Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
I suppose we’re seeing nothing more than respectful disagreement among thoughtful jurists, but there does seem to be an exquisite process of calibration shaping the appellate court’s response to George Ryan’s appeal. To review, the former governor was convicted 18 months ago of corruption in office and sentenced to six and a half years in prison. Codefendant Lawrence Warner was sentenced to three and a half years. Their trial was a messy one — it dragged on for six months, and while the jury was deliberating the Tribune turned up evidence that some of the jurors had lied on their questionnaires. At that point Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer suspended the trial, grilled the individual jurors, and replaced two who’d concealed arrest records. Ryan appealed, and last August a panel of three appellate judges voted two to one to uphold the verdict. The dissenting judge, Michael Kanne, cited the “dysfunctional jury deliberations” and said he had no doubt “that if this case had been a six-day trial, rather than a six-month trial, a mistrial would have been swiftly declared.”
The dissents have been so vigorous they’ve made it possible to imagine Ryan and Warner actually getting off in the end, which has made it easier for Pallmeyer to let them remain free while they appeal. But they haven’t gotten off. A tarnished trial has been harshly criticized. But it hasn’t been overturned. In a perfect legal world, guilt is always punished and principle is always defended. The handiest place to stand on principle is in dissent.
