From Byron York at The Corner:
A message from the prosecution press office released at 5:30 this afternoon:
The Court received a note containing a question from the jury at the end of the day today. Judge Walton will address the note with the parties in court at approximately 9:30 a.m. Wednesday morning…The contents of the note will not be disclosed until the note is addressed in court and docketed sometime tomorrow morning.
Your guess is as good as mine.
Well, nothing ventured: "What happened to the juror we sent out for coffee yesterday?"
My guess is that it is mundane.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 08:01 PM
My guess is that it is not mundane.
Posted by: cboldt | February 27, 2007 at 08:03 PM
My guess is that it is a Moon Dane.
Posted by: Tollhouse | February 27, 2007 at 08:04 PM
I will repeat mine:
"Can we award Libby more than his lawyers are asking for?"
Posted by: Patrick | February 27, 2007 at 08:04 PM
Or a question about Claire Danes
Posted by: sammy small | February 27, 2007 at 08:06 PM
I think they are confused. I think it's easy to go down the wrong road on this multiple times.
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:10 PM
Jane,
I won’t tangle with you, but we’ve seen mundane notes and the Court did not address them with counsel in open court. Maybe “in court” means in Chambers, but if it is open court that may mean a jury hung on some points, if not all. The question of lying seems to permeate all the charges, so I tend to think it’s all or nothing. But, I’m guessing like everyone else.
Posted by: MarkO | February 27, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Definetely not mundane.
Posted by: danking70 | February 27, 2007 at 08:15 PM
The note definitely says "Has anyone seen our lucky tee-shirts?"
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:16 PM
I would guess they would like to know if Judge Walton has any information on whether Shep is gay.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 27, 2007 at 08:16 PM
Or even we have a verdict but want to wait until tomorrow when we can wear our lucky tee-shirts again just to be consistent, you know.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:18 PM
The jury has found Libby guilty on at least one count, but have given him 24 business hours to get his affairs in order.
Posted by: Jason Leopold | February 27, 2007 at 08:20 PM
I hear they want the art curator back.
Posted by: ghostcat | February 27, 2007 at 08:21 PM
This is the funniest blog I have ever been on. You guys are a riot! As Alice said"curioser and curioser... What in God's name does that jury want now? My hair is getting grayer by the minute. Let's get a decision on this sucker so we can talk about the result already. Time to step up and be counted.Let's get this show on the road!
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:22 PM
Curator left her Valentine's t-shirt...
Posted by: danking70 | February 27, 2007 at 08:22 PM
BF: LOL
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 27, 2007 at 08:22 PM
Mark,
I'd prefer your outcome to mine, but I am trying very hard to not get my hopes up.
I do think that jury questions during deliberations have to be dealt with on the record, mundane or not. I may be wrong about that, but I've never seen it any other way.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 08:22 PM
My guess: Hung on three charges. Guilty on two.
My hope: Not guilty on three. Hopelessly hung on two.
Posted by: WA Moore | February 27, 2007 at 08:23 PM
sammy small:
LOL!
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:24 PM
What happened to Seixon's website?
Posted by: lurker | February 27, 2007 at 08:25 PM
Someone who has been listening to this trial, flawed as it was, and who had an iota of common sense would have rendered a verdict days ago. Reasonable doubt is what they should be looking for and what they have is absolute doubt. With everybody contradicting themselves with poor memories how can they not reach a verdict. There must be some on this jury who are as dense as posts or maybe want to extend their days in the sun.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:25 PM
ghostcat: I need a new keyboard...
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:26 PM
OK...
We already had the request for office supplies and the request for photos of the witnesses. Those questions were not discussed in open court so this has to be more substantive than those but...
not a verdict and not a notice that they are deadlocked (that would be a statement, not a question). So my guess...
Can we listen to Libby's GJ tapes again. (OK, probably not).
Can we submit a partial verdict (wouldn't they be told this in instructions).
Can we have another juror? to replace non-Tee shirt lady (no.)
Another tainted juror?
Posted by: kate | February 27, 2007 at 08:26 PM
Barbara S.
So true. this case is a no brainer-acquit already...
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:27 PM
When they requested the supplies & pictures earlier - wasn't it by way of a note to the judge? Or was it a request? We knew that right away. So why wait..
Is it something the judge wants to think about, so it put it off? Do the lawyers know the content of the note?
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:28 PM
It's their lunch order for tomorrow. BarbaraS, never expect jurors to be attentive, intelligent, and decisive. Remember, a jury is made up of people who weren't smart enough to find an excuse to get out of jury duty. I'm not saying it's right, but it's true.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Posted by: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report | February 27, 2007 at 08:28 PM
They want to know how long they have to work to come to an agreement, because they haven't been able to do so yet.
Posted by: MayBee | February 27, 2007 at 08:29 PM
kate:
We don't want another tainted juror because then the first alternate is not the one we want. Come on decide already and stop this game of 20 questions!
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:29 PM
not to be detail-overdosed, but if the note presents a "question", then it doesn't signify a verdict.It may represent that the jury is hung; but even that seems unlikely. A note advising the court that they are hung would not present a question.Usually a question from the jury means exactly that, i.e., can we see this evidence; can we have the charge read to us again; etc. etc.
Posted by: arthurize | February 27, 2007 at 08:29 PM
Maybe the jury wants a drunk Andrea Mitchell to testify or Russert to explain his Imus interview-the real one not the fake one after he testified.
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 08:31 PM
The question may be "how long must we deliberate before we can give up?"
I suspect they want some portion of testimony read back. Jurors frequently do that, Judges will often refuse, and instruct them to rely on their memories. I think Judges should not refuse such requests, particularly in longer and detailed trials.
Posted by: Patrick | February 27, 2007 at 08:33 PM
If judge Walton doesn't cry or get his own television show we can call it a win for America, regardless of verdict.
Posted by: mark c | February 27, 2007 at 08:33 PM
Has anyone gone over to the swamp to see what they are guessing?
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:34 PM
they are hung.
Posted by: reliapundit | February 27, 2007 at 08:35 PM
The art curator is already back, and says the note is a Mondrian.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | February 27, 2007 at 08:36 PM
What's up with the Seixon website?
Posted by: lurker | February 27, 2007 at 08:36 PM
Is it something the judge wants to think about, so it put it off?
The lawyers have to be there for the question, the hour was late, it was easier to do it in the morning.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 08:37 PM
My guess is that it is a Moon Dane.
My guess it's a moon dance.
And a marvelous night for it, don't you think?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 27, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Hopefully, they wanted to wait until Kinkos has their 11 happy face t-shirts ready.
Posted by: verner | February 27, 2007 at 08:38 PM
the request for office supplies and the request for photos of the witnesses
Ah, ha! ... Moustaches!
Posted by: sbw | February 27, 2007 at 08:39 PM
I just wish they would decide so that we won't have to read any more of Sniffen's newspaper articles. He keeps writing the articles saying that the whole thing is about the White House outing a CIA covert agent and that is what the newspapers are printing in the headlines. Every day the same thing. sooner or later the people are going to believe his lies and then when the verdict comes down they will believe that the White House gummed up the the whole thing and that it was all a face by the VP. His latest article claims that Libby told the reporters unquestionably that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and that she was covert and that therefore the jury has to find him guilty.
Posted by: dick | February 27, 2007 at 08:39 PM
They asked for H&Rs Bloody Mary recipe.
Posted by: pldew | February 27, 2007 at 08:39 PM
SD sent this to me--it's all there is on this filing so I don't know what the substance is :
"
02/26/2007 303 NOTICE of filing Exhibit B, DVD (DX1813), introducing additional evidence to impeach government witness Tim Russert by I. LEWIS LIBBY re 282 Memorandum of Law. (Attachment: DVD) (mlp) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
02/26/2007 Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to I. LEWIS LIBBY: Jury
Deliberation continued for 2/27/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 16
before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (erd) (Entered: 02/27/2007"
Posted by: clarice | February 27, 2007 at 05:21 PM
posted in the Hanging thread.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 27, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Since we don't know the instructions and the wording of the verdict form, maybe they're asking:
Do we have to be unanimous that he's guilty of THIS part of count 1? Or is it okay if some of us think THIS part and some of us think THAT part?
Posted by: Syl | February 27, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Reggie is unsure of the answer and has to consult yet again other jurists or maybe the meter man.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:41 PM
Thanks Jane,
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:42 PM
Jury Note:
We're Deadlocked.
Hopelessly.
7 vote to nominate Fitzgerald's rebuttal for Emmy for Best Comedy
4 vote to nominate rebuttal for Pulitzer for Fiction
Posted by: hit and run | February 27, 2007 at 08:43 PM
They want to know if they can have time off for good behavior
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:44 PM
Ah...Seixon's done with blogging or on hiatus.
I hope he's on hiatus as I have enjoyed his posts.
Posted by: lurker | February 27, 2007 at 08:45 PM
The art curator is already back, and says the note is a Mondrian.
In a beige world of notes, the art curator produced a note with a rioteous palette of color and passion.
(Sorry John A. Flemming)
Posted by: MayBee | February 27, 2007 at 08:46 PM
Jury question:
So, was she covert or not?
I think they are hung too. That was my prediction from the start, and I'm sticking to it!
Posted by: Dan S | February 27, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Seixon has graduated and started a new job. He is closing his blog down.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 27, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Maryrose
Do you suppose the jurors; IQs are in the double digits?
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:50 PM
I'm hoping this really is a hanging jury.
"Your honor, can we hang the prosecutor?"
Posted by: Dan S | February 27, 2007 at 08:51 PM
BarbaraS,
WMP
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:51 PM
Jury note:
"Can we get a broadband hookup? The courthouse wireless network is way too slow, especially trying to get through these loong threads at JOM."
Posted by: Dave in W-S | February 27, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Nick Kasoff
I have never served on a jury. Am I bragging or covered with shame?
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:52 PM
I just wish they would decide so that we won't have to read any more of Sniffen's newspaper articles.
I've been waiting for this day...
Posted by: hit and run | February 27, 2007 at 08:52 PM
It's funny to see people say they hope Libby is either getting acquittals or a hung jury. Why would you hope that Fitz doesn't know what he's doing?
Posted by: EH | February 27, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Note:"Is Croatia the new Riviera?"
Posted by: clarice | February 27, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Why would you hope that Fitz doesn't know what he's doing?
Nah, we've settled that. Now we're worrying that the jury doesn't know what its doing.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 27, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Jury Note:
"Can we have Judge Larry?"
Posted by: hit and run | February 27, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Dear Judge,
What is the capital of Djibouti?
Best regards,
The Jury
Posted by: goldwater | February 27, 2007 at 08:57 PM
Is it time to start guessing the answer to the question?
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 08:57 PM
Maybee: Too darned funny!
Posted by: centralcal | February 27, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Why would you hope that Fitz doesn't know what he's doing?
No hope involved there.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Why would you hope that Fitz doesn't know what he's doing?
It depends on what he is doing. Bringing a legitimate issue to trial is not what he is doing.
PMII
I sorry but I don't know what WMP is.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 08:59 PM
BarbaraS,
wet my pants
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 09:00 PM
...if you want tolerance, you have to be tolerant. I get a lot angrier at gay bashing than she ever does.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Sooooo...
Describe your feelings with regard to Tim Hardaway:
Very Tolerant
Moderately Tolerant
Just Barely Tolerant
Intolerant
People Like Him Shouldn't Be Allowed To Live
How about this: if you're truly tolerant you'll have to sincerely tolerate intolerance. Sound like nonsense?
Posted by: azaghal | February 27, 2007 at 09:01 PM
My guess on the note: "Why exactly are we here, again?"
Posted by: kaz | February 27, 2007 at 09:07 PM
azaghal -- sounds like dhimmitude to me.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 27, 2007 at 09:07 PM
PMII
Sorry.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 09:09 PM
BarbaraS,
Don't be. It's the hardest I laughed all day.
Posted by: PMII | February 27, 2007 at 09:10 PM
sounds like dhimmitude to me.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 27, 2007 at 06:07 PM
Could be.
Posted by: azaghal | February 27, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Sorry azaghal,
I don't know who Tim Hardaway is.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 09:13 PM
"Is Croatia the new Riviera?"
Yes, but I would reccommend staying within 30KM of Split.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 27, 2007 at 09:13 PM
It's Taylor Dane. Got all her albums.
Posted by: richard mcenroe | February 27, 2007 at 09:15 PM
H&r:
I just told my daughter about your last comment.H&R YOU ARE BACK with a vengence!
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 09:15 PM
The problem is that we never expected a whole lot from a jury in DC and they are so far living up to our expectations.....almost.
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Hardaway is a basketball player who recently said"I hate Gays"
Posted by: maryrose | February 27, 2007 at 09:16 PM
BTW azaghal,
Why are you transposing conversations from one thread to another? Sounds like you are hankering for a fight.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 09:17 PM
I don't know who Tim Hardaway is.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 06:13 PM
got google?
Posted by: azaghal | February 27, 2007 at 09:17 PM
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Posted by: james | February 27, 2007 at 09:17 PM
Does Dick Cheney weigh more than a duck?
Posted by: roanoke | February 27, 2007 at 09:19 PM
got google?
So far you aren't worth it.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 09:19 PM
What is the capital of Djibouti?
When Walton asks why they want to know, the written reply comes back " some of us dont think Fitz can find it with two hands and a flashlight!"
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 27, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Is that throat swallow or bird swallow?
Posted by: BarbaraS | February 27, 2007 at 09:25 PM
From the other thread:
Jane asked and I dittoed: Has anyone ever seen additional evidence allowed in during deliberations?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 27, 2007 at 09:26 PM
My guess (a serious one, so I hope I'm not spoiling the mood) is that they're hung on ALL counts and are asking Walton how to proceed.
It's not that I haven't seen juries take this long, but with multiple closely related charges, a jury whose sympathies are generally divided but at all flexible will have finished horse-trading and splitting the difference by now. Those who want to convict, especially, will be satisfied with some of the pie if they can't have it all.
Valentines day clue: "This may be the last time we have unanimity." By that point, the jurors probably knew each other and where they likely stood on the case pretty well.
Posted by: Franklin | February 27, 2007 at 09:28 PM
From the other thread:
Hah, it's posted in this very thread. Someone call DoJ, this has to be obstruction of something or other.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 27, 2007 at 09:29 PM
Evidence is closed prior to final. Newly discovered evidence can come in only in the event of a new trial, and there better be a good reason it wasn't discovered in time to use it in the original trial.
Posted by: Patrick | February 27, 2007 at 09:29 PM
I answered that, Sara--I haven't, but if the defense has newly discovered relevant evidence and the trial hasn't yet concluded, they have no choice but to try to get it in. I am certain this is not the first time this has happened. OTOH I think it unlikely they will get it in. On appeal, however, had they not offered this in now they'd be barred from raising it.
Posted by: clarice | February 27, 2007 at 09:30 PM
It would be lovely to discover it's something exculpatory that Fitz knew about, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 27, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Why are you transposing conversations from one thread to another? Sounds like you are hankering for a fight.
Posted by: Jane | February 27, 2007 at 06:17 PM
By the time my dialup can load a new JOM thread, or refresh an existing thread, I'm usually way behind the discussion. I transposed just about the last post on a Libby thread to the newest Libby thread as a way of continuing the conversation.
As for hankering for a fight, I was sincerely interested to learn how far your tolerance extended. My experience is that people who proclaim their tolerance in the terms you did are usually very intolerant of people whose tolerance extends in different directions than your own. More generally, I find that the world of human beings contains many mutually exclusive attitudes. For that reason I find expressions of universal tolerance to be lacking in intellectual rigor--to be quite frankly irrational.
Tim Hardaway is now retired. Until recently he was best known for his crossover dribble.
Posted by: azaghal | February 27, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Reading the filing info from above, it includes as an attachment a DVD. Because it pertains to the impeachment of Russert, I suspect that it is a DVD of MTP episodes in which Russert describes the Grand Jury process, in contradiction to his testimony stating that he was unaware that attorneys aren't allowed in the grand jury with witnesses. The judge ruled on that motion, this is probably preserving the record for appeal. Just speculation.
Posted by: Patrick | February 27, 2007 at 09:34 PM
As a hypothetical, what would happen if a witness recanted in public during jury deliberations? Or, even if private? What if Russert had said on Hardball, “Now I remember I may have discussed Wilson’s wife.” What if he claimed he found notes?
The fact that it is a DVD suggests it was a public comment from Russert.
Anyway, you appellate mavens, speak to me.
Posted by: MarkO | February 27, 2007 at 09:34 PM
If it is something truly excupatory wouldn't that necessitate a mistrial (with prejudice?) or whatever it is called?
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 27, 2007 at 09:35 PM
I thought they offered that already, but you might be right.
Posted by: clarice | February 27, 2007 at 09:35 PM
Of course additional evidence is not permitted during deliberations. I suspect that the filing in question is something that was presented last week or before and the clerk is just getting around to docketing it.
I also think we may be really overthinking the "jury question." MOST of the time these are either about the instructions or the evidence. It could be a LOT narrower than "what do we do if we cannot agree."
Let's wait and see people.
Posted by: theo | February 27, 2007 at 09:35 PM
"Could we talk to a memory expert?"
Posted by: steve | February 27, 2007 at 09:35 PM