CONRAD BLACK TO BE A VICTIM OF SUBORNED TESTIMONY

This practice has so often led to erroneous convictions that its continued usage is itself corrupt

In the eyes of some observers, Conrad Black is already guilty. To them, he is yet another corporate mogul who ripped off shareholders to fund his own lavish lifestyle. They point to a long list of alleged transgressions, like a $40,000 birthday party for his wife Barbara, a company jet used for a trip to Bora Bora and some $10 million spent on Franklin D. Roosevelt's personal effects when Black just happened to be writing his biography.

To others, Black is not a criminal but the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The charges have much less to do with Black's own actions, they assert, than with a widespread campaign against the wealthy and successful. Emboldened by verdicts in the Enron, WorldCom and Martha Stewart cases, and seeking to portray themselves as heroes of the common man for the purposes of their re-election campaigns, overzealous prosecutors have chosen Black as their next target in a war against highly paid corporate honchos.

What the two camps have in common is that neither has heard or seen the actual trial evidence against the man who once controlled the third-largest newspaper empire in the world. While the public has been exposed to sensational details for months, the real trial has not yet begun; jury selection starts on Wednesday.

To those who enjoy seeing the comfortable afflicted, Black is an easy target. He may not have spent as much money on his wife's birthday bash as Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski but unlike some CEOs portrayed as self-made men of the people, Black relished his aristocracy. This week, for example, a judge ruled that evidence in which Black is alleged to have compared his entitlements as the head of Hollinger International to those of French nobility will be admissible in his trial.

Indeed, if greed were a crime, if conceit and arrogance were punishable offences, then Black might already be serving a life sentence. But the Canadian-born media baron isn't on trial for his personality. He's been charged with fraud, racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice.

And much of the case against Black that has been outlined publicly will not be part of the trial. This includes a damning report by former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Richard Breeden, who alleged that Black and his associates operated Hollinger as a "corporate kleptocracy." Because the trial centres on the legality of non-competition payments paid to Black and several co-defendants, Breeden's report is considered off-topic.

Nevertheless, the trial promises to be dramatic. The list of potential witnesses includes not just Black and his wife but a parade of former U.S. diplomats, government officials and business executives who served on the board of Hollinger International, the holding company Black controlled. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, for example, may be called to testify.

Despite the star-studded witness list, the case will likely revolve around the testimony of former Hollinger chief operating officer David Radler. Once one of Black's closest allies, Radler is now effectively his sworn enemy after cutting a deal with prosecutors in 2005. In exchange for agreeing to testify against Black and his co-accused, Radler secured a shortened 29-month sentence and a $250,000 US fine.

What Radler has to say, and how Black's high-priced counsel attempts to refute it and undermine his credibility, will play greatly into the outcome of the trial. So will Black's defence and, if he decides to take the stand, his own testimony. The central question may be who the jury believes: Black or Radler.

But a larger intangible is also in play. Prosecutors have had a field day recently by playing to the visceral disgust of ordinary folk with tales of gluttony on the part of business tycoons. To a dozen working-class individuals chosen for jury duty, it's hard to comprehend the high-flying world of an international chief executive, for whom the line between personal and professional life - and therefore personal and professional expenses - is sometimes blurred.

More here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)