The trial had riveted people in the streets of Canada and England, but in America it had registered only a faint, distant blip on the radar screen. A search of Conrad Black on the CNN website revealed far more hits for the All Blacks rugby club in New Zealand.
I am somewhat uncertain of the reason that Chicago was chosen for the site of the trial. It seems to be linked to the Chicago Sun-Times building, owned at the time by Hollinger International and where David Radler was stationed and oversaw the company’s media empire. A case could certainly have been made for Conrad Black to be prosecuted in a Canadian courtroom. The head office of Hollinger International’s parent company, Hollinger Inc., was located in the austere surroundings of 10 Toronto Street in downtown Toronto, built originally in the middle of the nineteenth century as a post office. The premises were a most auspicious location for a mail fraud case.
Three of the four defendants, Conrad Black, Jack Boultbee, and Peter Atkinson, worked in the Toronto Street office. The proceeds of the various contentious non-compete payments were wired to the senior executives through a Canadian bank. Indeed, Hollinger Inc., a company largely controlled by Conrad Black and his media cohort, David Radler, was the recipient of a portion of the non-compete payments as well. Finally, 10 Toronto Street is destined to become a valued stop on future bus tours of Canada’s largest city. It is the spot where Conrad Black was notoriously caught on videotape loading thirteen boxes into a limousine, in apparent defiance of the SEC’s request for production and an Ontario court order not to move them. The obstruct justice charge was tied to that Candid Camera moment.
Indeed, two senior prosecutors assigned to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Rob Goldstein and Rick Visca, attended three days of the Conrad Black trial to monitor the proceedings. I was familiar with both of them as colleagues and worthy adversaries in their former positions with the Department of Justice. I fortuitously caught sight of them one evening during the cross-examination of David Radler. They were gracious enough about being spotted; they preferred to remain incognito during their stay.
“I didn’t see you in court today,” I stated.
“That’s because we were watching from the overflow courtroom,” Rob replied.
Apparently Goldstein had called Jeffrey Cramer prior to attending the trial and asked for a small favour. He had heard that it was crowded in the courtroom and wondered if a couple of seats could be set aside for the two Canadian prosecutors. They weren’t sure when they would be coming to Chicago.
Cramer’s response startled Goldstein. In a fairly brief phone call, he was advised in no uncertain terms that he would receive no favours from Conrad Black’s prosecutors. Cramer was clearly upset at the lack of co-operation extended by the Canadian government to the American prosecutors. I had heard from one senior Canadian prosecutor that the reason Conrad Black was even charged with obstruct justice was related to the frustration the American prosecutors felt about the perceived indifference of Canadian officials to pursuing Conrad Black. As it was explained to me, the prevailing attitude was “Screw you, Canadian government — if you guys can’t enforce your own laws, then we’re going to do it for you.”
Goldstein and Visca were left to their own devices to acquire courtroom seats. It was duly noted by them that there was a series of empty seats in the government section. They watched a portion of Eddie Greenspan’s cross-examination of David Radler from a large video screen in a second courtroom on the seventeenth floor reserved for the overflow of spectators.
Will Conrad Black ever be prosecuted in Canada? My personal view is that the only realistic avenue is the tax evasion route. That would place Canada in the unusual position of extraditing a man desperate to acquire a Canadian passport. Of course David Radler’s fragrant agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office couldn’t cover any Canadian prosecution. The prospect therefore remains that one day Conrad Black and David Radler will be reunited in a Canadian courtroom.
Mr. Black Goes to Washington
Proceedings at Sidebar:
Mr. Sussman: Your Honor, at this point, Mr. Greenspan has called the witness a liar. It was not a question. He just called him a liar to the jury. I think he has been over this line of questioning. At this point now he is commenting on counsel’s objections directly to counsel; and, I think, we are far afield from the question and answer that should be — that, in my view, is appropriate for cross-examination. I know your Honor’s the one that makes that decision. I object to this way of conducting cross-examination. I think it is hostile and is argumentative and is inappropriate.
The Court: Mr. Greenspan? …
Mr. Greenspan: Mr. Genson, my counsel.
Mr. Genson: Your Honor, basically, the man said, “I reviewed it.” I told Mr. Greenspan that he had said he had reviewed it. Then he said, “I hadn’t reviewed it.” Then he said Mr. Greenspan was unclear when he used the word “review” one time, but evidently not that unclear when he used it a second time. And he is inquiring as to which of these statements is a lie.
Mr. Greenspan: He spent, your Honor — unless you care to rule, he spent — an hour on Thursday making sure that I couldn’t ask a question because he said, “I can’t — I haven’t read it. I haven’t read it. I haven’t read it.” Quite frankly, I would have put it to him on Thursday if anybody at our table had remembered what happened Wednesday. But it was that night, when we went back and reviewed it and found that. I think it’s, in my respectful submission, very important.
The Court: I think the line of questioning about the apparent inconsistency certainly is appropriate. The problem is you are crossing over from asking him questions about did he say this, what did he mean, to saying, “Which one are you lying about?” That crosses over, under our system, into argument. You are free to argue that to the jury —
Mr. Greenspan: I see.
The Court: — at the end of the case. But when you say to him, “Which one are you lying about,” or —
Mr. Greenspan: You can’t do that?
The Court: — “You are a liar, aren’t you?” That crosses over into argument. Similar to the question you asked about, “Isn’t this going to lead the jury to believe that you’re lying?” You are crossing over into the jury’s province there.
Mr. Greenspan: I must tell you only —
Mr. Genson: Is it possible to say, “Which one is true and which one isn’t”? I don’t see why —
Mr. Greenspan: I must say this to you: that, in Britain, the great cross-examiners can’t wait to get to where I just got —
The Court: And —
Mr. Greenspan: — only to find out the rule is you can’t do it.
The Court: You can certainly argue that. I think it is fair to say, “Which one is accurate?” But you are — you have crossed over the line.
Mr. Greenspan: I apologize.
The Court: There is no need to apologize. I am just —
Mr. Greenspan: I am going to work very hard —
The Court: — indicating.
Mr. Greenspan: — to change