The following is a behind-the-scenes account of the final day of deliberations when the jury returned its verdicts against Conrad Black and his three co-defendants.
It was late on a Thursday in mid-June, 11 days into the jury's exhaustive deliberations when all of the 12 jurors in the case reached a final verdict.
There was a chart prepared by the foreperson listing the names of the defendants and corresponding charges, in prominent bold lettering, set up on an easel for easy viewing. The checkmarks and various ‘X's and ‘O's in each column were now completed. For a few minutes at least, only the group of men and women in that jury room knew the result that would soon be publicly announced for the four defendants in the widely followed case. A special precaution of drawing the blinds had been taken early in their deliberations after one juror had noticed someone peering into one of the windows of the jury room from the adjacent Monadnock Building.
The trial judge in the case, Amy St. Eve, had permitted the jury the luxury of determining its own work day schedule and the jurors proceeded to discuss their next step. Some of the jurors (who were now being paid at a rate of $50/day) expressed a desire to "get it over with so we would not have to trudge back downtown on Friday." However, it was ultimately decided that instead of rushing to complete the elaborate verdict forms for all four of the defendants, the jury would return the following morning to complete its exacting task. It also provided any jurors with lingering doubts about their important decision to change their minds overnight.
In fact, none did. When the jurors returned the next summer morning, in business-like fashion, the foreperson read each charge out loud and the forms were then passed around clockwise around the oval table for every juror to sign. When the forms were collected, there was an unusual stillness in the room. The court officer was alerted that a verdict had been reached and the jurors sat stone-faced and silent awaiting the call to enter the courtroom. The sullen mood didn't change as they lined up to enter the courtroom.
Who were these 12 men and women moments away from determining the legal fate of Conrad Black and his co-defendants? According to one of the jurors, James Kirby, the jury was comprised of a broad gamut of personalities and characters that included "blue and white collar; city; suburban; young and old; fair; earnest; funny; reserved; boisterous; serious; flighty; motherly; grandmotherly; angry; not angry; intelligent; not so intelligent; cynical; worrisome well-read (one uttered about 10 words the entire time, while reading massive books in the jury room that seemed to change on a daily basis)."
These jurors were expecting that their faces would be studied for hints of the verdict as they entered the courtroom accompanied by a court officer's bellowing command of "All rise." During breaks in the testimony at trial, jurors became aware that their reactions were being scrutinized. As Kirby noted, "it was disconcerting to have a pause in the testimony and turn and see the eyes from multiple faces boring holes through the jury." As the judge began to declare the various charges and verdicts, the jurors were now in a position to study the emotional reactions of the lawyers and defendants in the case.
The teams of four prosecutors seated closet to the jurors were observed flipping pages and checking boxes without any facial expressions. The lead prosecutor, Eric Sussman, might have betrayed a slight hint of disappointment at one point.
Conrad Black appeared to be in a state of disbelief as the first guilty verdict for a mail fraud charge was read. He shook his head in pronounced disgust as the guilty verdict on the obstruct justice charge was announced by the judge. For whatever reason, the guilty verdict on this particular charge resonated with him more than his three fraud convictions.
The other defendants remained relatively still and revealed little of their reactions to the sparse collection of guilty verdicts. Both Jack Boultbee and Peter Atkinson were observed for the most part looking down. Mark Kipnis stood along the wall of the courtroom farthest from the jury next to his attorney, Patricia Holmes.
After the verdicts were read, the jurors left the tense mood of the courtroom and returned to the relatively peaceful sanctuary of the jury room. There was some sense of palpable relief that the arduous journey had almost ended. Judge St. Eve eventually arrived and extended her appreciation for the jurors' work. Over the course of the trial, the judge had earned the abiding respect of all of the jurors who could plainly see that she appreciated their efforts. The trial judge had made periodic visits to the jury room, principally to relate issues of scheduling and court protocol. One of the jurors regularly baked desserts that were presented to the judge and her accompanying court officer.
Judge St. Eve spoke sincerely of the manner in which she took the best interests of all her juries to heart, but particularly so in this case. She presented the jurors with the option of meeting with the media if they wished. A special room had been arranged for individual members or the entire jury to answer questions from the press. None of the jurors opted to use the room.
The judge also asked for the jurors' positions on having their names released. She added that there was little value in objecting as she would probably be compelled to release the list of names because of an impending court ruling on the issue.
Prior to handing out the Certificates of Jury Service, the judge asked in a friendly tone for the jurors' impressions of the attorneys in the trial for both the prosecution and defence. She was curious to learn the reasons for the various verdicts for the defendants. Several jurors were quick to offer their opinions. An assistant to the judge was present and recorded notes of the answers. Judge St. Eve seemed particularly intrigued about the verdict relating to Mark Kipnis, the co-defendant who was acknowledged at the trial not to have profited one penny from the fraudulent scheme.
"What about Kipnis?" she asked. "What made you decide the way you did?"
The jurors were invited to leave surreptitiously through the Dirksen courthouse's sub-basement. They left in a blue mini-bus which they were told was regularly used for the transfer of prisoners. The bus driver and the armed escort chatted casually with the jurors as they headed to their drop-off point in front of the famed Art Institute on Michigan Avenue.
The jurors listened raptly as a story was recounted by the armed guard about a jury address that Ron Safer, the lead attorney for Mark Kipnis, had given as a prosecutor a few years earlier in a gang trial. In a packed courtroom, Safer's eloquent closing address left everyone in the courtroom with tears in their eyes. Remarkably, it included the defence lawyers as well.
After saying their goodbyes, the jurors dispersed one last time in the trial. James Kirby returned to the courthouse to retrieve his bicycle. He was approached by someone who he later learned was the British author and journalist, Tom Bower. Kirby politely declined to answer any questions about the trial. However, before he left on his bike, he made one parting comment.
"To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to trial with the jury you have, not the jury you want."
Email: skurka@crimlaw.org
Please note that this will be the last crime sheet until the fall as I plan to work on my novel. ~ wishing all of my loyal readers a wonderful summer ~ sas
