The other day, as I was waiting to get into the courtroom or the alternative overflow courtroom, I met several people with opposite views. One woman’s name I did not get. Her position was that the former governor was not guilty of anything but being a politician. I spent the next few minutes giving her examples from the evidence that showed him to be guilty. She did not say anything after I gave her my point of view, but I strongly doubt that I changed her mind. Later, I saw the same woman giving Rod a hug and heard her say he was doing a wonderful job on the stand.
The other point of view was from Carl, who had traveled up from Frankfort, Illinois on the train, to see the trial. This was the second time he had come to the Dirksen Federal Building. On the first occasion, he did not have any trouble getting into the courtroom. This time, he was with me in the overflow courtroom listening to the proceedings. Carl is recently retired from being a real estate broker. He explained a little of what a broker does, and I thought of how it may apply to Patti Blagojevich and the evidence in the first trial. In this current trial, Patti’s link to Tony Rezko was left out, I believe, as being extraneous to the case against Rod and perhaps confuses the case unduly. I agree.
Carl’s wife is an elementary school teacher, and on her last year before retirement. I suggested that in order to ease her transition into retirement she should look into writing bilingual picture books; she being bilingual in English and Spanish. I think there must be a need for such books. I wish both of them much success in their retirement. Both sound like citizens who deserve the best government the society can provide.
Being good citizens also means serving on juries and making a commitment to the courts in time and effort. In watching the present jury and knowing how the first jury performed, I would say that each one of them is a good citizen doing a difficult task and doing it well.
I often think of Steve, the HR manager, who did yeoman service for the first jury. Calm and intelligent with a broad streak of humor, he led us through a very difficult deliberation. Thanks to all on jury 1 and I hope we will be able to say the same for jury 2. That’s how I see it.