From the Chicago Tribune

1 trial for Ryan, Warner
Judge declares 2 a burden, plans to hear it in '05
By Matt O'Connor
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 16, 2004
A federal judge on Thursday declined to grant separate trials for former
Gov. George Ryan and longtime confidant Lawrence Warner and ordered that a
joint trial on racketeering and kickback charges be held in a year.
Warner, citing his right to a speedy trial, had wanted to go to trial next
month, a date set before Ryan was added to the indictment last month.
But Ryan's lawyer, Dan K. Webb, said he needed 15 months to prepare for
trial, and prosecutors opposed trying the case twice.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer said Warner's speedy
trial right by itself did not outweigh "the strong presumption" in favor of
a joint trial.
If the case had to be tried twice, Pallmeyer said her courtroom could be
tied up "in the parties' estimation, at least 10 months."
Ryan has vowed to fight charges that he received illegal payoffs and steered
lucrative contracts to family and friends. Warner is accused of pocketing
about $3 million from the corrupt deals. Ryan and Warner have pleaded not
guilty.
In court papers, Warner's lawyers, Edward Genson and Marc Martin, wanted to
proceed with a scheduled Feb. 23 trial date, saying the indictment has taken
a considerable emotional, physical and financial toll on Warner and his
family.
But Pallmeyer noted that Warner had previously sought three delays that
postponed the trial by about a year and agreed to waive his right to a
speedy trial to accommodate his attorney's trial schedule and lengthy
recovery from a surgery.
In their written brief, prosecutors argued Warner was essentially seeking a
separate trial, knowing that Ryan could not be ready for trial in such a
complex case by next month.
Pallmeyer agreed that separate trials would be unfair for a number of
reasons.
The resources of the U.S. attorney's office would be taxed, and her court
calendar would be disrupted, she said.
It would also be more difficult to pick a jury for a second trial following
the publicity of the first one, Pallmeyer said. In addition, since nearly
identical witnesses would be called, Ryan, the second defendant going to
trial, would get a preview of the government's entire case, she said.
Pallmeyer concluded that Warner had not shown that a delay in the trial
would cause "any evidentiary or substantive prejudice" such as lost evidence
or unavailable witnesses.
The judge said she would prefer to hold a joint trial in the fall, but Webb
has said he has a previous trial commitment for then that could take as long
as four months.
Saying she could force Ryan to find another lawyer, Pallmeyer wrote, "But
Mr. Ryan's 6th Amendment right to counsel of his choice certainly ranks at
least as important as Warner's right to a speedy trial."
As a result, Pallmeyer said the best solution would be for a trial in early
2005, though she cautioned she could move the date to this fall if Webb's
other trial falls through.