OH.  MAYBE BLAGO SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE FACTS – AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  There was heavy gloating in former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's circles yesterday when a jury convicted him of only one count after his corruption trial in Chicago.  But now the facts are out, and it's evident that one holdout juror prevented justice from being done:

One juror.

That was all it took to keep a jury from convicting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of trying to sell the Senate seat formerly held by President Obama, according to another juror in Blagojevich's federal corruption trial.

Instead, Blagojevich was found guilty Tuesday of just one lesser count of lying to federal agents, as jurors deadlocked on the 23 other counts against him, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial on those charges.

Blagojevich showed no emotion as the verdict was read, neither smiling nor grimacing. But afterward, he cast the outcome as a victory and vowed to appeal the one guilty verdict.

"I want the people of Illinois to know I did not lie to the FBI," Blagojevich told reporters. "I told the truth from the very beginning. This is a persecution."

After Judge James B. Zagel said he plans to call a mistrial on the remaining counts, federal prosecutors said they would retry Blagojevich "as quickly as possible."

Zagel set a hearing for Aug. 26 to decide the manner and timing of the retrial. He also said Blagojevich's bond will stay the same.

News broke later Tuesday that there was just one holdout juror blocking a conviction on the charge of trying to sell the Senate seat. The jury deadlocked 11-1 on that charge, according to another juror, Erik Sarnello of Itasca, Ill.

Sarnello, 21, said the holdout, a woman, "just didn't see what we all saw." He said the counts around the Senate seat were "the most obvious."

COMMENT:  We can't speculate on what was going through the mind of the holdout.  Was she just stubborn?  Wasn't she listening?  Did she feel sympathy for Blago?  Was she an Obama supporter trying to protect the party?  We don't know.

Things like this have happened many times before.  Richard Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, went on trial for corruption in the early 70s, and got sprung not because of a holdout juror, but because one member of the jury, a partisan of Mitchell's, was able to mount an articulate defense of Mitchell in the jury room, persuading easily persuaded jurors.

Sometimes the one holdout juror is right.  In this case, I doubt it.

August 17, 2010