Monday, June 12, 2006

The Shark knows sh**

Wow, my record as a jury prognosticator is taking a beating, although my larger point has been that if you aren't there, it's hard to know. Hell, if you are there, it's hard to know. I think, as I said last week, that Thompson's testimony turned it into a credibility contest. Rather than explain away her statements about what her bosses wanted, she chose to deny them. The problem was, if the jury believed the other witnesses, there is not much of a not guilty scenario left.

Some bloggers (Seth) took me to task for suggesting that an acquittal would not be an exoneration of Doyle. I'd stick by my guns, but I'll be darned if I can see how a conviction doesn't amount to foul plunge for Doyle. This jury isn't the be all and end all, but they certainly thought that, at least, the governor's minions were dirty.

One last comment on Wisconsin lawprof Frank Turkheiemer's statement that the fact that Thompson didn't give any one up meant there was no one to give up. Criminal conspiracies don't always unravel all the way to the top. Sometimes (although rarely), there is honor among thieves. More frequently, there is skill. Those on the top manage to insulate themselves from effective prosecution. I wonder if that will turn out to be the case here?


James Wigderson said...

Rick, could she still roll over on someone for a lighter sentence recommendation at this stage?

Rick Esenberg said...

Yes, she most definitely could. Cooperation helps on the sentencing guidelines. She's lost yards of leverage - and credibility. But post-conviction deals do happen. I don't know that it's likely, but it could happen.