Blago judge reprimands defense

From NBC's John Yang
Judge James B. Zagel has denied Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Jr.'s request that he revisit his Friday ruling that Adam may not refer in his closing argument to witnesses not called. Adam is not making a fuss today, as he did late yesterday.

Zagel wondered aloud: "This raises the question if what I have before me is tactics -- and if successful, not bad tactics."

Earlier, Zagel assured Adam that going to jail for contempt was never a possibility (though a contempt citation was). "So if you were wonder who to give your watch to, you don't have to worry about that," the judge told Adam.

The net result is that Adam will be allowed to deliver his closing in one chunk today rather than splitting it into a bit on Monday afternoon and the rest this morning, which is what he had asked Zagel to allow him to do -- and Zagel denied -- just before yesterday's blow-up.

Zagel has warned Adam that if he violates his ruling and "repeatedly" mentions witnesses not called, he will end the defense's closing argument. "The last thing I want to do is sit the defense down in closing arguments," he said. "But I am willing to do it and will do it at the point that I can no longer repair damage done to the jury."

All this was done outside the presence of the jury. They then recessed for 10 minutes. When they resume, the jury will be brought back in and Adam will begin Blago's closing arugment.

Explore related topics: politics, blagojevich

June, Fl

This very trial seems to be much to do about nothing but Blogo's big mouth and that's not a criminal offense. The Prosecutor jumbed the obvious. The reason we were given for impeaching this man has turned out not to be true, he was just running his Big mouth!

Can't wait to see any real facts not just flapping his mouth in terms of actual charges!

This is America, that's why some elements in the Party folk say anything

Just like the "Charlie Rangle story"

The Media is trying to Make News, the man wants his day in a hearing in congress, Just let him have it and stop suggesting Media that he's guilty!

Why do we have trials and hearings if the Media has the Answers

Check out and google Rangle your will find the following"

Charlie Rangle is googled 1,000% more than Sen. Vitter and Ensign, public servants who actually admit to wrong doing and is still being paid by the Tax payers, they are actually guilty and getting away with it

I for one and others would like to do this the American way of Truth and Justice, Let Charlie have his day in hearings, guilty then he goes the way with the rest of the guilty

Not guilty, walk away media and stop trying to prematurely "Ruin Someone's Life and Career" as you all did with Ms. Sherrod"

Not One Media lesson was learned from the Shirley Sherrod Story they are at it again, making news!

#1 - Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:39 PM EDT

Robert Burnside

Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... does anybody remember that quaint old phrase? We don't withhold that protection just because we don't like the defendant's hairstyle or his big mouth. The prosecutors either have the evidence or they don't. If they don't, they shouldn't be trying this case at all!! They should have dismissed it. It is a big risk for the defense to rest without offering any evidence, but many defense lawyers do so because they believe the jury remembers that quaint old phrase... and they are usually right. Jurors are usually smarter that all the lawyers in the room combined.