Anti-War Protesters Rally In Federal Plaza
Expiration Date: An interview with Undateable’s Anne Coyle
Review: Revolution Brewing
Where Are You Going? Hyde Park Mural Asks Big Questions
Bookstores We Love: The Book Cellar
An air of unfairness permeates everything about the George Ryan trial. His fall from grace, you may remember, began with the License-for-Bribe Scandal, a scandal that involved the deaths of nearly an entire family caused by a truck driver who had effectively bought his commercial drivers license.
Of the many themes that have been present in the George Ryan corruption trial, a recurring one has been forgiveness. Besides his connection to corruption in state politics, Ryan has also been hailed as a forward-thinking governor on the death penalty, having granted commutations to all Illinois prisoners sentenced to death in January of 2003, believing that executions could not be administered fairly in the state. Three years later, the Willis family, whose children died in that fiery car accident, would publish a book about forgiveness. And on Tuesday, a federal appellate court decided to let Ryan remain free on bond while they heard his appeal. Although the court rejected his appeal, they have agreed to give it a full hearing before the full 11-judge court. Ryan is asking for a new trial, based on the claim that the jury process in his original trial was flawed. The Chicago Tribune reported during deliberations that two jurors had not disclosed information about their criminal backgrounds during voir dire.
Of all the unfairness that has happened thus far — the deaths of six little children, the disturbed life of a truck driver, the tarnished reputation of a former governor, and the ruined lives of innocent convicts — the greatest is yet to come. As the appeal drags on, a family awaits closure in a horrifying and terrible chapter in the story of their mortal lives. George Ryan waits in limbo, perhaps hoping to drag serving his conviction out long enough to beat it with death. And justice goes unserved, with no punishment for violations of public trust, and no end in sight to the rampant abuse of that trust.
Image via University of South Alabama.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Corrupt politicians should be eligible for the death sentence.
That said, wouldn't you want as many appeals as possibles were you to be charged with a crime? Yes, the guy's lucky to have connections and big-time lawyers taking his case for free, but that's due process, as messy as it is. And I am no fan of Ryan.
Overdramatic much?
I heard on the news that he asked to be placed in a prison in Wisconsin, instead of the one he's headed for in Minnesota, so his family could be closer to him for visiting. What nerve! How many families are separated by an ocean (Hawaiian families of prisoners sent to Texas) or half a continent so that the state can save a few bucks on housing them!? It's outrageous!
Ferdy; call amnesty international NOW, get this straightened out before he kills again.
Yes, it's extremely nervy for an old man with an ailing wife to ask to be allowed to serve time two hours away instead of 8. How dare he try to make this terrible burden on his family just a little easier by not making them drive 8 freaking hours to visit him?
Kevin, seriously, dude,
YOU WHINE A LOT. A WHOLE FUCKING LOT.
And of course, you have those who regularly demand that the system to be fair and just when it involves the powerless demand that justive and fairness be ignored when it involves somebody who has enjoyed priviledge. The fact is, nobody can objectively look at what happened on that jury and believe Ryan got a fair trial. They can believe he's as guilty as sin, sure, but the trial was nothing but a show, and the judge tampered with the thing to insure the outcome the prosecution wanted.
Secondly, all federal prisoners have the right to request a particular prison assignment. The feds might not fulfill the request, owing to a number of factors, but the prisoners can ask. I don't think it takes any particular amount of nerve to make a request. Why should we judge Ryan differently?
Maybe Ryan was guilty, maybe he wasn't. That's not my call and not the issue. The issue was that a citizen was denied the same right to a fair trial the Constitution demands for everybody, and we're calling for his head. Justice is not standing up for the little guy who gets shot in the back but turning our face and calling it karma when the powerful get screwed. It's closing our eyes and treating everybody equally.
Be an apologist all you want. Little children are denied their parents and all you can think about is a man who has lived his full life in comfort and power getting an easy time? For shame.
You can't help but feel the greatest sympathy for the Willis family. That said, the criminal justice system isn't about giving people "closure", whatever that might be; it's about punishing, and thereby deterring, specific kinds of wrongdoing. Crime victims who expect the criminal justice system to make them feel better are raising their own expectations in ways that probably going to be unsatisfied. I suspect that the Willises, having lost six children, aren't going to experience "closure" any time soon.
George Ryan got a fairer trial than anyone reading this blog would ever get in federal court were they indicted, in the sense that he had a first rate legal team (at no cost to himself), as well as the resources to investigate all of the factual issues. His problem was that his long-time right-hand man, Scott Fawell, testified against him.
Last I heard, George Ryan did not kill the Willis children, nor was he charged with killing the Willis children.
The Willis children were not murdered, either. They died in a traffic accident.
WTF is with that? You want to convict Ryan because somebody got killed in an auto accident? Pathetic.
Guest 7, where are you getting your information? Despite all the media attention, his trial was conducted properly and fairly by the officers of the court. You don't think his legal team from Winston & Strawn would have snuffed out any improper conduct in the course of the trial? Give me a break with your fairness BS.
His problem was the well-known and documented corruption throughout his tenure resulting in the deaths of several people. Make no doubt about it, this guy is guilty.
He deserves no leniency. He has yet to apologize to the Willis 'family' for their loss. He's too arrogant and elitist to consider an apology to the Willis', even in private. He'll never apologize to the citizens of Illinois for wasting our money to expose his deceitfulness and selfishness. He is the embodiment of what a public servant should not be.
In his last days as a free man, he continues to talk about his 'journey' or his 'hope' rather than taking responsibility and accountability for his actions. He shows no remorse for his misconduct on any level. I hope he dies in prison.
Guest 11, you're an idiot!
That was not an accident that killed the Willis children!
It was an unnecessary wreck due to incompetence at driving!
It was caused by an unqualified driver getting a commercial driver's license by paying a bribe to a driving examiner that was specifically placed in his position by Ryan or one of Ryan's trained stooges.
A portion of the bribe was kicked up to Ryan's campaign fund.
The driver of the truck had been repeatedly radioed by other truck drivers that a part of his truck was falling off, but he ignored those radio messages.
After the wreck Ryan assigned a top aide, Dean Bauer, to make sure that all the incriminating evidence got buried!
Bauer went to prison for his part in this.
As for putting him in a prison near to his family, why not stuff him in one of the three that the US Bureau of Prisons maintains in Terre Haute, Indiana. That's only 116 miles from Kankakee!
12: I dislike Ryan and think he is guilty, but I also think everyone--even the rich and/or connected--deserve all the benefits of due process.
Apparently you don't.
I hope you are never charged with a crime, then. Let's see what tune you will be singing then.
I also think punishment for the type of conduct Ryan was convicted of should be far harsher than now exists.
Aye aye aye. Ryan was charged with and convicted of public corruption, not an attenuated tort against the Willis family, guest 8 (and others). As for his trial, the two alternates sat through the trial and heard the same evidence as the two jurors thrown out. Do you think the evidence changed when they entered the room? I don't, guest 7.
Ryan's trial was more fair than most of us would have gotten, and he deserves to run his appeals out, serve his time, and become a political commentator, ala Dan Rostenkowski.
It is not proper to remove and replace jurors after deliberations have been going on for a week, nor is it proper to pick and choose which jurors you remove when serval acted inproperly. This does not constitute a fair trial by jury. How you can say this is fair is beyond me. Any judge worth half a damn would have scuttled the whole thing and declared a mistrial, if for no other reason than to avoid this issue.
But no, the People speent too much money putting this thing together, and Palmeyer wasn't about to let the thing go into the toilet on her watch. So she forced it. She tweaked the jury until it let her avoid a mistrial.
If you're going to demand justice, you have to demand it for all, even for those you don't like, even for those who are rich and arrogant, even for those you KNOW deep down inside are guilty. That's really what stinks about democracy ... it applies even to the unsavory.
You are very misinformed. The entire court has not agreed to hear the case. The original 3-judge panel agreed to let Ryan stay out on bond while his attorneys are filing a petition for en banc (entire court) review. Ryan will remain free until the court rules on his request. If they agree to hear the case en banc, then he may ask to remain free pending rehearing. If they deny his request, he has 72 hours to report for jail. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
4:31 is correct. The Seventh Circuit has not "agreed to give it a full hearing," as the author incorrectly assumes. Rather, the Ryan defense team has decided to petition the court for a rehearing en banc (in which all eleven judges vote on the outcome of the case). A petition for rehearing en banc is a rather common tactic taken by the losing party in an appeal, especially when the losing party has the benefit of a strong dissent in the original panel. (Judge Kanne's dissent in this case has some good points.)
I think we'd all take Chicagoist's political analysis more seriously if we felt the facts it presented were thoroughly researched and understood.