Ryan remains free despite appeals court ruling

For the second time in less than 12 months, former Gov. George Ryan was snatched from the jaws of prison Tuesday, despite a court ruling upholding findings of guilt against him.

"He's very pleased and relieved (about remaining free)," said Ryan's attorney James R. Thompson, himself a former Illinois governor.

The same three-judge federal appellate panel that in the morning upheld Ryan's conviction ordered in the afternoon that his prison sentence be delayed while his attorneys file a petition asking for reconsideration. Attorneys must file the petition within five days.

Without that stay, Ryan would have had to report to prison by Friday morning, 72 hours after the ruling was made.

But the issue of jury irregularities that occurred during his trial was considerable enough that the judges ruled he may remain free on bond at least during this stage of appeal.

Tuesday's ruling from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals does not mean that all 11 members will agree to reconsider the case. Instead, they must now vote on whether to reconsider it. If they deny reconsideration, Ryan can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If they agree to reconsider, Ryan would remain free on bond during that period because Tuesday's order dictated he remain free until the appeals court issues its "mandate," or final order decreeing Ryan's fate.

How long it will take the 11 judges to decide on whether to reconsider is uncertain.

"I have no clue, because, you know, they're in summer recess," Thompson said.

Appellate bonds, and bonds while seeking reconsideration are fairly rare, so the ruling may be an acknowledgment of the uncertainty of Ryan's case and the fact that the court is treading on new ground.

Or it could just be a polite deference by the majority to a fellow judge's minority opinion.

"Anybody who says they know exactly what they're (the appellate judges) thinking doesn't know," said Patrick Collins, the former U.S. attorney who tried the case.

Ryan's appeal centers around the fact that his jury was eight days into deliberations on corruption charges when U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer dismissed two jurors for lying on their questionnaires about their criminal histories. She then restarted deliberations with two alternate jurors, ordering all jurors to start from scratch.

The first time Ryan's prison sentence was delayed was after his April 2006 conviction. Pallmeyer ruled he should start serving his time while he appealed, but was overruled in November by another three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit who said the issues surrounding his trial were "serious and substantial" and he should remain free while they were decided.

The judicial disagreement over the case continued Tuesday, with appellate Judge Diane P. Wood and Judge Daniel A. Manion ruling in the majority that while the jury circumstances weren't ideal, Judge Pallmeyer had assured a fair trial by questioning the jury and making sure members could start over with unbiased attitudes.

Dissenting Judge Michael S. Kanne declared the fairness a fiction, regardless of what the jurors may have told the judge. Kanne said the specter of being called into a judge's office packed with lawyers and questioned about their honesty raised the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury -- something that would then bias them toward ruling for prosecutors.

"Jurors specifically mentioned they were scared or intimidated by the situation," Kanne wrote. "Jurors in fear of prosecution for conduct involved in the case in which they are sitting should not be allowed to render verdicts, their bias is inherent."