Closing Arguments Made In Burge Trial, Case Handed To Jury

By Marcus Gilmer in News on Jun 25, 2010 2:40PM

Jon Burge's fate is now in the hands of the jury in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial after both sides gave closing arguments yesterday. Burge is accused of lying at a 2003 civil trial about the alleged torture of suspects during his time as Area 2 commander. During this trial, though, his defense team painted the accusers as liars and conspirators, scheming to take Burge down. As he's done for the entire duration of the trial, John Conroy offers the best recap at his blog at Vocalo:

Weisman’s job was to focus the jury on the evidence presented in the five cases, tie the testimony of the victims to the testimony of other witnesses who heard Burge indicate a disregard for a suspect’s rights, and define some aspects of the law that the jury would have to apply. Weisman, a former FBI agent, was straightforward, deliberate, methodical, a guided missile politely boring in. Not much heat, but a lot of light.

Richard Beuke closed for the defense. His strategy was to distract the jury from the horrors Burge is charged with and focus them instead on the crimes committed by the five victims. He started in immediately on the one who was guaranteed to arouse the least sympathy, Andrew Wilson, who killed police officers William Fahey and Richard O’Brien on February 14, 1982. Wilson died in November, 2007, and some of his previous testimony was read into the record at this trial. The cop-killer, Beuke said, was “somewhere in the darkest, dingiest corner of hell, laughing hysterically at how he has manipulated this system.”

Though written before the closing arguments were made, this post by Conroy also is a fantastic summary of the trouble each side of the case had to deal with. Per usual, our pal Steve Rhodes also has a great perspective over at Beachwood.

The jury deliberated for about an hour yesterday before calling it a day and will resume this morning.