Jamie Harrison has a good post about the racial undercurrents in the Dixon Trial:

This is why Dixon’s attorneys used six challenges to exclude whites from the jury (three finally made it) and state prosecutors used three challenges to exclude blacks (seven ended up in the jury). Even if no one wants to speak openly about it, there is a doggedly persistent undercurrent of race in these proceedings, an undercurrent that threatens to bring out the worst in all of us.

Harrison also mentions the history of corruption in Maryland politics:

So, Maryland is not alone as it endures the spectacle of yet another public official on trial for impropriety. And it is not alone in having its dishonest politicians continue to enjoy broad public support, even as embarrassing revelation follows embarrassing revelation in the press.

Harrison mentions the fact that the defense attorneys struck six white jurors in jury selection and that the prosecution struck three black jurors. I remember news coverage last week pointed out that the prosecution had a jury consultant hired but the defense did not. I had figured even before that happened that the prosecution might be worried about the prospects of jury nullification in this trial.

Yet, the issues of race and potential jury nullification have seemed to be the elephant in the room that nobody, including the media, wants to talk about.

Harrison uses the examples of popular politicians in Illinois who retained their popularity despite scandal. Harrison closes with the example of Bill Clinton.