United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and Switch
United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and Switch
Timothy J. Letizia
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/seventhcircuitreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Timothy J. Letizia, United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and Switch, 6 Seventh Circuit Rev. 47 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/seventhcircuitreview/vol6/iss1/3
-
Fall 2010
TIMOTHY J. LETIZIA∗
Cite as: Timothy J. Letizia, United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and
Switch, 6 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 4
7 (2010
), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr
/v6-1/letizia.pdf.
INTRODUCTION
“How do you all like your first year of law school?” asked the
man with the perfectly groomed hair. The response from the students
at Chicago-Kent College of Law was mixed: some smiled, others
shrugged, and the rest were too mesmerized by the hair and shiny suit
to respond. “Well, I didn’t do so great in law school, but look at me
now; I’m the Governor of Illinois.”
Less than four months after that brief visit to Chicago-Kent, news
of the Governor’s arrest was splashed across headlines throughout
Illinois, the United States, and even the world: “Illinois Gov. Rod
Blagojevich arrested on federal charges.”1
Not surprisingly, Blagojevich’s arrest, impeachment, and
subsequent removal from office—most notably for his attempt to sell
President Barack Obama’s vacated United States Senate seat—
Volume 6, Issue 1
garnered massive amounts of attention from the public and the media.2
For those interested in following his downfall and subsequent
expulsion from public office, there was a nearly endless stream of
sources from which to obtain information, including online sources
such as blogs,3 Twitter,4 and Facebook.5 Even those members of the
public who wished to avoid the media frenzy surrounding Rod
Blagojevich were hard-pressed to avoid daily updates; this was
especially true when Blagojevich’s federal trial date was announced.6
Following the announcement of the trial date, the District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge James B. Zagel presiding)
began to receive e-mails and letters from members of the general
public containing advice as to how he should rule.7 In light of the
great public interest surrounding the trial, Judge Zagel stated in a
public status hearing that he had “given some consideration to public
anonymity of the jurors at [least] until the trial is over.”8 Judge Zagel
considered deferring disclosure of the jurors’ names in order to prevent
members of the public from contacting the jurors.9
On May 1
7, 2010
, Judge Zagel held an informal and
off-therecord meeting with members of the media to discuss his intention to
keep the names of the jurors anonymous until a verdict was
Volume 6, Issue 1
rendered.10 Two weeks after this meeting and two days before jury
selection was set to begin, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times,
and three media groups (hereinafter “Press Intervenors”) filed a
motion to intervene and for immediate public access to the names of
jurors.11 The Press Intervenors brought this motion in order to object
to an anonymous jury.12 The Press Intervenors were interested in
publishing human-interest stories and determining whether the jurors
were “suitable decision-makers.”13
Before holding a hearing on the Press Intervenors’ motion, Judge
Zagel assured the potential jurors that their names would not be
disclosed until the conclusion of the trial.14 Judge Zagel then held a
hearing and denied the Press Intervenors’ motion on the basis that it
was untimely and there was “a legitimate reason for sealing the names
during trial.”15 Judge Zagel anticipated “that the substantial attention
being devoted to the criminal charges against a former Governor of
Illinois would lead the press and public to bombard jurors with email
and instant messages that could undermine their impartiality (and
perhaps their equanimity).”16 Further bolstering Judge Zagel’s
decision was the fear that public knowledge of the jurors’ identities
“would discourage others from agreeing to serve in future trials.”17 It
is important to note, however, that the parties and their counsel would
be given access to the names of the jurors; Judge Zagel’s ruling related
only to the delayed release of the jurors’ names to the public.18
10 Id. at *5.
11 Press Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and for Immediate Public Access to
Names of Jurors at 1, United States v. Blagojevich, 2010 WL 2934476 (N.D. Ill. July
2
6, 2010
) (No. 08 CR 888).
12 Id.
13 United States v. Blagojevich (Blagojevich I), 612 F.3d 558, 561 (
7th Cir.
2010
).
14 Brief & Appendix of the United States, supra note 8, at 8.
15 Brief and Short Appendix of Intervenor-Appellants, supra note 7, at 4–5.
16 Blagojevich I, 612 F.3d at 559.
17 Id. at 562.
18 Id. at 559.
49
Volume 6, Issue 1
Determined to obtain the jurors’ names, the Press Intervenors
appealed to the Seventh Circuit, conte (...truncated)