This is the article on yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_us/senator_investigation_trial
I often wonder if Salmmy's trial had been a corruption trial if he would be guilty? It was hinted at by both sides (though the defense was hinting that the prosecution was hinting that Salmmy was corrupt - you see how confusing this could get? This is why we had to take notes!!), but never proven. I don't even remember any evidence suggesting corruption. Though, of course, every time it was hinted at by the prosecution the defense would object. There were even times when I would catch onto to the tone of the question the prosecution put forth before the defense would and then I would look expectantly at the defense waiting to see who would pop up with the objection. Sometimes poor Rob Riggle would like a prairie dog the way he would have to keep jumping up and objecting. I guess thats how lawyers stay fit.
I do want to mention the stoopid juror on the Fumo (I keep wanting to type Fuma) trial who posted on twitter and facebook about the trial before the trial was over!!! GAH! I want to smack them upside the head! When the judge tells you not to talk about the case he means DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE CASE!!! Its really hard to do, but its called endurance, punk! Don't you think I wanted to tell all my buddies who were politic-addicts about the trial I was on?!?!? But did I? NO! Now you can't shut me up about the case - BUT ITS OVER!!! Seriously, this conviction could be overruled because some punk had to tweet! I know, I know. I did tell friends and family I was ON a trial, and if this punk had just left it at that then everything would be hunky-dory, but he didn't. Here's the quote from the article:
Monday's verdict came shortly after the judge ruled that a juror could remain on
the panel despite his posts about the case on Facebook and Twitter.
The juror told the judge
in a closed-door hearing early in the day that none of his online "friends" had
commented back to him about the Fumo case. The juror said the posts were his way of
talking to himself and expressing his emotions, and were not intended to
communicate anything to others, according to defense lawyer Peter Goldberger, who attended
The defense believes the posts "tainted" the jury and said it
plans to raise the issue on appeal.
There you go anonymous commenters. Go rag on that juror.