The jury has now gotten the complete transcript of former Deputy Governor Bradley Tusk’s testimony. They also have jury instructions telling them they should not rely on the transcript alone to decide whether the testimony of the witness is “accurate in whole or in part.”
Now the question is, why did they want the Tusk testimony? The charges relating to the attempted extortion of Rahm Emanuel on behalf of the Academy of Urban School Leadership in exchange for a fundraiser by his brother Ari are found in count one, act two, the racketeering charge, and in count fourteen, an extortion charge. The AUSL act is also included in count three, the wire fraud scheme, though it is not listed individually in the ten other wire fraud counts.
In the previous juror note, the jury said they had not yet negotiated the wire fraud counts. So most watchers thought any additional jury question would be on the wire fraud counts. Now with the latest question, does this mean that jurors are beginning to renegotiate the counts they told the judge last week they could not come to a unanimous consensus on? That would mean starting with count one, the racketeering charge, then moving through the remaining charges. And that would mean that a verdict is not coming down anytime soon.