Why Conrad Won

It is a stunning victory for Conrad Black.

Probably the only people who seriously thought the U.S. Supreme Court would hear the appeal of his 2007 conviction in a Chicago court, were his immediate friends – and even they had doubts.

And yet the Supremes have agreed to hear arguments as to why Black’s conviction should be overturned, his 6½-year sentence quashed, and why he should be freed.

“It’s akin to winning a lottery to even have your case heard by the Supreme Court,” said one lawyer, not connected to the case.

Some 10,000 applications are made to the Supreme Court every year, and usually only 100 to 120 are heard. The rest are rejected. Even George Bush refused Black’s rather desperate request for a pardon at the end of Bush’s presidency.

Conrad Black was found guilty on four charges of fraud and obstruction of justice – and acquitted on nine other more serious charges. Ever since, Black has filed numerous appeals, all of them rejected. All the time protesting his innocence.

When I visited him at the federal prison in Coleman, Florida in February, he was hopeful that the Supremes would hear his case, but not optimistic. Ever looking on the bright side, and as adamant as ever that a fair hearing would result in the verdict being reversed, Conrad felt the greatest challenge was to get the Supremes to hear his case.

It was felt that the various appeal processes since his conviction have merely rubber-stamped the verdict that was reached in Judge Amy St. Eve’s Chicago court nearly two years ago.

Conrad believed his lawyers for the Supreme Court were so substantial that they’d be difficult to ignore. Still, the odds were 100 to one against his case being heard.

Opinions differ on what happens next.

The U.S. Supreme Court sits from October to June, and Conrad’s case will likely be heard before Christmas. Several options are open to the court. After hearing arguments the Justices can order a retrial, or order that the case be dismissed. Or that aspects of the conviction were erroneous and should be reviewed.

Most likely the case will be sent back to a lower court – that in itself a morale victory for Black, and anything but reassuring for the prosecuting lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths to get a conviction.

Some who covered the Chicago trial – such as myself - felt there was nothing in the prosecution’s case that indicated guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There was a certain lynch mentality loose in the courtroom, and certainly among prosecution lawyers.

One of the themes pressed by Blacks lawyers and supporters is that lower courts have not really examined reasons why his conviction falls into a grey area – for example, the obstruction of justice in his removal of boxes from the Canadian Hollinger offices hardly constitute “obstruction” when U.S. prosecutors already had the original material.

But surveillance areas showing Conrad carrying boxes of documents to an awaiting car, sure looked bad. Certainly the jury thought so.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear his case is one of the few bright moments in the continuing ordeal of Conrad Black and his wife, Barbara Amiel.

Conrad Black has steadily maintained that lower courts hearing his appeals have not read his briefs. At least Black can be assured the Supreme Court is unlikely to rubber-stamp anything.

The convictions of former Hollinger executives may also be in doubt, pending the Supreme Court decision: Peter Atkinson, Jack Boultbee and Mark Kipnis.

It also gives pause to those who relish attacking Black and his family.

His story is far from over, so don’t make the movie yet.