Toronto Life: The Trial of Conrad Black

The Trial of Conrad Black Toronto Life

Blogs

Posts with category ‘Legal File’

Ken Whyte, Conrad Black and a conflict of interest

Posted on February 13, 2008 by Douglas Bell

On a day when the Hollinger three filed joint papers with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a final effort to delay their imprisonment, I am going to rewind the tape to reprise a peripheral issue in the trial of Conrad Black—one that may, in the long run, have even more profound consequences than the demise of the great man himself.

Continue...


David Frum’s laughable defence

Posted on January 30, 2008 by Douglas Bell

Predictably, the U.S. government renounced Conrad Black’s arguments in favour of his remaining free on bail pending appeal. As reported in a CP wire story, prosecutor Edward Siskel was particularly contemptuous of Black’s contention that evidence presented at trial “was insufficient to support his corrupt intent for the obstruction of justice conviction.” Retorted Siskel:

Continue...


Let the appeal shenanigans begin

Posted on January 17, 2008 by Douglas Bell

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Black’s appeals lawyer, Andrew Frey, is quoted in the Post this morning suggesting that the strongest element of his client’s appeal (and hence the strongest reason for Amy St. Eve to grant him bail pending that appeal) is the vulnerability of the obstruction charge:

Continue...


“Most over-lawyered proceedings in recent history”

Posted on January 16, 2008 by Douglas Bell

News from Chicago this morning: the prosecution’s lead attorney, Eric Sussman, is seeking greener pastures in the private sector. The same Trib article also mentions Hugh Totten, who commented wittily and non-stop in the press throughout the Black trial from his post as a commercial litigator at the Chicago firm Perkins Coie. He is now starting, along with a couple of other partners from big league firms, the Valorem Law Group. They aim to compete with the majors primarily on price. I asked Totten whether his experience following the Black trial influenced his decision. Continue...


Bungle and delay: The OSC doesn’t strike again

Posted on January 9, 2008 by Douglas Bell

As I reported in Monday’s post, the Ontario Securities Commission’s effort at holding the Hollinger Four to account for their various financial transgressions was meant to be up and running Tuesday afternoon (and by “up and running” I mean, of course, a hearing to hammer out a schedule aimed at holding The Four accountable, etc., etc.). Yesterday morning, a press release arrived from the OSC announcing that the hearing has been further delayed until March 28: Continue...


Things I saw that left my jaw swinging

Posted on December 30, 2007 by Douglas Bell

As much as I dread it, like every other dog and his dog, I’m going to lift my leg and offer up a year-ender. In lieu of the usual categories (winners/losers, laurels/darts, thumbs-up/-down/-sideways) I’ve decided on an entirely subjective metric that allows for my eccentricity, narrative flow and abject laziness. Herewith then are the first three entries in a series of Things I Saw and/or Heard at the Trial of the 10th of This Century So Far™ That Left My Jaw Swinging in the Air Like an Poorly Hinged Window:

Continue...


In bed with Justice

Posted on December 28, 2007 by Douglas Bell

With the holidays on and media mentions down to year-end wrap-ups (“it was a tough year for convicted felon and soon to be inmate Conrad Black blah blah blah”), one of the more intriguing threads left dangling in the Conrad Black affair is the recent revelation by Rick Westhead in the Star concerning Wall Street Journal reporter Elena Cherney’s cozy reportorial relationship with lead prosecutor Eric Sussman:

Continue...


Lord Black: Something of a saviour

Posted on December 19, 2007 by Douglas Bell

Brigades of stories yesterday recounting the sentencing of David Radler. Most say more or less the same thing. In cutting his deal, Radler ends up somewhere between lucky and smart—lucky in that had the judge had her druthers, Radler would be serving rather a lot more time. And, irony of ironies, by setting the bar so low in his deal with the government, “fundamental fairness” dictates that the rest of the Hollinger four do proportionally less time than they might have otherwise. Radler ends up, perhaps inadvertently, as something of a saviour for his former partner. Maybe that’s why in yesterday morning’s Star, Black, for the first time since Radler pleaded out, looked back on their 30-year partnership more with disappointed nostalgia than vitriol: “He was a good partner for a long time. I don’t know what went wrong with him. I was happy to work with him for almost 30 years but should have parted company with him then.”

Continue...


Black Watch: Today’s Top Stories

Posted on November 6, 2007 by Douglas Bell

Plenty to mull over today in light of Amy St. Eve’s entirely expected ruling quashing Conrad Black et al.’s efforts to elicit a new trial or overturn their convictions (with one notable, if relatively minor, exception: the judge overruled one of Mark Kipnis’ three fraud convictions). Beyond recitations of the obvious, reports of St. Eve’s findings suggest that this could be the first in a series of legal routs facing Black up to and including his sentencing. Writing in the National Post, Peter Brieger and Theresa Tedesco point out that new sentencing guidelines introduced in 2006 for securities fraud could add as much as two years to each count of the fraud convictions facing the Hollinger four. The Eddies, on the other hand, argue that those guidelines were introduced long after the crimes were committed and that, at any rate, given the leniency of Radler’s sentence, the mammoth sentences being asked for by the prosecution (in Black’s case, 19 to 24 years) “offends fundamental notions of justice.” For all that, a close reading of St. Eve’s findings points to the desperation of the defendants’ arguments. To wit:

Continue...


Black Watch: Today's Top Stories

Posted on August 1, 2007 by Douglas Bell

Well, the plot thickens. After yesterday’s steamy love letter from Greenspan to Mark Steyn, this morning finds Andrew Harris of Bloomberg revealing that prosecutors have filed a letter from a Canadian Justice Department official, one Thomas Beveridge, with the court. In essence, the missive suggests that Eddie’s claim about there not being “…a court in our land that would not immediately enforce” Conrad’s potential waiver of his right to an extradition hearing is, ah, wrong. In language that would slow photons to a walk, Beveridge explains that the “Lack of express statutory authority to enforce these prior undertakings gives rise to the possibility of extensive litigation in our courts.” Whatever. The point is that Conrad’s hop, skip and jump back to the Bridle Path just got a little harder (leaving aside other recent pyrotechnics), and rather than caesars at Shoeless Joe’s for the rest of the summer, it may have to be G&Ts at The Breakers.

Black's Extradition Isn't Guaranteed, Canadian Says [Bloomberg]

Continue...


“Truth” or Consequences

Posted on May 16, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

Much has been made of the fact that David Radler is testifying before his own sentencing, which can have a negative impact if the prosecution decides he did not testify “truthfully.” Calling the version of the relevant history that the prosecution agrees with—because it builds their case against Black and the other accused—“the truth” begs a crucial question. If nothing else, it constantly reminds the jury their loyal servants in the prosecutor’s office are not just presenting evidence; they are putting forth “the truth” as they believe, in all their public service earnestness, to the bottom of their public servant hearts, to be the one and only.

Continue...


That’s My Story and I’m Sticking To It

Posted on May 11, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

Last posting I discussed the real legal issues and the relevant evidence. There is a school of thought that discounts the significance of both those things. A criminal trial, this popular theory says, is a battle between competing “stories.” The jury, for reasons beyond conscious awareness, becomes engaged by the story of one side or the other, and then interprets the evidence so as to support their preconception.

Continue...


Legal File: Video Hits

Posted on April 13, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

It is not completely clear how and why the Torys lawyers were able to get away with testifying by means of videotaped depositions. The prosecution talked about their right “not to appear in a foreign court,” but it is difficult to believe that lawyers in a major law firm with international associations could not have been compelled to attend in person if the prosecution had really wanted it. It’s likely the prosecution felt their evidence was better presented via videotape, if for no other reason than there could be no unwanted surprises in cross-examination. Once videotaped, the evidentiary concrete would be hardened and set before the trial began, and there would be no risk of those “foreign” lawyers—whom the prosecutors probably viewed with suspicion to begin with—suddenly answering questions in a way that harmed the prosecution and assisted the accused.

Continue...


Legal File: Nine days later: who’s winning?

Posted on April 2, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

Anyone reading the press reports of the evidence at the Conrad Black trial could be forgiven for not knowing who is winning. Both sides are proving facts that they correctly feel support their side. But both sides cannot be right.

Continue...


Legal File: Rich Man, Poor Man: The Jury Problem

Posted on March 26, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

For several reasons, major fraud trials in Canada are tried without a jury, by a judge alone. One of them is that jury trials are anywhere from 50 to 100 per cent more expensive in time and money than non-jury trials. Everything takes longer. Concepts and points of law that are routine for a judge will often be novel and strange to a juror, so evidence must be presented slowly and carefully. Even for a wealthy accused, this is not an irrelevant consideration. Complex business practices and corporate manoeuvres may simply be unteachable in the courtroom setting. Ever since the O.J. Simpson criminal trial jurors told the media that they ignored the DNA evidence because “it was too complicated,” lawyers have been reminded of the limitations of juries.

Continue...


Legal File: Can Black beat 17 charges?

Posted on March 20, 2007 by Alan D. Gold

Canadian indictments are usually a page or a few pages long, rarely more. They set out the criminal charges, generally in the wording of the Criminal Code section, with some additional details and particulars of the relevant allegations.

Continue...