United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and Switch

Seventh Circuit Review, Dec 2010

In United States v. Blagojevich, the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether the presumption in favor of disclosure of jurors

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=seventhcircuitreview

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)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=seventhcircuitreview

Timothy J. Letizia. United States v. Blagojevich: A Standard Bait and Switch, Seventh Circuit Review, 2010, pp. 47, Volume 6, Issue 1,