{"id":14001,"date":"2011-07-11T08:26:10","date_gmt":"2011-07-11T13:26:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=14001"},"modified":"2011-07-11T08:34:22","modified_gmt":"2011-07-11T13:34:22","slug":"seventh-circuit-reaffirms-conviction-of-gov-ryan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/07\/seventh-circuit-reaffirms-conviction-of-gov-ryan\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Conviction of Gov. Ryan"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"\"<\/a>As the Casey Anthony trial\/cultural moment\/media feeding frenzy\u00a0reached its denouement last week, two of the biggest trials of 2006 collided in the Seventh Circuit. \u00a0Five years ago, Illinois Gov. George Ryan and Enron President Jeffrey Skilling were both convicted of mail fraud. \u00a0From there, the two cases took quite different paths. \u00a0Ryan\u2019s conviction was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, but Skilling managed to win a partial reversal in the Supreme Court a year ago, as the Court substantially narrowed the reach of the mail-fraud statute. \u00a0Ryan immediately sought another review of his conviction through a 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2255 motion, arguing that the jury in his case was improperly instructed in light of Skilling<\/em>. \u00a0The district court denied relief, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision last Wednesday. \u00a0Ryan v. United States<\/a><\/em> (No. 10-3964)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The court did not stake out any new ground legally in Ryan<\/em>, but the opinion does provide a helpful roadmap of some of the opportunities and pitfalls that face defendants who try to take advantage of a new, narrowing construction of a criminal statute after their direct appeals have been exhausted.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Forfeiture is one of the major pitfalls. \u00a0Defendants will not normally anticipate potentially favorable rulings in other cases in the future, which means that arguments based on those rulings will not be made and preserved at trial. \u00a0Such forfeiture usually prevents the arguments from being made later in a collateral challenge. \u00a0\u201dWith respect to arguments that were not made at trial, the appropriate standard on collateral review for evaluating the content of jury instructions is \u2019cause and prejudice.\u2019\u201d \u00a0(4)<\/p>\n

Ryan argued that the \u201ccause\u201d prong was satisfied in his case because the arguments he might have made regarding jury instructions were foreclosed by pre-Skilling<\/em> Seventh Circuit precedent. \u00a0No dice. \u00a0\u201d\u2018[C]ause\u2019 in the formula \u2019cause and prejudice\u2019 means some impediment to making an argument. \u00a0That the argument seems likely to fail is not \u2019cause\u2019 for its omission.\u201d \u00a0(6)<\/p>\n

Having failed to satisfy the cause and prejudice test, one possibility remained for Ryan: \u201c[F]orfeiture is not conclusive when a person is innocent.\u201d \u00a0(7) \u00a0Thus, the court observed, \u201cIf Skilling <\/em>establishes that Ryan is innocent of mail fraud, then he is entitled to relief notwithstanding his lawyers\u2019 failure to anticipate its holding.\u201d \u00a0(8)<\/p>\n

But what exactly was Ryan required to prove in order to show his innocence? \u00a0\u201dThe right question . . . is whether, applying current legal standards [i.e., post-Skilling<\/em> law] to the trial record, Ryan is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. \u00a0If yes, then the mail fraud convictions must be vacated; if no, then they stand.\u201d \u00a0(9)<\/p>\n

As instructed, Ryan\u2019s jury could have convicted him based on the receipt of any secret financial benefit. \u00a0Today, however, Skilling<\/em> requires an actual bribery or kickback scheme. \u00a0Did the evidence at trial show bribery? \u00a0The Seventh Circuit had little difficulty answering the question in the affirmative:<\/p>\n

The record shows compellingly \u2014 indeed, Ryan admits \u2014 that he received substantial payments from private parties during his years as Secretary of State and Governor. . . . [T]here is no doubt that a properly instructed jury could<\/em> have deemed the payments bribes or kickbacks; the inference that they were verges on the inescapable. \u00a0The district court\u2019s opinion canvasses the evidence and demonstrates why a reasonable jury could find that Ryan sold his offices to the high bidders. \u00a0(10-11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Cross posted at Life Sentences Blog.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the Casey Anthony trial\/cultural moment\/media feeding frenzy\u00a0reached its denouement last week, two of the biggest trials of 2006 collided in the Seventh Circuit. \u00a0Five years ago, Illinois Gov. George Ryan and Enron President Jeffrey Skilling were both convicted of mail fraud. \u00a0From there, the two cases took quite different paths. \u00a0Ryan\u2019s conviction was affirmed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,28,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law-process","category-seventh-circuit","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14001","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14001\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}