More woe for Ryan jury as talks drag on?

By Natasha Korecki, Federal Courts Reporter - Chicago Sun-Times
April 13, 2006

It has been a month since former Gov. George Ryan's corruption case went to jurors.

Since then, jurors keep upstaging the accused.

Two were kicked out for not disclosing criminal histories. The reorganized jury with two alternates started anew and is entering its 10th day of talks today.

While U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer has repeatedly tried to steer proceedings back on track, experts say with each day that goes by, the likelihood of problems only increases.

The potential for jurors being exposed to the media -- or to someone not on the jury talking to them about the case -- is especially high during the deliberation phase, the experts say. Memories for details in the case are also in danger of becoming stale as time goes on. Closing arguments ended more than a month ago.

HOW LONG IT TOOK OTHER JURIES TO RETURN VERDICTS IN HIGH-PROFILE TRIALS 4 months: For an Alameda County, Calif., jury to acquit Oakland police officers known as "The Riders" on eight corruption charges and deadlock on 27 others in 2003. The trial lasted more than a year. 36 days: To acquit Raymond Buckley and his mother of most charges in the first McMartin pre-school molestation trial in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s. The trial lasted nearly three years, breaking a record as the lengthiest criminal trial in U.S. history. 21 days: For a Birmingham, Ala., jury to acquit former HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy of corporate fraud last year. 11 days: To convict Cicero Town President Betty Loren-Maltese and six others -- another was acquitted -- in the three-month trial in 2002. 11 days: To convict Tyco International CEO Dennis Kozlowski in his second trial in 2005. The trial lasted four months in Manhattan. 6 days: To convict George Ryan's chief of staff Scott Fawell and Citizens for Ryan, Ryan's political organization, in 2003. The trial lasted two months. Abdon M. Pallasch

"I have tremendous respect for the judge, but why she doesn't lock them up, I don't know," said Kent College of Law Professor Richard Kling. "If they would be sequestered, it would obviate all of these problems."

Pallmeyer disclosed in a court filing Wednesday that lawyers gathered to discuss yet another jury issue Tuesday regarding alleged contact with a juror.

'Huge temptation'

That juror reportedly discussed the case with a business owner who called in and told of the conversation on a WLS-AM talk show. It doesn't appear that the problem was serious enough to stop proceedings because the jury, which broke early Wednesday for the Jewish holiday of Passover, is scheduled to return today.

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross said the risk of jurors getting tainted increases during deliberations vs. the actual trial.

"You're more likely to be upset. This is your life. People are saying really mean things in the jury room, and you want to talk about it," Gross said. "That is a huge temptation to the person who is listening to give their own advice."

Gross said judges usually try pushing jurors to work long days and come back with a decision because the more time they're given, the more time they'll take. Sometimes that could lead to a mistrial, he said.

"Jury deliberations are generally operating under greater pressure to reach a decision than with [the Ryan] case," he said.

Both Gross and Kling said it isn't unusual to sequester juries in such high-profile cases to ensure there's no contact and prevent any more threats of a mistrial.

But Pallmeyer has noted that jurors in the Ryan trial have diligently and patiently sat through the nearly six-month trial and allowed the group to make its own schedule.

'They're awfully committed'

The jurors do not seem to be in a hurry to leave.

They take Fridays off. They come in at 9:30 a.m., leave at 4 p.m., sometimes at 2 p.m., and, in the case of Wednesday's Jewish holiday, as early as 1 p.m.

"She's been more liberal with them than the everyday judge. But this isn't an everyday jury trial," Northwestern law professor Ronald Allen said. "Maybe what she's doing is pretty intelligent. Rather than depriving the jurors of their lives," she's letting them come back with a decision on their own time.

Allowing jurors to choose their own schedule is the right approach, jury expert and Cornell University law Professor Valerie Hans said.

"You need to find people who have lives to get a more representative jury," Hans said.

It also sends the message that the jury should come back with the most fair verdict and not feel pressed against time to reach any verdict. Hans said the jury probably does want to move on but realizes its commitment.

"Let's face it; they're in for the ride here," Hans said. "My guess is they're awfully committed."

nkorecki@suntimes.com