Back to regular view     Print this page

Subscribe   •   EasyPay   •   e-paper
Reader Rewards   •   Customer Service

Become a member of our community!
George Ryan Trial :: printer friendly »   email article » AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Sun-Times Blogs ::

Find out more aboutjump2web View today's jump2web features jump2web

TOP STORIES ::
Sandi Jackson might run for Congress too

Trading spaces: CME moves

Ozzie refuses to play race card, even when justified

Good meals for $10 or less

Author of baby care bible finds new drive


VIDEO ::   MORE »




Judge to Ryan: Go to prison Jan. 4

October 14, 2006

Former Gov. George Ryan has to report to prison Jan. 4, a federal judge ruled Friday, rejecting his request to remain free as he appeals a public corruption conviction.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled Ryan must begin serving his 6½-year sentence even though defense lawyers argued they have a strong case for appeal.

"We're very pleased with the court's decision," U.S. attorney spokesman Randall Samborn said.

Ryan's lawyers did not immediately return a call for comment. Ryan also could not be reached for comment. Ryan's lawyer, Dan Webb, previously said that the prison term was like a death sentence for his client because he would be nearly 73 by the time he begins serving.

Defense lawyers had argued that Ryan shouldn't have to go to prison right away because they believe serious questions remain over Ryan's verdict. Deliberations were interrupted after eight days when two jurors were removed for failing to disclose criminal backgrounds.

'Investigated each allegation'
Two new jurors were swapped in, and the newly formed jury convicted Ryan and businessman Lawrence Warner on 22 counts. Pallmeyer later threw out two of the counts but upheld the conviction. Ryan's trial lasted nearly six months.

But Ryan's lawyers argued there was further juror misconduct, including other jurors who gave misleading answers on their questionnaires and weren't tossed.

Pallmeyer rejected defense contentions, including that material brought in to the deliberation room was inappropriate enough to taint proceedings, that the foreperson had outside discussions about deliberations, then lied about it, and that the newly formed jury could not truly start over on its deliberations.

"The court investigated each allegation at the time ... and concluded either that the incident did not constitute misconduct at all, or that the conduct did not prejudice the defendants," Pallmeyer wrote.

Pallmeyer previously said she believes the defense "significantly overstated the degree of juror misconduct in this case."