What are we talking, here? Possible probation? A few months? A few years?  More?

If convicted on some or all of the 18 counts against him, what kind of sentence  is 72-year-old former Gov. George Ryan facing?

An idle question for idle hours as the jury in Ryan’s federal corruption trial continues to deliberate  I thought I’d simply cross reference the criminal charges with the recommended sentences for those charges and, with a little expert advice, offer a ballpark estimate for your consideration:   

First came the easy part: After finding the 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines  (pdf) at the U.S. Sentencing Commission Web site, I  looked in the index for the exact laws that prosecutors allege Ryan broke.

For example, here’s one that I’m on record as predicting is likely to result in a conviction: Making false statements to the FBI.   

The index to the guidlines directed me to page 74 of the 633-page manual. There, I saw at a glance, the “basic offense level” for this crime is  6 on a 43-point severity scale, with 43 being the worst.

From there I turned to the sentencing table. I looked down to the line for offense level 6,  then across the criminal-history columns.  These columns go from Category l (previously clean slate) to Category VI (heinous repeat offender). Ryan is a Category I, and so, said the table, he faces from probation to six months in prison if convicted on that count.

But not so fast.  If only it were that easy. The full entry back at page 74 is four pages long and reads like the instructions for a very weird board game: “If the offense involved theft of, damage to, or destruction of, property from a national cemetery, increase by 2 levels. … If the offense involved an organized scheme to steal vehicles or vehicle parts, and the offense level is less than level 14, increase to level 14…” and on and on.

This is followed by 16 pages of  explanations and definitions.

I didn’t see any extra points to add to Ryan’s score in my layman’s reading of all the rules. Level 6! So was I done? Not even!

From there I had to scroll to a 31-page catalog of “adjustments.”

Here I found some rules that seem likely to apply: “If the defendant abused a position of public or private trust…. increase (the offense level) by 2 levels.”

I also found many that clearly won’t apply: “If the offense involved the use of body armor, increase by 2 levels.”

And some others that might apply, including a convoluted formula for what to do in the event of convictions on multiple counts.

“The manual reminds me of the tax code,” said Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University Law School professor who maintains a robust Web log devoted solely to the topic of sentencing. “Spend about five minutes with the book and you’ll see why no serious legal expert will do a quick calculation for you and say `Oh, (Ryan’s) going to get 108 to 130 months” if convicted.

Calculating the offense level for sentencing is as much art as it is science, Berman said. And it often involves an entire, second mini-trial in which the lawyers fight over terminology and quibble over details.

And even at the end of that process  -- in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling early last year that turned mandatory sentences into sentencing advisories – judges have the discretion  to tweak the number still further based on the entirety of the circumstances and their own particular insight.

“Sentencing is where the whole process comes together,” said Berman, explaining  his professional fascination with this comparatively neglected aspect of criminal justice. “People like to think all the action is what happens at trial. But the sentencing process often drives what happens at the trial and what’s in the indictment. Not to mention the fact that 9 out of 10 cases end in plea bargains.”

So what are we talkin’ here, in the event of a guilty verdict?

Not an ending, that’s all we can say for sure.  Just the beginning of a whole new process.

ON THE WEB

• "The Supreme Court's Sentencing Guidelines Decision: Its Logic, and Its Surprisingly Limited Practical Effect," by Edward Lazarus (FindLaw) 
• Two key U.S. Supreme Court decisions in this area:  U.S. v. Booker (Jan, 2005) and Blakely v. Washington (June, 2004)  (Booker Basics and  Blakely Basics  contain links to many other articles)
• What's the Future of Federal Sentencing? -- a March, 2006 online debate between Douglas Berman of Ohio State University's Law School and Frank O. Bowman III of the University of Missouri at Columbia School of Law.

I doubt Ryan will receive any lengthy sentence if convicted. Even if so he may live out his life in the appeals process. I want him convicted to send a clear message to Chicago and Springfield politicians that the pay-to-play, government for sale system of politics is unacceptable and will be vigorously prosecuted.

In a strange coincidence, Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer heard sentencing arguments for Aaron Patterson on drug and charges. He's one of the death row inmates George Ryan pardoned.

I briefly glanced at the sentencing guidelines and it's crazy. The Ryan trial/fiasco will end sometime in 2010 at the earliest.

I agree that he will be convicted of a few counts like lying to Feds and tax charges but exonerated of most charges. What I'm more interested in is whether any convictions will have an impact on his pension. Any idea, Mr. Zorn? I presume that as these are charges from his tenure as SoS, it would affect only that pension, but I don't know that for sure. This is an aspect that has been virtually ignored in the media.

ZORN REPLY -- Just a first peek into the archives suggests this maybe a very good question. The Ill Sup. Ct. court ruled last October that a felony conviction in one job doesn't mean the official loses retirement benefits for other government jobs. The case had to do with C. August Taddeo, the mayor of Melrose Park for 25 years and the Proviso Township supervisor for 30 years. He pleaded to felony extortion as mayor, so the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund canceled his retirement benefits for both jobs. The state high court found that his service as township supervisor was "untainted by his felony conviction." Would this apply to Ryan if he were convicted only of felony convictions relating to his time as SoS?