Although many who voted on this site believe that Tony Soprano was killed in Holstens, approximately twice as many believe he was not killed. If he did survive, Tony would be facing indictment for violation of RICO. If indicted, he would be required to stand trial.

So, that gave me an idea, based on a similar idea posited by Detective Hunt a few weeks ago. I am considering opening a room or a thread dedicated to the indictment and trial of Tony Soprano. Are enough people interested in such an idea to put it in motion?

We will need some members to act as Tony’s prosecutors and some to act as Tony’s defense attorneys. We will also need a judge - I reserve this role for Fly on Melfi’s Wall if she wants it.

Anyone who wishes to participate, please let me know and let me know your preference (prosecutor or defender).

The idea is to first put together a presentation for the grand jury. After presentation of the information to the grand jury we will post a poll to allow members to act as the grand jury and vote as to whether or not there is enough evidence to force Tony to go to trial on a RICO charge. Naturally no one acting as prosecutor, defender or judge would be entitled to vote.

If a trial is warranted, we will then move to opening arguments and presentation of the state’s case against Tony. The only evidence that is permitted by the prosecution will be facts, statements and witnesses known to exist in the series. Nothing can be fabricated. So, while Carlo may be a witness (testifying as to facts known to him about Tony and the organization) Adrianna can’t. Tony will be allowed a defense and may raise objections to the introduction of evidence, etc. He may testify or remain silent as he wishes (based on advice from his counsel).

At the end of the case, another poll will be posted asking members to sift the evidence and vote on the outcome. I’m not sure how to do this yet. I’d like to have everyone participate, but if we try to stick to reality and require a unanimous verdict of hundreds of potential voters then the outcome is almost guaranteed to be in Tony’s favor. So when the time comes, we can either have 12 dedicated jurors as the only ones allowed to vote or open up another poll to everyone, not requiring unanimity of outcome (or both maybe).

The details of this part of the exercise don’t need to be decided now. For the moment I am only trying to gauge interest in the overall idea.

Count me in on the side of the prosecution, else juror.

Love the idea, billymac. I can work for either the defense or prosecution, but even though I work at a law firm, I know next to nothing about actual legal procedures (however, I can answer many questions about accounting software )

Research on the case may be my best ability for either side, so whomever gets the job of lead attorney can ask me to be an expert witness. How about that?

This is a great idea, billymac. For a minute I was thinking this was going to be the trial for the murder of Tony Soprano with MOG as defendant. (Is that the one DH proposed, sort of like the TV trial of Oswald that was held back in the 70s with Vincent Bugliosi prosecuting?) But the RICO trial of Tony is a great idea also.

Don't know if I could be judge yet . . . might have to recuse myself as I've developed a rather personal interest in the defendant. What's really interesting to consider is whether/how the secret juror buyout/intimidation could work since we know that's a tactic Tony employed before on behalf of Uncle Junior.

hasn't the jury pool been tainted?

terrencewintersolstice wrote:hasn't the jury pool been tainted?

Yes, but all jurors will have to take an oath to consider only the evidence they hear presented at trial and the final question will be phrased something like, "did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony Soprano engaged in at least 3 predicate acts constituting violations of the RICO statute"? or something like that. I don't think that our actual knowledge of Tony will interfere too heavily in the exercise. I think most people will be able to approach the quetions with an open mind free from too much taint!

Many believe (myself included), had Bugliosi prosecuted OJ he would have been convicted. - BobC

.

Certainly Bugliosi believes as much, just read his book about the OJ trial. - billymac

SORRY BOBC...I ACCIDENTALLY EDITED YOUR POST INSTEAD OF QUOTING IT. D'OH!

billymac: I've read practically everything that was ever written pertaining to the OJ trial. At the time I was obsessed with it (the trial) as much if not more so than I was with The Sopranos. Unfortunately neither one ended the way I would have preferred.

Wow, awesome idea! You could certainly count me in, though I know less than next to nothing about actual legal procedures, outside of what Law and Order has taught me. A member of the jury, perhaps?

Well, regardless of details and roles at the moment, consider me among the "interested".

yeah count me in too! Except that Tony is gonna fry because Rats are hard to fight against in trials. Plus Grand Jury, anything goes....... The government has extensive wiretapping\surveillance evidence as well as deeply embedded snitches that are ready to turn at the first chance. Doesn't look good for Tony. If I was an attorrney I would be plea bargaining a deal with the prosecution before going to trial. If he went to trial, it would be really bad for him. The reality is that the law hates people like Tony Soprano. They hate the competition! They will make his head roll before letting him get away without any convictions. If you ask me, Tony is in a huge amount of trouble. Let me be his William Kuntsler......... Its a desperate case. But I wonder with so many unresolved "facts", how could any of us prove anything beyond a resonable doubt for either side?

I'm in as juror, for sure.