A U.S. Marshal told me he had spent three years sitting in courtrooms and never seen a directed verdict.
I’ve seen one.
It was when my 1982 Skinner for Congress campaign manager sued because I didn’t pay what he thought was owed.
We had signed a contact.
My lawyer asked him on cross examination if he had handled press releases, as the contract said he would.
He admitted that my then-wife Robin had.
The campaign manager was asked if he kept the schedule, as the contract said he would.
No, he admitted, a volunteer had done that.
After the campaign manager finished putting on his evidence, my attorney asked Judge Michael Sullivan for a directed verdict and it was granted.
That was a civil case.
McHenry County State’s Attorney Lou Bianchi’s and his assistant Joyce Synek’s were criminal cases.
Special Prosecutors Henry Tonigan and Thomas McQueen did not file adequate indictments against Bianchi and his assistant Joyce Synek.
That’s what Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw said again and again.
“There are defects in the pleading of Count 1,” Judge Joesph McGraw ruled.
“I do not find there is sufficient evidence of an agreement between Defendant Bianchi and Defendant Synek. With regard to circumstantial evidence to inferentially (conclude there was an agreement), I do not find that…merely raising the suspicion of an agreement does not exclude every other possibility.”
With regard to Count 2, McGraw said, “I do believe there is a defect in (the) pleading that allege official misconduct was committed in his official capacity. I do believe that authority (requires?) for it to be property plead that (it) has to specifically plead in the official’s official capacity. Moreover, as to the theft of labor and services, the underlying offense or forbidden conduct…and it demonstrates to my satisfaction that anticipation labor is not the property of the employer. Diversion is not theft beyond a shadow of a doubt.
“(In the) alternative to structural defect, I cannot find that there is sufficient evidence that employees of the defendant were directed to performance of duties on company time.”
These comments were made with regard to Counts 1-21 concerning Joyce Synek’s perjury charges:
“(Considering) the perjury (evidence in the) most favorable (light) to the state, as I’m (required to do), there’s no evidence she was asked to do politically-related work on a county computer.”
With regard to Count 23, “(Is there evidence she) deleted any documents in the last three years?
“I listened intently to Mr. Jerger’s (the Quest forensic computer “expert”). It appear there are some documents that have (been deleted). I could not find that Ms. Synek deleted those documents. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to when and how they were manipulated or overridden.”
Concerning Count 24 about changing practices for location on the computer, Judge McGraw answered, “No.”
He found it “confusing listening to Mr. Jerger when whatever was done was done…I cannot find that she changed any practices.”
He went on to say with regard to the obstruction of justice charge, there was a “defect in the charging document.”
Referring to Count 15, “I do not find all the elements have been plead. I’m not going to infer or supply missing terms to the charging documents.”