Blago Jury Foreman ‘Regretful’ About Verdict

The jury in Rod Blagojevich‘s corruption trial could reach a verdict on only one charge during 14 days of contentious deliberations in which the foreman of the panel said some jurors felt Blagojevich was guilty on all 24 counts, while others argued the government’s highly touted wiretaps amount to “just talk” and nothing criminal.

“I knew we were in trouble from the first day of deliberations,” said James Matsumoto, 66, of Chicago’s Northwest Side, a retired librarian from public television station WTTW.

Interviews with jurors by the Chicago News Cooperative indicated that on several counts, only one juror stood in the way of a conviction. On every count against Blagojevich, there was at least one juror–often more–who believed Blagojevich was guilty, the foreman said.

Matsumoto said he was in favor of convicting the former governor on all counts, and was not the only juror who felt that way. “I believe they proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Matsumoto said.

“On some counts, it was 7-5, could be 5-7. Some were 11-1. It ranged all over the place.”

When one reporter asked how often was it 11-1, Matsumoto said: “Possibly a quarter of the counts.”

“I’m very regretful,” he added.

Still, other jurors remained unmoved by the tapes and other evidence and testimony during the trial. Some jurors said, “Oh, they were just talking,” Matsumoto said.

Others dismissed the recorded evidence as “an unfortunate choice of words” that did not constitute a crime, he said.

Soon after the jury reached its verdict, the judge around 3 p.m. summoned Blagojevich and lawyers to come to the Dirksen Federal Building. The verdict: Guilty on one count of lying to FBI agents during a December 2005 interview at the offices of Winston & Strawn, the powerful Chicago law firm that at that point was representing Illinois’ sitting governor. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald vowed to re-try the case, and lawyers for Blagojevich criticized the U.S. attorney for an overly zealous prosecution and waste of taxpayer funds.

Early Tuesday morning, the jury had agreed to two guilty counts. A charge related to an allegation of attempted extortion of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel fell by the wayside as jurors lost confidence in the government’s evidence on that charge, said another juror, Erik Sarnello, 21, a student who lives with his parents in suburban Itasca.

The government had alleged that Blagojevich held up a state grant to the Chicago Academy until Rahm Emanuel‘s Hollywood-agent brother, Ari, would throw him a fundraiser.

From the start of deliberations, some jurors admitted they believed from the start of deliberations that Blagojevich was guilty. “Some people said they thought he was guilty, but the evidence is really not there,” he said.

Sarnello said he knew by day three of the 13-day deliberations that the jury was in for a long haul. That prompted him to give a speech in which he sought to persuade fellow jurors to agree with each other rather than than extending deliberations. At that point, Sarnello believed Blagojevich guilty on several counts.

“It was pretty obvious to me that some of these people needed clear cut evidence. They wanted to see the videos,” Sarnello said.

“In my opinion, some stuff was clear cut, like the Senate seat. There were phone calls and witnesses about everything,” he said. Prosecutors had charged that Blagojevich sought personal gain in exchange for nominating a replacment for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama.

“It was obvious to me that some of these people needed clear-cut evidence, but we kept going at it for another two weeks. Not much changed,” he said.

Each juror spoke at length at one point or another during the deliberations, he said.

Over all, jurors treated one another respectfully during deliberations, even though there were lots of “strong minds” in the room. Sarnello, who owns a business that makes supplements taken by athletes before exercise, said he consumed the supplements during the trial. The product gave him “energy and focus,” he said.

Sarnello addressed the question of why the jury Tuesday asked for a copy of the oath they took at the start of deliberations. Some jurors felt one of the jurors was not deliberating in good faith. “Some people felt that they were deliberating not under what the law told us to do,” he said.

“What they were looking at wasn’t what we were supposed to be looking at based on what the judge gave us as a set of rules,” Sarnello said.

Even though Blagojevich’s lawyers decided not to mount a defense, the attorneys nevertheless made an impression on jurors.

“I like that guy,” Sarnello said of Blagojevich’s theatrical attorney, Sam Adam Jr. “He’s funny. I can see where he’s coming from. He does what he does.”

The deliberation process became wearisome over time. “I sat there and gave my point of view, went through the evidence,” Sarnello said. “It was pretty frustrating and tiring, but you know.”

Daniel Libit, Idalmy Carrera, Rachel Cromidas, Mick Dumke, Katie Fretland and Jose More contributed reporting