Judging by the facial expressions of those walking out of Rod Blagojevich‘s trial for lunch, you would have thought there was a train wreck in Judge James Zagel’s courtroom.
At the very least, something bad happened to the train – a point Zagel himself tried to make.
“The precise problem you have is in the momentum of this kind of closing arguments, people make misstatements,” Zagel said. “And when they make misstatements, you stop the freight train.”
After the jury was dismissed for a brief lunch, Zagel and lawyers on both sides case argued over what the judge termed a “lack of precision” on the part of Sam Adam Jr. in making the case that there is no evidence of explicit quid pro quos.
In doing so, the government has raised a variety of objections – almost all sustained – that Adam has incorrectly characterized the evidence in the case and the underlining law as it pertains to the 24-count allegation against Blagojevich.
At specific issue was a Jan. 1, 2009 date Adam Jr. glossed over during the first part of his blustery closing argument. That’s the date that increased Medicaid reimbursement rates were supposed to take effect, according to a pledge that Blagojevich made to Children’s Memorial Hospital CEO Patrick Magoon. The defense is trying to make the case that the testimony of former Deputy Gov. Bob Greenlee, among other things, shows there is no connection between Blagojevich seeking a contribution from Magoon, and the triggering of the new state regulations.
Prior to that, Adam characterized the Children’s Memorial Hospital allegation thusly: “You’ve heard all this talk that the rate increase got held up. What evidence did you have of that? Think about it. When [the prosecution] stood up here yesterday and showed you all these things, when did he show you one document, one document that the rate increase was held up?”
Adam showed his frustration throughout his morning remarks. After one of the multitude of objections, he turned to prosecution’s table and says, “You’re entitled to an opinion but not your own facts.”
Zagel, meanwhile, showed clear frustration with Adam.
“One of the difficulties I’m having listening to this argument is that Mr. Adam, probably because there’s a lot of detail in this case, occasionally slides an answer in place for a different answer,” Zagel said.
Speaking to his larger concerns about the defense’s closing, the judge continued: ”What happens is you precipitate objections and the reason you precipitate objections is because if you don’t stand up and object, you may wind up with a lawyer who thinks he has more leeway than he does.”