Igor Danchenko Acquitted on All Remaining Charges
NYT, Politico, and HuffPo are all reporting that the jury has acquitted Igor Danchenko on all four remaining charges against them.
Shortly before they did so, the jury had asked for a report that had been used to refresh Danchenko handling agent’s memory about why Danchenko had not corrected Christopher Steele’s incorrect memories about their conflicting Millian stories in 2017. There was an extended exchange before Danchenko’s lawyers noted — having won a fight to exclude Christopher Steele’s testimony pre-trial — that this was hearsay.
Q. If you take a look at Government’s Exhibit 103 and see if that refresh your recollection as to whether or not there was yet another occasion that you raised or asked questions of Mr. Danchenko relating to these matters?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was it that you met with Mr. Danchenko and Millian came up again?
A. I’m looking at the wrong —
Do you have Government’s Exhibit 103 there?
A. I have one — oh, here we go, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. So it’s November the 2nd.
Q. Okay. So why don’t you just take a moment and look at that and see if that refreshes your recollection as to the date which you met with Mr. Danchenko and the Millian matter came up yet again?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the date?
A. November the 2nd, 2017.
Q. All right. And on November 2nd, 2017, was that some kind of telephone connection or was that a face-to-face meeting?
A. That was a face-to-face.
Q. So you are with him? He’s not like — no interference in the phone or anything, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall, sir, why it was that you had occasion to go back to, yet again, ask about this Millian piece in November of 2017?
A. There had been — this, I think, goes to the fact that Brian was still saying there was inconsistency in what Mr. Danchenko was saying as opposed to what Mr. Steele was saying with respect to Millian’s — his connection or his contact with Millian.
Q. And so tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury on November 2nd now, of 2017 — on October 24th, he now says that there were a couple of calls. Now, on November 2nd, you’re confronting him now about what he told Steele regarding him actually meeting with Millian, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And with respect to what you were asking Mr. Danchenko on November 2nd, what is it that Mr. Danchenko told you regarding Steele and what he had told Steele or not told Steele about meeting with Millian?
A. He said that Steele had the idea — that Steele believes that Mr. Danchenko had met in person and he never corrected Mr. Steele’s thought in that, is that he was pretty much tired of talking about it. He — Steele was pressuring him to answer questions that Steele — that Millian could potentially answer. So the pressure was get with Millian, get a report, and Igor was — I let him have what I — I told him what I know and he still believed that I was in — it was an in-person meeting and I never corrected him because I was tired of talking about it.
MR. SEARS: Your Honor, I apologize to interrupt, but to the extent Mr. Steele’s comments are coming in, my understanding is that they would not be for the truth of the matter asserted —
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. SEARS: — just because the agent heard —
THE COURT: Right.
MR. SEARS: It might be appropriate to inform the jury.
And then minutes later they came back with an acquittal on all charges.
Here’s a comparison about Durham’s work compared to Mueller’s:
WaPo has this from a juror:
The jury in Danchenko’s case deliberated for about nine hours over two days. Juror Joel Greene said in an interview that there were no holdouts in the deliberations and that the decision was “pretty unanimous.”
“We looked at everything really closely,” said Greene, who declined to comment on the politics of the case. “The conclusion we reached was the conclusion we all were able to reach.”
And from Danchenko:
After the verdict was announced, Danchenko choked up and embraced his defense attorneys, Stuart A. Sears and Danny C. Onorato. Danchenko declined to comment, but Sears said outside the courthouse “we’ve known all along that Mr. Danchenko is innocent.”
“We’re happy now that the American public knows that as well,” he said.
Politico’s Kyle Cheney caught Durham making the same canned comment after this face-planting loss as he did after the Sussmann acquittal.
emptywheel coverage of the Danchenko case
John Durham’s Last Word: An Outright Lie about the Mueller Conclusions
John Durham’s Missing Signals (and FaceTime and WhatsApp and iPad)
John Durham Created a False Pee Tape Panic Based Off a “Literally True” Alleged Lie
As John Durham Preps for his Closing Report, His Own Withholdings become Key
“It Certainly Sounds Creepy:” John Durham Adopts the “Coffee Boy” Defense
John Durham Twice Misread Steele Dossier Sourcing to Invent a Partisan Claim
John Durham’s Re-Virgined Birth of the Carter Page and Sergei Millian Investigations
Igor Danchenko Would Have Been a Crucial Witness to Understanding the Disinformation in the Dossier
John Durham Wants to Lecture EDVA Jurors about Being Played by Foreign Spies
On the Belated Education of John Durham
Durham Admits He Has No Real Evidence on Four Millian Counts against Igor Danchenko
“Desperate at Best:” Igor Danchenko Starts Dismantling John Durham’s Case against Him
John Durham’s Igor Danchenko Case May Be More Problematic than His Michael Sussmann Case
On CIPA and Sequestration: Durham’s Discovery Deadends
John Durham’s Cut-and-Paste Failures — and Other Indices of Unreliability
John Durham: Destroying the Purported Victims to Save Them
Source 6A: John Durham’s Twitter Charges
“Yes and No:” John Durham Confuses Networking with Intelligence Collection
John Durham May Have Made Igor Danchenko “Aggrieved” Under FISA
Ooof. That’s gotta smart.
Another swing and a miss for John Durham.
I have heard that the play here is to sue the bastard civilally for tortious interference. Anyone have a link for a go fund? I’ll gladly chip in. (1st post-long time lurker). Keep us going. Thank you all.
Sue Durham? That ain’t gonna work. Welcome, and comment more often please!
A swing and a miss – is that it for Durham Bull this season?
Oh! Nicely put!
in a nod to the former AG: “Dull Barr Hum”
Father. Can you help an old alter boy. I’m Catholic.
Is this the last we will hear of Durham?
He’s going to issue a report wrapping it all up, and of course nothing stops him from later putting together a documentary with Dinesh D’Souza or performing in a one man cabaret act.
It will be interesting to see what the report says, my 2 cents says it will read like one of Barr’s ‘summaries’ so the RWNM has some more red meat. It will also drop about Halloween to limit rebuttals before the election.
A question for the lawyers here, does Durham’s current immunity from prosecution extend to a civil case brought by someone defamed in the report to come? I’d hate to think official lying is untouchable. After all, two juries (the finders of facts) did not agree with Durham’s team.
Yes, it likely would.
The history of prosecutorial immunity and, say, the state secrets doctrine, suggests official lying is often untouchable.
Plato said that it’s not permissible to lie to the authorities, but the authorities are free to lie anytime they please. So Republicans are just following the precepts of The Republic.
I think Barr’s summaries will prove to be vastly better done than what Durham turns in.
My guess is we’re going to see a passing of the torch where the nuts take whatever “evidence” Durham has chummed up, and it will be repackaged in ways that try to prove if Durham had only been competent, there was an ironclad case that Hillary Hillary Hillary Biden Obama Hillary.
Durham’s going to find out he’s disposable.
It’s already started
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/danchenko-acquitted-comey-fbi-guilty-perpetrating-russia-hoax
[FYI – URL replaced to remove tracking to your personal device, your Google account, in connection with comments at this site. Please avoid picking up links from Google Search results. Additionally, please use a more unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. Thanks. / ~Rayne]
Ugh. I read some of that Fox opinion and some of the comments.
I’m worried now that my IQ will bottom out.
How can he write a meaningful report without revealing grand jury testimony as to subjects for which there was never a prosecution? Is there some exception applicable to his report?
Durham’s target audience may be more may have emotionally driven standards of what is reasonable and soundly based.
(Was recently informed in a pub that everything indicative of Trump being compromised by Russia had been disproved. How such people know what Trump was filmed doing to who I don’t know.)
Both would be a hard sell because Barr’s chin & jowls closely resemble a scrotum.
Lounge Lizard at the Radison…
Six inches of powder with a 50-inch base…
https://youtu.be/ljiVRV5B5i8
Soon he’ll be opening for Kyle Whatsisname and former Bremerton Coach “50 Yard Line” Kennedy.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Not if Republicans take the house, they’ll probably drug up the “Russia Hoax” for two years
He could appeal the one count that was dismissed, however, it is unlikely appellate would overturn and send back for trial, but with Durham you never know. One thing I found odd was where was the obstruction of justice count? If someone lied to investigators then they also obstructed justice, which would be trivial to prove once at least one of the other charges was convicted on,
@shadowalker: There will be no appeal.
If at trial, the court dismisses a charge on the merits, that’s the end of it. Double jeopardy.
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) among others. And Danchenko’s position is far stronger than Burks’s.
“Nadda nadda and nadda”
Well said.
I can’t wait to see how you’ll phrase the last entry in the Durham column, once all this is over.
yes, Marcy’s table is brilliant with the added bonus of her dry snarky humor! the table rather succinctly summarizes many of her posts, kinda like the cliff”s notes version. thanks for the outstanding and insightful coverage!
Come for the incomparable trial coverage. Stay for the deliciously snarky chart.
Thank you, Dr. Wheeler, for every bit of it.
EW.
Correct on Durham for years. Other journalists? Not so much.
Thank you!
When we started this here blog, I think I may have been the first to call out Durham, and did so naming a prominent WaPo reporter at the time. It is not just Marcy.
True bmaz!
My regrets for not noting you too!
NYT:
The verdict was another stinging defeat for the special counsel, John H. Durham…
By the way, RIP Rico Suave.
…he coulda been a contender.
I had to go check and see if Geraldo had passed away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8_f3kJOX_8
Wait, there was more than one Rico? Does Punaise know?
For gay men of a certain age, there is only one Rico Suave.
I’ve always thought we were personifying bmaz’s pet peeve: the RICO process. In past threads we’ve joked about Uncle Rico from the movie Napoleon Dynamite (the washed-up middle aged dude who never got past being a semi-star in high school football). I had no idea who Rico Suave is, sorry!
LOL I had to go look up the video – sadly, the artist Gerardo doesn’t have his most popular tune at his own YT page. Perhaps he doesn’t own the IP?
https://youtu.be/6nldpjPbGqg
Ay caramba, cama pirata !
He secretly prefers Weird Al’s “Taco Grande” to his original work.
Gerardo Mejia is now a pastor, married to a beauty queen with 3 lovely children.
Rico slumbers..
John H. Durham scene setup, forlornly looking out of his
basement office window finishing his third bottle of “Red Mountain Vin Rose”…
Durham: Well hell…at least I can retire now.
Bottle? Surely you meant box.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. This is your second user name; you’ve commented as “Disraeli56” in the past. Hope this is just typo. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Another year older…
…or should that be third bottle of “Night Train” or “Mad Dog 20-20”..?
I picture Durham looking in his bathroom mirror, speaking out loud, blaming his goatee for his loss. Not commanding enough.
If only my PR photo made me look even more intense, I coulda been a contender, I coulda been a somebody.
I don’t pray very much, but I would pray Durham is having this thought, in his core, that he is over, save his final report.
Looking forward to how Durham’s “front men” a/k/a the Wall Street Journal editorial board/op-ed will waffle around the verdict?
Prior to Murdock purchasing the WSJ, I noticed that the news stories were very good, while the the opinion page sucked. How’s that playing out these days?
Holman Jenkins and Kimberley Strassel serve up conservative bull shit analysis on a weekly basis
Editorial page has been sucky on this in the last couple of days. Front page is pretty factual on the acquittal. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/igor-danchenko-acquitted-of-lying-to-fbi-about-trump-russia-dossier-11666124849 Not up to Marcie’s standards, but then who is?
Modern section 1 of the WSJ: On this planet pp. 1-15 or so, buffer zone of sports and “personal” features of about 3 pages, on a distant planet with a red sky pp.18-20. This is not so different from pre-Murdoch in the news stories, loonier in the opinion pieces.
I miss Vermont Royster.
Durham managed a single guilty plea on a charge of altering an email. Both of the indictments resulted in acquittals. Emptywheel is correct that it seems the entire MO of Durham’s investigation has been to produce a bogus report which doesn’t say what the investigation actually uncovered. It was a farce.
I’d like to note that Clinesmith was probably pretty defensible, at least against the likes of Durham. Amazing he pleaded out as he did.
Should Clinesmith ask for reconsideration of his plea? It worked for Flynn, but then again he might get jail time. Maybe Biden can pardon him to make RWNJ heads explode.
Was it defensible? He clearly made a false statement which was material. His alleged subjective belief that his alteration reflected true facts was not supportable once one reviews the materials referenced in the altered email. He just never bothered to review them.
But maybe you are right that it might work against Durham.
I think it was. The Van Der Zwann one too. Do you get a win? Not as sure about that. But defensible? Absolutely.
Wasn’t the Clinesmith case mostly worked up by IG Horowitz? That makes Durham’s record even lousier.
Horowitz is garbage too.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Horowitz supposed to do an investigation of the leak of the famous New York Times article stating that the FBI found no Trump links to Russia?
Let me look that up. I’m pretty sure he never finished it.
Correction to myself, it’s this one:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/politics/giuliani-inspector-general-review-2016-fbi-leaks/index.html
Took him 5 years and he found nothing.
Has anyone gotten a comment from Bill “Mueller says no collusion” Barr yet?
WaPo:
And as Kyle Cheney notes [via Marcy, who thought it was pretty funny],
the DURHAM statement is exactly the same
as the one he gave after the Sussman verdict!
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1582476228095008768
4:58 PM · Oct 18, 2022
So he has a form letter to confirm his failures? That’s a level of preparation that wasn’t seen in his investigation…
LOL, Durham is a complete jackass, but we’re gonna hear about the investigation for the next two years if pubs take the House
Finally! An end to a long, long, long investigation. So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye Durham.
Igor vies,
Igor vies
Ev’ry verdict delights me
Small and right
Clean and bright
You look happy to meet me
Mar-a-lago, may you fume and blow,
fume and blow forever.
Igor vies,
Igor vies,
Bless our courtrooms forever.
How do you solve a problem like John Durham?
How do you catch a clod and pin him down?
How do you find a word that means a scammer?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!
LOL! Excellent responses from all.
thanks, but we may “just” be getting started!
Durham lied
Igor was halfway crucified
He was on the other side
Of an indictment
Johnny walked in
And a living hell began again
Just when we thought we’d seen his
ultimate fiasco
All night long
FOX would play the same old song
And every word they sang
I knew wasn’t true
Are you with me Johnny D
Are you really just a shyster
With lies ‘bout a tape on pee
Are you crazy are you high
Or one of Trump’s dishonest guys
Do you work with Trump for free
Are you with me Johnny
Apologies to Steeley Dan
chapeau!
Is there gas in the car?
Yes, there’s gas in the car.
I think the people at DOJ know who you are…
[Rayne, howz this for my expanded name?]
[Not going to work for me, Matt. I need to be able to search/sort users’ names to confirm identities and quirky characters aren’t going to cut it. Thanks. /~Rayne]
[trying again]
[Matt — I’m pretty sure in one of the threads I indicated dashes (-) or underbars (_) would be acceptable. Or add a favorite or lucky number. Please, this is not about being cute. You just have to have a name which is easy for you to remember and for me to confirm easily someone else isn’t trying to spoof your identity. I am spending far too much time trying to validate users for both the site and community members’ security — give me a break. /~Rayne]
This takes me back to my entire youth, Alan, and brings it full circle. Steely Dan plus John Durham. Who’d a thunk it? Kudos!
“And I’m never going back to that old fool”?
I thought since you liked my “Panic in Detroit” effort, this one would make you smile.
You look a lot like Che Guevara.
Also, too, I wish someone would phone.
I can find nothing in Barr’s order appointing Durham (https://www.justice.gov/file/1370931/download) nor in the regulations governing a special counsel (CFR Title 28 Chapter VI Part 600 1-9) that time limits Durham. Other than not complying with DOJ rules and procedures or getting specific Attorney General disapproval, he can go on forever. Maybe this could provide Garland the ammunition to sink him:
Ҥ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
“(a) Budget.
….. snip …..
“(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year. ”
Durham does seem contemptible enough to force the issue in order to excite rage among the MAGAs.
Durham just tried to yada-yada-yada over elements of the crime!
Was this aquittal as good as the lobster bisque?
The Lobster Bisque I had or dinner last night was excellent! Cold in the tropics this time of year…!
Once Durham finishes his report, he should be fired by Garland. Okay, Garland should ask him to resign and tell him to apologize to Robert Mueller
OT- Dear Dr. Wheeler, I have been an avid reader and admirer of yours since the FDL days and can’t thank you enough for your brilliant reporting and analysis for these many years.
Please forgive me for even asking you to take on one more task, but I’m hoping you might offer your thoughts/analysis on the Tom Barrack trial. There is virtually no ongoing media coverage regarding the trial and, IMHO, the trial and it’s outcome could be of import to many of the issues and investigations you report on so brilliantly.
Quite aside from the implications regarding FARA and national security, and my fervent desire to see a slimy Trumpster receive his comeuppance, I believe that a Barrack conviction could open a floodgate on Trump World and many of the current investigations–especially the TS Docs cases. I’m convinced that of all the people that Trump would have turned to to monetize or weaponize the documents, it would have been Barrack with his vast connections in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I also don’t see ol’ Tommy at age 75 allowing himself to darken the door of a cell without singing like a canary. Unless of course he flees the country given the opportunity.
THANKS for considering my request!
You can do a name search for the site. Results should look something like this:
https://www.emptywheel.net/?s=tom+barrack
Thanks for the reply. I have already read Dr. Wheeler’s previous posts re: Barrack (as I read virtually everything posted on Emptywheel) but I was hoping for her current thoughts on the ongoing trial and it’s implications.
As I said in my comment, there’s very little media coverage–and even if there was, it would in no way be as insightful or trustworthy as Dr. Wheeler’s would be.
Thanks, again.
Thank you for your continued support /s/ Dr. bmaz
No, thank you, Dr. bmaz.
Actually I should have mentioned that I was hoping for thoughts and insight from all the FP’ers as well as the readers.
Btw, it’s always embarrassing to be caught so shamelessly sucking up, but sometimes you just have to swallow your pride for the greater good.
I think some of the thundering herd of witnesses is already on its way because of the J6SC hearings. I’d also agree that Barrack isn’t likely to take a legal bullet for Individual-1 given how he’s not getting much moral support from M-a-L.
What a waste of time, money and precious judicial resources. AG Garland should insist that Durham document every dime spent on this farce and make clear, via new DoJ policies; that no future Special Counsel can be lawfully appointed for such blatantly political objectives.
This is not Garland’s gig you know, right?
I’m not really in favor of such a declaration, since the definition ‘blatantly political objectives’ depends very much on who’s looking at it. The GQP considers the Russian interference or possible Ivanka probe to be ‘political’ but not Benghazi, Hunter Biden or HRC’s emails. However, in our reality based world the latter three very clearly were/are political hatchet jobs. It’s best not to give the GQP any ideas.
Just imagine if the DOJ spent the same resources on investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s black book. Then we might see some R.O.I.
Or, the Panama Papers.
Every tip that came in on the Beer Chug Justice that all went in the c-file! ugh!
Thanks again to Ms. Wheeler, whose coverage of this travesty has been timely and accurate.
I smell a book deal with a potential title: And Justice – For Some.. How I went against the Deep State and (almost) WON! On sale at the next CPAC..
And a speaking spot at the aforementioned – at 11:30am on the 1st day.
So, from the helpful chart, it seems that Durham’s big breakthrough came in month 28.
That’s some pretty dry shade EW throws into the chart. All so very richly deserved. What a waste of everyone’s time and distraction from actual national security issues.
Do people go sane in the jury room?
People talk a lot about the weird verdicts juries hand down, and they definitely happen.
But it’s interesting to me, from all of the juries I’ve heard about and the one I served on, how often jurors take their duty seriously and try to reason things through.
Nobody thinks it’s fun. Not everyone takes it seriously. But most jurors get that real people and real issues are at stake, and make a decent stab at doing justice, at least to the best of their ability.
You are correct about jurors. I study all of that in some detail as part of my research on so-called “deliberation science.” The seminal scholarly multi-author compilation book on the topic is entitled “Inside the Juror.”
My son recently served on a criminal case jury here in Baltimore. His experience confirms to me what I have been learning. Unfortunately, given that I taught collegiate critical thinking and argument analysis for a number of years as an adjunct, I have typically been the first one peremptoried out during voire dire when I’ve been called to jury duty, so I will never get to have first-hand experience of jury service.
Based on my study, I agree you are right. Most jurors take it damn seriously. Particularly if they serve on a case that has a good judge.
I served on a civil case a few years ago on a fender bender (defendant admitted fault) where the plaintiff was claiming long term injury and suing for damages. Even though it was a minor case, the judge was constantly reminding us of our duties to take it seriously, and that we were not to discuss the case with anyone, even other jurors until we were charged with the case for our decision and the verdict. She was quite clear that any trouble would be dealt with swiftly. So yes, jurors tend to take the trials seriously because they are reminded constantly by the judge that there could severe penalties should they not.
We unanimously found for the defendant in about a minute after the door closed on the jury room, then spent about a half hour poking holes in the plaintiff’s arguments (we couldn’t discuss the case before) as we waited for the court to bring us back for the verdict.
Served on one jury. Everybody (except me) coming in complained about a “waste of time.” Everybody going out said it was a good experience. The short deliberation time was thoughtful and cordial. The defendant was acquitted and it was obvious in the courtroom that the cops had a grudge against him and that the prosecuter thought he was auditioning for a remake of “Perry Mason.”
Never served on one, unfortunately, but argued to tons of them. You are right, they really do try, do take their job seriously, and, while not always, really do get it right usually. Kind of remarkable actually.
With all due respect, it is difficult to imagine you (bmaz) getting through jury selection. All these comments on the integrity of jurors notwithstanding, the lawyers on both sides urgently want jurors to be a blank slate. Potential jurors who have practiced in court are an obvious risk to challenge the credibility of either side
Nope. One side, or the other, never wants me. I am resigned to that after all these years. It is pretty funny when I show up and try though. Mrs. bmaz has served twice, and was the forewoman on both. I live vicariously. To be honest, I would not seat me as a juror either.
For a while, my father and I would both get summoned within a two-week period. “Random selection” wasn’t – we would have been fairly close together on the rolls, due to similar names. (Never got called for the same day, though.)
I was up for jury selection in a negligence case. Went through a whole day of issues and questions about past experiences and possible biases. Toward the end, we were all asked if we could assess both sides claims and defenses dispassionately, standard boilerplate.
Had to ask for an aside with the judge and counsel, because, while plaintiff had presented its claims, defendant hadn’t offered any defenses. Didn’t make the cut. But everybody took the process seriously, including the paramedic and the insurance company actuary. (They didn’t make the cut either.)
I had always wanted to be on a jury, but never got called while my friends and family only complained and moaned about being called. Finally a few years ago, I was called to a jury selection. Here in Vermont, the morning spent with lawyers and the judge was as inspirational as anything I’ve been part of in my life. Our role was explained with reverence. The town police chief happened to be among us potential jurors. When asked whether, as a law enforcement officer, he could be objective, he replied that he felt he could be, but that he would be worried the defendant would not feel he could trust him. Everyone treated the law, the rights of all concerned, and our role as sacred. I wish I could remember more detail to convey what a remarkable morning it was. I left the room with a lot less cynicism about our legal system.
Btw, i was selected, but the parties settled while we chatted in the jury room.
It’s amazing what just seeing potential jurors can do. I was in one lot where the guy decided to plead guilty after we were all in the courtroom.
In many ways, and speaking of my experience in civil court, the jury ‘s very potential existence as the *venire* is called up and about to be *voir dire*’d leads to pleas and settlements.
In my home jurisdiction of Illinois a case can be dismissed by the party-plaintiff and refiled up until the first juror is sat. We often choose in panels of four, and back-strike (say the plaintiff has gone first, the defendant strikes, the plaintiff has to complete the panel and back-strikes someone previously accepted) has resulted in settlements as well, at nearly the last second.
For the attys:
I should note that an IL court in its discretion can allow a voluntary dismissal with possibility of re-file for good cause – I did a case a couple years ago where over Thanksgiving a party-defendant got his ass locked up for domestic violence, and as he was necessary for the co-plaintiff to prove his case against co-defendants; co-plaintiff was allowed to voluntary his case which eliminated a cross-claim against my co-plaintiff client and allowed me to voluntarily dismiss in the face of my referring attorney’s malpractice re not tendering that cross-claim to my client’s carrier … fairly big injuries from a semi hitting cars in a funeral procession.
The prospect of re-starting jury selection resulted in the cases’ resolution, noting that *I* did not settle but withdrew myself and referring atty as co-plaintiff’s counsel (liability issues) and I was paid for saving referring atty’s bacon. That then resulted in co-plaintiff getting paid … my client was able to get another atty and refile, altho’ I do not know if they did.
In many ways, and speaking of my experience in civil court, the jury ‘s very potential existence as the *venire* is called up and about to be *voir dire*’d leads to pleas and settlements.
In my home jurisdiction of Illinois a case can be dismissed by the party-plaintiff and refiled up until the first juror is sat. We often choose in panels of four, and back-strike (say the plaintiff has gone first, the defendant strikes, the plaintiff has to complete the panel and back-strikes someone previously accepted) has resulted in settlements as well, at nearly the last second.
For the attys:
I should note that an IL court in its discretion can allow a voluntary dismissal with possibility of re-file for good cause – I did a case a couple years ago where over Thanksgiving a party-defendant got his arse locked up for domestic violence, and as he was necessary for the co-plaintiff to prove his case against co-defendants; co-plaintiff was allowed to voluntary his case which eliminated a cross-claim against my co-plaintiff client and allowed me to voluntarily dismiss in the face of my referring attorney’s malpractice re not tendering that cross-claim to my client’s carrier … fairly big injuries from a semi hitting cars in a funeral procession.
The prospect of re-starting jury selection resulted in the cases’ resolution, noting that *I* did not settle but withdrew myself and referring atty as co-plaintiff’s counsel (liability issues) and I was paid for saving referring atty’s bacon. That then resulted in co-plaintiff getting paid … my client was able to get another atty and refile, altho’ I do not know if they did.
Despite being a lawyer, I ended up being selected for a jury in a breaking and entering case. The prosecution thought I was a safe bet because I practiced tax law and lived in a nice neighborhood, and the defense thought I was a good pick because I handled some white collar crime cases (mostly tax). Almost everyone on the jury took their role seriously.
We ended up with a hung jury (7-5 for conviction). In post-trial interviews, we learned that the prosecutor had declined to offer up the testimony of the defendant’s partner (he had some ugly priors). This testimony likely would have swung the jury in favor of the prosecution. The prosecutor fixed his mistake in the retrial, obtaining a guilty verdict.
Aside from military or naval service in time of war, jury duty is probably the most important obligation of citizenship.
Most questions of policy and decisions of governance we delegate to our elected or appointed representatives, but the decision to convict someone of a crime we reserve to the people.
I look forward to being called for jury duty and it must show, because every time I get called I get chosen. For one long trial we were almost running our of restaurants, as our lunch breaks let us roam around downtown. We all took the tour and got to know each other. When deliberation began everything changed, this happens every time. There are no jokes and the ones I took to be the most law and order turned out to be the most skeptical. Every juror, every time, takes it as seriously as any judge could dream. At least in my experience.
When I lived in Manhattan, I made the acquaintance of the County Clerk (long time ago, no longer alive). He told me he could get me out of jury duty, and I said au contraire, I love jury duty, paid time off, lunch in Chinatown, meet interesting people, do my civic duty. For the next 8 years I averaged 3 jury notices a year, drove my employer crazy. Every jury I served on, 95% took it dead serious.
So, Rapier, you asked, “Do people go sane in the jury room?”
After reading the comments in the thread from your question , I have to admit that the first thing that came into my mind was the SNL skit below. Juries are obviously dependent on all the individuals involved. That would include the behavior of attorneys, the judge, the witnesses, and who is and is not on the jury. When someone commits or suborns perjury, it is not always readily apparent to jurors. When attorneys and/or judges fail to adhere to codes of conduct, that too may not be clear.
I am glad justice prevailed for Danchenko. But that isn’t always what happens. Imagine if the majority of jurors (and a couple of attorneys and possibly a judge) had been MAGA (or the equivalent.) Essentially I believe that is what happened in my civil case. Nevertheless, a few days after I lost in court, I was offered a settlement. I have been told that is unusual. To me, it felt like an underhanded admission that justice didn’t exactly work like it was supposed to during the first attempt.
Should I have accepted offer #2 instead of proceeding to trial? Nah, the experience and those that followed were enriching in many ways.
https://youtu.be/PfPdYYsEfAE
“Close Encounter – SNL”
Served on several juries in two different jurisdictions. Four trials if memory serves correctly. Guilty and innocent verdicts. All jurors were polite, considerate and took on the role seriously. Made me realize and appreciate that it is our duty as citizens to serve.
One memory stands out. A young buxom woman had been arrested for, I think inebriation. She was charge for assault on a police officer for allegedly spitting on him while in custody. She took the stand and accused the cop of foundling her breast and that she reacted without thought. The only evidence was the cops word and hers. The interesting thing is she loudly blurted out spontaneously from the witness chair “that’s not him!” pointing at the testifying cop at the prosecutor’s table. The prosecutor did not contest. I believed her spontaneity as did the other jurors. She was acquitted.
I want to experience a deeply satisfying feeling of schadenfreude at the result, but I don’t believe the normal humiliation of being a federal prosecutor having his ass handed to him on a platter, twice, in highly public fashion even matters to him at this point.
He basically got handed a pet project that gave him untouchable autonomy, tickled his political fetishes, and absolved him of all his routine work assignments for over three years. It’s also provided him a level of chucklehead notoriety to fuel a healthy secondary career milking the aforementioned chuckleheads as a commentator, author, NFT-shill, eventually-disbarred-personal-attorney, mustache wax spokesperson, and who knows what else.
If Durham had any illusions about a secondary career, he should look at how Alan Dershowitz went from a guy who was the hero of a movie that had a Best Actor Oscar, then became a Trump toadie, and now is a pariah mocked for his statement about not taking off his underwear at Jeffrey Epstein’s house.
Durham lost a flawed case, and now the right will blame him for not fulfilling the needs of Trump, rather than accepting that the case was garbage to begin with.
People need to understand that the right eats its own as soon as they fail. The instant Ken Starr became an inconvenience at the right wing institution of Baylor, the right threw him in the trash.
Durham will become the Brett Favre of this tire fire. Bill Barr will skate, just like the Mississippi GOP will continue to feast off of federal dollars, while the dummy who made himself the face of the enterprise becomes the patsy.
One way to fight back is to stop reinforcing the GOP propaganda that they reward people like Durham. Make them understand that complicity doesn’t pay, and they might think harder about drinking the Koolaid.
In the nifty timeline:
The entry “October 2020: Barr burns Danchenko as a source”
might look better as Month 18 in the second column (rather than Month 42 in the first column).
Oh, you mean immediately below:
Why not both? :-) [good catch!]
Although Durham has failed in his ostensible goals, he has succeeded in his underhanded goals. That is: Although he has failed in criminal court, he has accomplished a lot in the public sphere and even in civil court, indirectly.
For example: In an effort to avoid Rule 11 sanctions in the wake of his “civil RICO” suit against Hillary Clinton and dozens of others, Spanky argued:
He refers to this indictment dozens of times.
I don’t think Durham ever wanted to try this case or Sussman’s. The problem is, both defendants called his bluff by not rolling over and implicating others. Durham was left with a whole lot of nothing to put in front of a jury. Things then turned out the way they should have based on the evidence.
When Durham’s report comes out, bear in mind that it will represent one [probably glassy-eyed true believer] version of events. And a report cannot be cross-examined or put on trial. That will be quite alright with the frothers, who don’t want that level of scrutiny.
If I read the regulations correctly, the report is to be confidentially submitted to the Attorney General. He decides whether to release it.
The political pressure on Garland to release whatever Durham emits will be beyond intense. Imagine Tucker Carlson accusing Garland and (of course) Biden of hiding the True Story of the Russia Hoax. Then imagine Hannity and the whole echo chamber reverberating with that rhetoric, which will be adopted, amplified, and weaponized by their audiences.
Garland’s best play would be vetting it for classified information, writing a summary explanation of its claims and how they have been demonstrated or not, and just letting it drop. In other words, don’t let the RWM make it a bigger deal than it has to be.
Gaming out Durham’s options produces possibility of him continuing as SC waiting to see if Repbs get first, control of House, and then later, even control of DoJ. Opportunities for further bullshit indictments seem to remain.
He’ll hang on until he sees how 2024 shakes out. He may end up as our next Attorney General.