.m.
On May 22, they concluded at 4 p.m. -- 30 minutes shy of the usual breaking time.
Today, they will talk 9:15-noon.
So before today, they've deliberated for four full days and two half days.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rezko trial: Jury's schedule.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/9398

7 Comments

the important thing is the quality of time spent. Are they reviewing the indormation from Pekin, Cari, Winter and others that are substantive elements of the case. The main thing is that they are engaged. The defense put up no defense in this case. the Defense just made a bunch of gand claims and comments trying to besmearch the witnesses who spelled out Rezko's dealings. That isn't a defense.

I can't read tea leaves but if I were Rezko I would be very worried. Actually, I would ask for a conversation with Fitz... about a deal.

This must be so hard for you to report on without resorting to full blown satire. I don't have such journalistic restriction on me.

I am so impressed that this amazingly dedicated and hard working jury is going to spend an extra hour and twenty minutes for two days to get to the finish line.

Why do I have a feeling one of them will suddenly come up with an amazingly credible excuse to go home early anyway. (maybe there's a movie they want to catch on HBO and they don't want to stay up until 10pm for the second showing.)

Or, what if someone gets a hangnail? Or a bad haircut? Or doesn't like the lunch they're served and only wants to eat at their own house?

What if it rains, and they don't want to make that terrible trip to the train in the wet? What if someone has an argument with their spouse? Or just a sense of the blahs? What if their
astrology chart doesn't look promising?

Is there any news of how the juror's visit with his/her in-laws went? I mean that eclipsed the importance of the trial. I wonder if the in-laws liked the potato salad, or prefer it with a little more mayo than was provided.

And how about the one with the family emergency? Was it to pick up a kid after soccer practice?

Wouldn't be sweet if these people actually got it together to do their job? If I was the person hiring help--- the employeer that this dedicated juror has stopped the deliberations to go and speak with-- I think I'd be very impressed by the juror's absolute
disregard for their current responsibilities.

I guess unless of course the mysterious "employer" is a good friend of Tony.

Just wondering, but didn't Fitzgerald's people bother to ask these people during jury selection if they had any time based conflicts that would interfer with them upholding their duty to the court?

Fer Christ's sake...

I can't read tea leaves, either, but if I were Rezko would I ask for a conversation with Fitz...about a deal.... if I thought there might be a good chance for a pardon down the road?

Susan, the juror who had the job interview might have applied for the job BEFORE he got called to jury duty, and been told they had no openings at that time. When the trial started, he/she had no reason to expect a job interview any time soon.
Now, an opening might have come up and the prospective employer called the juror last week for an interview (not knowing, of course, that he/she was on the Rezko jury). If it's a job he/she has striven to get for a long time or one that would help better provide for his/her family, it would be a shame to miss out on it. I think the jury's actions are entirely reasonable.

Watching from Texas.
Keep watching.

I'm thinking "OJ".

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Natasha Korecki

Natasha Korecki is the Federal Courts Reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, covering federal news, corruption investigations and trials.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Natasha Korecki published on May 27, 2008 11:13 AM.

Jurors want to "conclude their decision" -- by Thursday was the previous entry in this blog.

Free defense for the next indicted gov? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages