advertisement

A tale of two stories: Is it the best of times or the worst of times for Blago?

"Tell me a story" must be the oldest refrain in the book.

Yet, in a high-profile criminal case like the corruption trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, lawyers for the defense and for the prosecution put the basic human need for storytelling to use in disparate ways for a common goal - to construct a believable narrative for the jury.

"Building a cogent story is crucial in every case," said Barrington Hills attorney Andrew Stoltmann. "Often the result in a jury trial comes down to who tells a better story that is corroborated by the evidence, documents and testimony. If the story is exposed as false, in either a criminal or civil trial, it is game over for the client. (There are) few things jurors dislike more (than) being misled."

"Trial lawyers want to tell a story," added DePaul University law professor Leonard Cavise. "We teach them to develop a 'theory' of the case and to communicate that theory by use of a 'theme.' The theory is the essential narrative: 'This happened (or didn't happen) because...' And then keep it simple. The theme is the rhetorical leit motif that you use to hit that theory over and over, for instance, greed, vanity, sold his badge, etc."

So what's the story thus far with the Blagojevich corruption trial?

The case against the former Illinois governor and his fundraiser brother Robert is incredibly complicated. The closest it's come to a smoking gun in the first two weeks has been former Blagojevich chief of staff Alonzo Monk saying he planned to tell horse-track owner John Johnston that beneficial legislation and a campaign contribution weren't linked, precisely because they were linked.

What's more, the case as laid out with testimony from various witnesses in court is always by nature fragmentary. The prosecution got off to a rough start with Monk, who provided much of the framework for alleged corruption in the Blagojevich administration, but with precious few illustrations of the governor directly indulging in pay-to-play politics.

"Monk didn't pay off the way they thought he would," Cavise said. "To this point, the government's story is not well-developed. Monk probably created an atmosphere of corruption, but did not get specific enough on the quid pro quo."

Yet there was an almost Dickensian scene in the government's pretrial proffer laying out the case prosecutors intended to make, a scene in which Blagojevich, on a flight to New York City for a fundraiser in the first year of his administration "stated he had aspirations beyond being governor and that fundraising was the key to political success."

It's an essential scene in the story, one that potentially lays out the motive for all that's to follow, and fundraiser Joseph Cari fleshed it out in testimony last week.

Cari, the person who had that conversation with Blagojevich, testified that Blagojevich was already so intent on higher office he spoke of how he had run for governor, rather than U.S. senator, precisely because it was easier to raise money by dealing out state contracts and other business with the intent to "go back to those people for money."

Cari appeared to lend credence to Monk's testimony that Monk, Blagojevich and fundraisers Tony Rezko and Chris Kelly were conducting private meetings at about the same time to lay out plans for how they would use state business to raise money both for themselves and the campaign and thus build up and consolidate political power and, in the end, enrich themselves.

That's a story: Here's what they wanted, here's why they wanted it and here's how they went about attaining it - illegally.

Of course, the defense has its own plot line. As laid out by attorney Sam Adam Jr. in his opening statement, it's that Blagojevich was an unwitting stooge used and duped by his underlings, who went rogue without his knowledge, and that in any case there was never any quid pro quo, no direct exchange of this for that, involving the governor. They've hammered those points at every opportunity in cross-examination.

Defense attorney Michael Gillespie got Cari to restate that Blagojevich was using Bill Clinton as an example, in the way he built a campaign war chest as Arkansas governor from state connections. The implication was that if Clinton had used much the same fundraising tactics to gain the highest office in the land, it must be politics as usual with nothing untoward about it.

"The defense," Cavise said, "has been pretty clearly establishing their theory even during the government's case-in-chief, that is the governor was not corrupt, everybody around him was. There is nothing more aggravating to the government than the defense getting its theory across to the jury without having to call even their first witness."

"So far in the Blagojevich trial, the prosecutors are leading, but it's not as big of a gulf as I expected at this point," Stoltmann said. "They are in inning two of a nine-inning game, and there is a long way to go. But so far Blagojevich and his team have to be fairly happy."

Yet there are always hidden pitfalls. Not only was Adam smacked down on several occasions Thursday by Judge James Zagel for his more theatrical style, developed in the criminal courts at 26th and California, compared with the more staid environment at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in downtown Chicago, but he also fell into a trap of his own devising.

Cross-examining Ali Ata, a fundraiser who testified he gave $50,000 to Blagojevich during the 2002 campaign and was ultimately given a job as executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority, Adam first got Ata to admit he didn't deal with Blagojevich directly in obtaining the job. Then he asked if Ata was so close with Blagojevich, having contributed to his campaigns going back to his days as a state representative, why didn't he simply ask Blagojevich for a job himself?

Ata countered that things had changed by the time Blagojevich ran for governor, that Monk, Rezko and Kelly had established themselves as the self-proclaimed "kitchen cabinet" buffering Blagojevich and that all deals had to go through them.

"If I was in a position to help and I didn't," Ata said, "chances are I wouldn't get the job."

On one hand, that could lend credence to Monk's testimony that they were acting in concert on Blagojevich's behalf with his full awareness. Of course, the defense would insist it argues strongly that Blagojevich was insulated from the wrongs they were committing.

In the end, the jury will determine which story is more plausible.

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.