Conrad Black Trial Historic
May 26, 2007 · By George Freeman
Whatever the verdict in the Conrad Black trial, we seem to be witnessing a unique turn of history in American justice, a turn this trial reveals, whichever side comes out on top. Mark Steyn’s coverage has been nothing short of extraordinary; when all is said and done, the verdict rendered, appeals filed (be they necessary), he has more than enough material for another best-seller; one that will be read for years, possibly even like we still read about the Dreyfus Affair.
Regardless of your view of Lord Black, his ability to challenge the prosecution on their own terms, to play their game and reveal it largely a fraud, spectacle and all, will ripple across the American justice system for years to come.
Here’s the jist of it:
We’re in the ninth year – whoops, my mistake, ninth week – of this trial and, in the longueurs of mid-afternoon as some underwhelming attorney combs the fine print of the 2001 10K SEC filing for the umpteenth time, one’s mind naturally wanders to more congenial topics, and often alights on the very pronounced differences between US courts and our own tradition. In the United Kingdom, the routine criticism of the robes and wigs and whatnot is that they can be “intimidating†to the ordinary citizen. Really? I would have thought Joe Public might just as often be reassured by the anachronistic garb: the dress code signals that he is in a system that operates to ancient and enduring legal principles immune to the passing fancies of the age. In the British West Indies, the silk and wing collars and jabots and horsehair wigs exemplify the difference between a genuine rule of law and what passes for justice in Haiti and Cuba.
America, by contrast, has thrown out the costume party and significantly tilted the balance between judge, jury and prosecutor, yet retains Count of Monte Cristo sentences. Indeed, it sometimes seems that the more deals you cut with “witnesses†the more decades get piled on to whoever the remaining designated “criminal†is. If you believe the government’s version of events, Black and Radler committed the same crimes and stole exactly the same amount of money. Yet Conrad Black is facing 101 years in jail, which means he will almost certainly die in prison, while David Radler will get 29 months, which means that, as the US is not opposing his transfer to British Columbia, he will (under Corrections Canada policy) serve just six months, most likely enjoying the “golf therapy†and other amenities of Ferndale. This time next year, he’ll be back running his company Horizon, the group of small newspapers he filleted off the Hollinger carcass.
“Whatever the verdict in the Conrad Black trial, we seem to be witnessing a unique turn of history in American justice, a turn this trial reveals, whichever side comes out on top.”
Huh? Why?
Sorry, hit “send” too soon. To continue:
A rich business guy has engaged in dubious practices that skirt the edge of the law. He deploys the universal defense used in all such cases: he is a victim of business rivals and a blood hungry press, he did nothing wrong, wounded innocence, acceptable business practices, yada yada yada. See the Lay and Skilling defenses.
The point is that many business practices are difficult to characterize as “illegal”, and that much of what goes on between and within corporations walks that line. Your goal is to make as much money as you can without doing, or getting caught at doing, anything illegal. When you get nailed, you do your damnedest to convince the jury (and, to a lesser degree, the public) that this is all just normal, acceptably stuff. That argument is best delivered with an air of hurt indignation and righteous moral wrath, with just a soupcon of wounded persecution.
Black played it too close to the line and got nailed. The jury may or may not decide that his actions were “illegal”…they were close enough to “illegal” to justify the laying of charges. But in business, the dividing line is a LOT murkier.
All that being said…there’s nothing new about this at all, except Black has successfully branded himself a bold conservative martyr…and apparently convinced George. ;)
“Black played it too close to the line and got nailed.”
Why do you believe this to be true?
Further, whether or not Black is guilty is beside the point I’m trying to make here. My point here is that this case reveals, largely because of Lord Black’s prominence, wealth and resource, his ability to fight US prosecution on its own terms with the best lawyers, that there is something deeply amiss with corporate governance and the American justice system. The quote I offer from Steyn explains this point pretty well.
“Why do you believe this to be true?”
Because enough credible evidence was amassed against him to warrant criminal charges. The game, as it is played, requires that you make lots of money but stay JUST this side of that line.
“Further, whether or not Black is guilty is beside the point I’m trying to make here. My point here is that this case reveals, largely because of Lord Black’s prominence, wealth and resource, his ability to fight US prosecution on its own terms with the best lawyers, that there is something deeply amiss with corporate governance and the American justice system.”
You stated that the Black trial was “historic”, representing “a unique turn of history in American justice”.
I respond that a very rich guy has hired a very good defense lawyer who is using very standard tactics to defend him against very common charges. I see nothing remotely “historic” or “unique” about that…nor did I note anything particularly insightful about Steyn’s comment, which is a standard sycophant’s whine about plea bargains.
What evidence are you talking about? Standard tactics of defence against very common charges? You are very haughty and often glib.
I guess where we divide is that I think Steyn’s commentary on the over-reliance of the American justice system on plea bargaining has merit. And in the due course of time, we shall see whether this case sends ripples across the American justice system or not; depending on the verdict and what everyone makes of it.
However, Steyn’s commentary remains very insightful even though, admittedly, it is not fully expounded upon. And significance wise, his point about the importance of costume is particularly good; the costume and tradition that provide a legal system with the face of legitimacy and authority; the lack of which affects the actors within the system by keeping them insensitive to maintenance of legitimacy and authority beyond straight coercion; the skewing effect that relying too heavily on pleas bargaining has on the delivery of justice.
Writing off Steyn as a sycophant is pretty shallow criticism, there being a great deal to suggest otherwise. His critiques of the substance of this case are hardly third rate, even the prosecutors reading his commentary and commenting to him about it. And furthermore, Mark Steyn is a successful brand himself, a winner with or without Black, hardly needing to make a career that is already made.
“Standard tactics of defence against very common charges? You are very haughty and often glib.”
Sigh. Didn’t expect to exhaust your capacity for adult discussion quite so quickly. Oh, well.
More clearly stated, where Steyn is insightful is how he posits that this case, as the prosecution as tried to paint it with one brush, among others, has more to do with class than wealth; with a justice system that has little regard for “class” yet would do well to try and get some; with popular liberal antipathy toward “class” and how that drives corporate over-governance in the US; with the wild card verdict a Chicago jury will render on a British peer, not just another rich guy.
“Sigh. Didn’t expect to exhaust your capacity for adult discussion quite so quickly. Oh, well.”
Do you know what haughty means?
Thanks for proving my point.
No problem.
Tom C. seems like a smart man who can carry on an adult discussion. I’ll avoid your threads in future.
OK
Does Radler hail from British Columbia? This would explain why the defence lawyer used Ferndale and its golf course as an example of the harsh treatment a convicted person can expect in a Canadian prison.
I think so. He’s Canadian anyway.
A columnist or blogger should never resort to any kind of put-down to his readers when they challenge his opinion, no matter how ill-informed they may be. Although I agree with your analysis of the Black situation, Mr. Freeman, I feel that both your professionalism and your respect for the readers who have taken the time to consider your opinion leave much to be desired.