Views vary on appeals court decision

Inside court and out Tuesday, judges, lawyers, jurors and politicians were divided over an appellate panel's ruling on whether former governor George Ryan received a fair trial.

"Regarding jury deliberations, the majority (of the appellate panel that ruled) concluded that Judge Pallmeyer 'took every possible step to ensure that the jury was and remained impartial,' and that while the proceedings gave rise to some unusual problems, it remained so," said Gary Shapiro, first assistant U.S. attorney, in a prepared statement.

But on the other side, former Illinois Gov. James R. Thompson, one of Ryan's attorneys, noted there is no other case in American history where alternate jurors have been substituted and deliberations restarted anew after eight days of initial deliberations.

"This case in regards to management of the jury … is unprecedented in the American judicial system," Thompson said.

Patrick Collins, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case took comfort in the fact that the majority opinion noted there was "overwhelming evidence" supporting the guilty verdict.

The controversy revolves around not only the substitution, but the fact that one of the dismissed jurors -- Evelyn Ezell of Chicago -- was a holdout for George Ryan. Additionally, Ezell was in a bitter conflict with other jurors who accused her of not deliberating in good faith. One of those jurors -- Denise Peterson of Hawthorn Woods -- brought an article from a legal magazine into deliberations to try to force Ezell to deliberate. Bringing in outside materials -- indeed considering anything outside the courtroom -- was something Pallmeyer had warned jurors many times not to do.

Finally, newspaper accounts revealed that many jurors had not been accurate on their questionnaires about their previous criminal and court involvement. As a result, Pallmeyer questioned them -- something defense attorneys contend could have made them fearful of a perjury conviction and disposed them to rule for prosecutors.

The majority of the appellate panel found that Pallmeyer cured any mistakes she or the jury may have made by removing those jurors she felt lied to her and letting those she simply felt forgot their criminal histories stay on.

Additionally, by closely questioning jurors about whether they could re-start deliberations, and telling them that the removal of two jurors had nothing to do with the bitter inter-jury conflict before, she dispelled any notions of court bias, wrote Appellate Judges Diane P. Wood, speaking for herself and Judge Daniel A. Manion.

But Appellate Judge Michael S. Kanne was stinging in his dissent.

"My colleagues in the majority conclude that the trial of this case may not have been 'picture perfect' -- a whopping understatement by any measure," he wrote. "Jurors specifically mentioned they were scared or intimidated by the situation (of being questioned).

"Jurors in fear of prosecution for conduct involved in the case … should not be allowed to render verdicts, their bias is inherent."

Ryan wasn't available Tuesday for comment and would not be returning phone calls, said a man who answered the phone at his Kankakee home.

Ryan's reaction "was one of disappointment," said Thompson, who spoke to Ryan by phone shortly after the ruling was issued. Thompson said Ryan had already heard.

"But he has faith in the judicial system, and he has faith in his lawyers," Thompson said.

Former Juror James Cwick of Glen Ellyn commended the appellate court for its ruling

"I am happy it was upheld. It should have been upheld. There (have) been countless hearings and countless judges. How far (do) Ryan's defense lawyers have to go? He needs to start doing his time," Cwick said.

Other jurors could not be reached Tuesday.

Richard Kling, a practicing defense attorney and professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, agreed with Kanne, and noted even the majority recognized a flood of errors.

"If there were a flood of errors, then water got on someone," he quipped. That person was Ryan, who was "drowned," he said.

"The appellate court made the right decision," Highland Park Republican Congressman Mark Kirk. "George Ryan is a crook."

Some, like Kling and Thompson, maintained there is a bigger issue beyond guilt or innocence, that of receiving a fair trial.

"It doesn't make any difference (for these purposes) what the strength of the evidence is," said Thompson.

Fair trials are the cornerstone of Democracy and need to be upheld, he said.

DuPage County Republican Chairman Dan Cronin, an attorney, said he thought Ryan had a "reasonably good chance" of getting a new trial.

"I feel sorry for the guy individually, but I recognize that this is a consequence of his behavior," Cronin said. "He's an old guy, and the world around him changed and he didn't change with it."