Here we are after the first full day of jury deliberations for the second phase of the Plantation cops mortgage fraud trial, I'm beginning to get a weird feeling. See, last Friday the Sun Sentinel published a story regarding the some of the officers from the first phase of the trial, check the headline...
WTF with the timing of this story? The story is about the cops from the first part of the case, two of them were found guilty and two were acquitted, the two that got acquitted got their jobs back and the back pay and benefits they were entitled to. Really? How's this news? We covered this story almost a month ago! Why is this news now? My assumption is that this story was planted by the government over the weekend in order to in some way shape or form influence the jury that was about to render judgement against the remaining defendants. Dirty trick? No doubt as it's damn near impossible to get a juror to crawl under a rock and ignore what's in the media regarding a case their deliberating.
Assuming the intent of this story was to in some way to influence the jurors, maybe we can do a bit of the same? See the government fought tooth and nail to keep a ton of favorable information from the jurors that could have helped the defense. Let's take a quick run down of just some of the facts the jurors didn't get to hear...
Defendant Joseph Guaracino cooperated fully with the FBI and FDLE years before there was even an indictment including but not limited to handing over every single shred of documentation regarding all the properties that he ever bought and sold. Does this seem like the actions of a guilty man?
The government continually insinuated that the defendants tax returns were bogus, yet throughout the trial they were never able to prove the allegations.
The nearly four months of trial were continually peppered with allegations of inflated appraisals for the homes in question, why wasn't this ever proven in court? Why didn't a single "expert witness" come forward and prove that the appraisals were bogus?
The defendants voluntarily took polygraph tests and passed, why weren't the results allowed in for the jury to consider?
How about handwriting exemplars which proved the defendants on trial didn't forge anything but again the jury wasn't allowed to hear about it.
There were several recordings where the brokers at the center of this mess admitted to forging hundreds if not thousands of documents throughout there careers, yet again the jury wasn't allowed to hear about it.
Most importantly though, why wasn't the jury allowed to hear about the lender negligence, especially when the federal government went ahead and sued all the big lenders for their role in the real estate meltdown that subsequently brought our economy if not the worlds economy to it's knees?
I have no idea how this is going to pan out for the defendants on trial, I just can't seem to understand how the jury can render a verdict when they weren't allowed to hear evidence that in my opinion was crucial to the defense. We'll have to wait and see, we could have a verdict as early as tomorrow...