"The Note II" - Seven Days After Hearing About It, You Die... Of Boredom

Let's have a new Note thread - the latest from Ms. Wheeler is that the judge is sending a note back to the jury requesting a clarification.

Now this:

Walton back.

The jury sent a note in response, indicating that after further discussion, "we are clear on what we need to do." They no longer need clarification.

Um. So much for the question.

OUR EYES ARE EVERYWHERE:  The joint JOM-NSA double secret surveillance program pays off again - we can now reveal the full exchange between the jurors and Judge Walton:

"Walton: The jury sent a note in response to my note for further clarification.
    The note said: "No further clarification needed.  Thank you, we apologize."

The first note:
Is everybody in this trial just really stupid?

Walton's note:
Who do you mean by everybody?

The second note:
No further clarification needed.

Trying to help.

BUT SERIOUSLY, FOLKS:  Ms. Wheeler types the note; Jeralyn Merritt provides a .pdf link.

The question relates to a Matt Cooper charge, and I am expecting an easy acquital there.  So why are they only getting to it now?  Good question - maybe they are just taking it one charge at a time.

Comments

[theo]

So what is in "The Note"? I gather that the defense thinks it is uninteresting and the judge thinks it is ambiguous. Do we know anything more?

[jsyk]

Update: 10:41 Wells has been talking with some gray haired woman, joking around. Seems to be in good spirits. Wells has just returned to the court room. He has been talking with a couple people. Their arms are folded and they are shaking there heads, but Wells appears to be in good spirits. Tiny bits of audio come through... "There's no question..."

[james]

Wouldn't it be a lot more effective if Walton just walked into the jury room and asked them whats up? I can see this note passing business taking up the whole day.

[rarango]

Is Walton paid by the hour? That would 'splain the process.

[theo]

James --

You are thinking like an engineer -- how do I solve this particular problem? -- rather than like a lawyer -- how can I make the process so complicated that people will have to hire more lawyers to figure it out?

Actually, there are good reasons to keep the process very formal. The main one being able to review the process on appeal.

[ordi]

The Judge want to clarify if it is

Mustard or Mayo on the sandwiches

[PaulL]

Interesting that the defense and offense think they understand the note, and the same way at that, but that the referee can't figure it out.

[Jane]

James,

I suspect this falls under the "jury deliberations are secret" clause which is why they are doing it this way.

However if prosecution and defense agree on the meaning of the question, I'm wondering about Walton's agenda. ("Agenda" may be too strong a word)

[roanoke]

Walton questions the question-

"I have some questions in my mind as to exactly what the jury is asking me," Walton said. "I'm going to send a note back to the jury indicating I'm not exactly certain what you're asking and can you please clarify."

[ErnestAbe]

I dunno about Wells spirits. Jaralyn at talkleft.com reported yesterday that

Ted Wells is buying courtroom sketches of himself from the sketch artists. His advice: "Always buy your sketches before the verdict."

Not a sign of supreme confidence.

[retired]

Now the jury is trying to figure out why they asked the question--after all, it was yesterday

[Jane]

Not a sign of supreme confidence.

I figured he was thinking the price was about to go up.

FDL says everyone is all smiles.

[james]

Now the jury will send a note back to the judge saying that they don't understand his question about their question.

[roanoke]

Speaking of Jeralyn she had a copy of the final verdict form that was given to the jury.

Link to pdf

[theo]

Jane --

EVERYONE is all smiles? Both sides? A trial is pretty much a zero sum game. If both sides are happy, at least one of them does not know what is going on......

I think the point about buying your sketches early was more that once the verdict is in the sketch artists leave and it is hard to find them. Much easier to deal with them before the verdict.

[Other Tom]

I think Wells has an infectiously sunny disposition, and I don't read anything into his apparent high spirits. Same with his joke about getting the sketches before the verdict.

[Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report]

The note: The jury would like watermelon with lunch, and we were wondering whether it would be a problem if we spit the seeds out on the floor of the jury room.

Request for clarification: Would it be ok if we got you seedless watermelon instead?

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The judge can't understand a simple note from the jury, but the jury has to interpret Dick Cheney's notes on Wilson's Op-ed from 3-1/2 years ago.

Irony, thy name is Fitz.

[Chants]

Or they are smiling because they know the joke is on us, ("us" being we Plamaholics at JOM and FDL.)

[james]

theo, I'm afraid your first answer had a disturbing amount of truth to it.

[Chants]

From FDL:

"The jury sent a note in response, indicating that after further discussion, 'we are clear on what we need to do.' They no longer need clarification.

Um. So much for the question.

Wells is saying, It's nice we could come to some joint resolution."

The question may have been: how do we know when we have reached an impasse?

Clarification: What do you mean impasse?

Jury response: OK, we will give it another go.

[Jane]

The jury sent a note in response, indicating that after further discussion, "we are clear on what we need to do." They no longer need clarification.

Um. So much for the question.

Wells is saying, It's nice we could come to some joint resolution.

`

Sheesh

[Christopher Fotos]

Man. From Orient Lodge:

The courtroom starts to fill up again. Both teams are on the field. Wells appears tobe joking around more and Fitzpatrick is talking more seriously

All Stand

Walton: The jury sent a note in response to my note for further clarification.

The note said:
No further clarification needed. Thank you, we apologize.

(more or less)

[arcanorum]

much ado about nothing

[clarice]

Double sheesh

[Chants]

much ado about nothing

Posted by: arcanorum | February 28, 2007 at 08:14 AM

Or, Much Ado about Noting.

[Jane]

Let's see, how should we characterize the last 17 hours?

Aren't we a bunch of morons?!

[larwyn]

"nevermind" LOL

[clarice]

Well, before everyone scatters:
"This year's Oscar goodie bag contained gift certificates representing 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass, which describes itself as a "carbon offset retailer." The 100,000 pounds "are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter," a press release from TerraPass asserts. "For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, 20 hours in a private jet and a large house in Los Angeles. The greenhouse gas reductions will be accomplished through TerraPass' [program] of verified wind energy, cow power [collecting methane from manure] and efficiency projects." Voila, guilt-free consumption! It reminds us of the era when rich Catholics paid the church for "dispensations" that would shorten their terms in Purgatory. "

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/02/an_inconvenient.html

[theo]

So do I have this right? In response to the judge's request for clarification of the jury's original note, the jury decided that they did not need an answer to the question they posed in that note?

Huh?

Did they realize that they really did understand all along or did they figure that if Walton was going to parse the question endlessly they would just move on?

[roanoke]

Jane and clarice-

I see your Sheeshes and raise you a -

What the heck?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Seems only waltoon can't figure out da' note. So, he went solo. And, he sung, he can find it "unclear" if he wants to.

If this is supposed to make affirmative action hires look good, ya got me.

But if things keep apace; where "certain neighborhoods," once known as black, get newcomers. They tend to turn muslim. Is DC ready for that?

Other that the fact that most people living in DC, live with a crime rate that goes with INCOMPETENT police. AND, incompetent judges.

Of course, where's the complaint? How do you do this without referencing affirmative action?

At least BOTH SIDES, in spite of the judge, know the direction this long, overdrawn, and UNWATCHED (by the majority) case this has been. And, they know HUNG when they smelled the note. But probably? A conviction on something NOT IN THE EVIDENCE. Perhaps, gut reactions all around?

I'll bet there will be an APPEAL. Whether or not waltoon thinks he's getting another bite of the apple, with a "sentencing" that's gonna happen in his court room. What'a jerk.

[larwyn]

"nevermind"

I've done the robot thing 3 times and then post didn't take anyway.

Jury just verified that you can't get a straight answer.

[Jane]

FDL goes on to say: She says the question had something to do with Count Three–the Cooper false statements charge. If you ask my opinion, that's the most likely acquittal.

If this is true, I think it is bad news as it would indicate that they started with Russert and worked backward. But I don't trust FDL

[hit and run]

Jane:
Let's see, how should we characterize the last 17 hours?

Aren't we a bunch of morons?!

Speak for yourself!

I've got several hundreds of thousands of hours with which to characterize myself as such

[theo]

I hate to agree Jane, but if they are still thinking about the Cooper counts this far into it, it's not a good sign. But again I caution against reading too much into too little, particularly from a dubious source.

[Larry]

Mustard or Mayo on the sandwiches Posted by: ordi | February 28, 2007 at 07:55 AM That's Supersonic Burger #1 or #2.

[roanoke]

Jane-
Ya if they haven't even got past Cooper yet-then we really will be wondering what they'll wear for Easter.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: MARK O

To continue your reference yesterday ... where carson "answered" Shees. Boom. Baah.

With: "What noise does a sheep make when it explodes."

A louder, bloodier noise will come from this case, when it is long since through.

Okay. It will be a niche market. For those really, really curious people, who want to know what took the idiots, in a town with such glorious monuments, to prove they're even stupider than the french. And, they don't eat as well, either.

[Chants]

Agreed, Jane and Theo.

[MTT]

TM,

I went over to FDL for the first time.

Um, you should have a warning that reading the comments there could induce nausea.

Blech.

The BDS there is at a very advanced stage.

It seems that at any moment the denizens there will be calling for the institution of systematic purges, executions, followed by reeducation camps.

Yikes.

It is a scary world.

One that is sadly doomed, I'm afraid.

Oh well, Spring Training games are about to begin.

Enjoy it while you can.

Just sayin'.

[Jane]

And if they are having a problem with Cooper, Libby is fried. But that doesn't make a lot of sense from what else we know.

[clarice]

No, it doesn't. Consider the source.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

At least there's something ahead a lot of people will agree on! No financial rewards, with better pay, for people stupid enough to be chosen to sit on juries.

Can you imagine this group if they were getting $50 a day? They'd be like Fitz. Sitting for years and years.

As to Wels? He now knows a bit more for his APPEAL. And, Cooper is the one WALTOON said "impeached himself!" Then, he promptly forgot about his ON THE RECORD remark. He must have been terrified of the memory experts. They'd have seen right thru him.

[roanoke]

Well there is this from CNN-

"I have some questions in my mind as to exactly what the jury is asking me," Walton said. "So contrary to the defense position, I will send a note back to them stating, 'I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify?'"

Chief defense attorney Ted Wells said the note, whose content was not divulged, was clear to him, and he believed prosecutors were interpreting the note nearly the same way as the defense.

--From CNN's Paul Courson (Posted 10:53 a.m.)

[ordi]

It is possible they decided counts 1 and 2 got stuck on count 3 went on and decided the others and are now back deciding count 3.

[PMII]

They must really like the food........

[topsecretk9]

I have to say, it sounds like EW got that from Schuster.

[theo]

Ordi --

The problem with that is getting stuck on a Cooper count while deciding the others truly is straining on a gnat while swallowing a camel. The Cooper counts were by far the easiest to decide. It was totally a "he said/he said" controversy with very little substantive difference between the recollections of the only two parties to the conversation. The whole prosecution case on Cooper comes down to whether Libby was lying when he recalled telling Cooper that he was only telling Coop what he (Libby) had heard from reporters. According to Coop, Libby had not said that, but had said more generally "I heard that too" when Coop brought up the subject of Plame to Libby.

IMO, there is no way to convict a man on such a slight difference in recollection without much stronger proof of what was actually said.

[roanoke]

PMII

LOL! Walton better sequester them if they go over the weekend.

[ordi]

OT

The house Dems are now cutting and running from cutting off funds for the troops.

LOL

[roanoke]

tops-

I have to say, it sounds like EW got that from Schuster.

That would be my diagnosis....heh.

[ordi]

Theo

All I am saying it is possible. You can never count on a jury to do what we think they should do.

[theo]

Very true Ordi. They do work in mysterious ways.

And we should not be too negative on this report even if true. If the jury was consummed with BDS they would have convicted Libby by now -- and demanded Cheney be impeached.

The fact that they are still deliberating means that they are trying to get it right.

[Tollhouse]

Or they are very slow thinkers.

[ordi]

Or they saved the easiest count for last.

But only they know what they are doing and why

So we WAIT............

[Pofarmer]

The fact that they are still deliberating means that they are trying to get it right.

Or that their collective consciences are being overpowered by the buzz from all the cognitive dissonance they are feeling.

Must. Convict. Libby. Evidence. Not. There.

[roanoke]

Or they've been distracted by the other things.

The contamination issues ate a lot of time.

The actual deliberation time might be shockingly minimal.

[Joe Gloor]

"Walton: The jury sent a note in
response to my note for further
clarification.
The note said:
No further clarification needed.
Thank you, we apologize."

The first note:
Is everybody in this trial just really stupid?

Waltons note:
Who do you mean by everybody?

The second note:
No further clarification needed.

[PaulV]

the question was on how to deal with obstruction charge when Libby is cleared on other four charges

[centralcal]

Well, they sure had trouble writing that note (no ex-english teachers on the jury I guess).

[hit and run]

Joe Gloor, you took the words right outta my mouth (had I been thinking like you, which I wasn't but want to pretend that I was).

good job!

[Mike Sorensen]

I think you have to analyze from Russert backward.

In the Cooper and Miller conversations the prosecution claims Plame was discussed. Libby claims not.

In Russert conversation positions are reversed. Prosecution claims Plame NOT discussed. Libby claims the opposite.

Prosecution theory is that lies about Cooper and Miller conversations the are motive for lies about Russert conversation.

[bio mom]

The question is now up on Firedoglake.

[Sue]

Here is the note:

We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:

Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)

Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?

[roanoke]

Jeralyn has the actual note-

Link to The Note pdf

[bio mom]

The question is now up on Firedoglake. Here it is.

Note from the jury:

We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:

Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)

Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question?

Second note from jury:

After further discussion, we are clear on what we need to do. No further clarification needed. Thank you. We apologize.

After the second note came back, the Libby team was clustered around some piece of paper (I assume the note) chuckling. They showed it to Fitz, and nobody seemed to alarmed one way or the other.

[M. Simon]

I did a post on why affimative action will not work.

The reason is the same as why Africans dominate sprinting events. Which I also cover.

Inequality

[centralcal]

I like Byron York's take on the note. He said the note is as confusing as the case itself is.

Confusing? To put it mildly!

[clarice]

Good grief!

[arcanorum]

"We would like clarification on the charge as stated under Count 3 specifically:

Page 74 of the jury instructions, "Count three of the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during a conversation with M. Cooper of Time Magazine on July 12, 2003, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but that Mr. Libby did not know of this was true. (i.e., is the charge that the statement was made or about theh content of the statement itself)

Judge's note at the bottom — I am not exactly certain what you are asking me. Can you please clarify your question? "

Jury wants to know are they convicting on the charge based on truth of the original statement (which was not true, as Libby DID know whether what the journalists were saying was true) or the truth of the statement to the FBI, which was true. Since it is the latter that forms the basis of the charge, there is clearly an acquit on this charge.

[Jackson]

As Rosanne Rosanadana would say, "Neeever mind".

[jwest]

What a sterling opportunity Dick Cheney has with an acquittal or hung jury.

As the only person in Washington with no desire to run for president, he could announce that he needs an hour of prime time from all networks to “tell the truth” about the whole Plame/pre-war intelligence affair. The networks couldn’t resist.

Once on live, he could eviscerate the bulk of the MSM, with special emphasis on Wilson, Matthews, Schuster, Corn, Waas, Russert and dozens of others. No one chews up liberals better than our man Dick.

He could have a website ready with all supporting documents and examples of twisted reporting on the lies of Joe Wilson and how elements of the CIA and State departments tried to cover their mistakes by blaming the administration.

Cheney has just enough of the “Go f*ck yourself” attitude to do this right.

[hit and run]

Wow, what a note. A devious person would have a lot of ways to use photoshop and take individual letters from that note and rearrange them into what ever he wanted to make a faux jury note.

But that would be wrong.

[CH Truth]

This is pretty simple folks...

The question comes from the concept that Libby could have been lying to Cooper... protecting his source so to speak.

In other words, even if he had heard it from God himself... telling Cooper that he heard it from other reporters is not a crime. He can lie all day long to reporters.

The jury is likely weighing the feasiblity that Libby certainly could have told Cooper that he heard it from other reporters... whether or not it was actually true.

This would suggest that they are leaning towards aquittal on these charges.... but doesn't really tell us anything about the rest.

[PMII]

There is nothing clearly about anything on this case......

[Pofarmer]

Page 74 of the jury instructions

Sheesh, how many pages are there?

[Sue]

So how do we know the jury hasn't been spending all their time until yesterday going back over the evidence and have just started trying to answer the verdict form?

[roanoke]

The note question as best as I can decipher the writing-

We would like clarification on the charge as stated under count 3,specifically:

Page 74 of the jury instructions,"count three of the indictment alleges that Mr.Libby falsely told the FBI on October 14 or November 26, 2003, that during conversation with M. Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 203, Mr. Libby told Mr. Cooper that reporters (? hard to decipher) were telling the admoinistration that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true .

(i.e.^is the charge that^ the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself.)

[goldwater]

Good God. Tell me they weren't wondering whether or not Libby was charged with lying to Coop.

[Not a lawyer (though I play one on TV)]

Maybe you all have already figured this out, but…

On the was she or wasn't she question (covert), it occurs to me that we (not the jury) probably know that answer definitively:

If she were indeed covert, Mr. Fitzgerald would absolutely introduce that fact as the foundation of his case.

If she were not covert, the prosecution would go out of their way to not have that fact introduced and would take pains to ignore that question.

The defense would have mirrored motivations; however, I don't believe there is any way the defense can bar the prosecution from presenting such a relevant fact into the trail.

Therefore, given that Fitzgerald has so scrupulously avoided the single most important fact that would bolster his prosecution… she wasn't covert. Further, if she were doing something important/secret/interesting/anything relevant, even that would really help the prosecution's case, yet they've gone out their way to obscure and hide this fact.

[ordi]

Sue

Exactly! Someone up thread was slipping into defeatism and there is no reason other than a negative take by FDL that started the slide. At this point we just don't know what is going on.

[theo]

I wonder what the heck Walton thought was ambiguous about this question. It seems to me pretty basic. They wanted to know if the charge is that Libby lied when he made such a statement to the FBI about what he told Cooper OR did Libby lie when he said what he said to Cooper.

I am troubled on several levels. The jury surely should have known that even if Libby lied to Cooper there is no crime in that and it would not be a crime for him to honestly tell the FBI "this is what I told Cooper" even if what he told Cooper was not true.

More basically, why are they still futzing with a Cooper count? Those should have been disposed of before the end of the first half day.

I think the whole of today's events points to an acquittal on Count 3, but that is not exactly cause for celebration. Who here did NOT predict acquittal on Count 3?

[Another Bob]

jwest | February 28, 2007 at 08:51 AM

That's an excellent idea. Once the trial is over I'd *really really* like to see that.

[Another Bob]

theo | February 28, 2007 at 09:00 AM (and others)

Might we need to recall that the jurors aren't Plamaniacs?

I'm starting to get the feeling we will be very surprised by this verdict. Something like acquittal on the Russert charges and a conviction on a Cooper or Miller count.

[clarice]

There is no Miller count so if they convict on that I certainly will be surprised.

[Jane]

Someone up thread was slipping into defeatism and there is no reason other than a negative take by FDL that started the slide. At this point we just don't know what is going on.

Guilty as charged. And I'm still not crazy about this development.

More importantly. What are they wearing.

[TexasIsHeaven]

"Once on live, he could eviscerate the bulk of the MSM, with special emphasis on Wilson, Matthews, Schuster, Corn, Waas, Russert and dozens of others. No one chews up liberals better than our man Dick."

jwest - how right you are. That would be a dream come true if he would.

[roanoke]

*Ugh*

I think this is their primary question-

(i.e.^is the charge that^ the statement was made or about the content of the statement itself.)

[boris]

I suppose there is an interpretation where it does not matter exactly what Libby said to Cooper. If his GJ testimony is that he only knew what he heard from Russert then his GJ testimony about when he talked to Cooper would be that he really didn't know if it were true. IOW a second lie based on forgetting what he heard from Cheney in June and what he told Ari in July.

The charge itself doesn't read that way to me. That Libby lied about saying "don't know if it's true" to Cooper. Libby testified that he said it, Cooper testified that he didn't, but Cooper's own notes support the claim that Libby said something very similar to that.

That should be such an easy aquit that confusion on the point is troubling.

[arcanorum]

"I think the whole of today's events points to an acquittal on Count 3, but that is not exactly cause for celebration. Who here did NOT predict acquittal on Count 3? "

Alternately, since this is the only count where there is any demonstrable falsehood (e.g. the statement made to cooper is false, libby did know..), it could be that they have decided the other accounts did not meet the burden of reasonable doubt, and this was the only one left. Now that they have figured that this one is an acquit, based on no false statement to the FBI, perhaps it is all downhill...

I suppose time will tell.

[clarice]

They are wearing jeans, Janw.

[Dumbledore]

Okay, so after all this time the jury is uncertain about whether or not Libby is being charged with lying to Flounder^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Matt Cooper.

(Double secret) sheesh!

What's the old saying about never putting your fate in the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury dury ...

[theo]

Another Bob -- Clarice beat me to the response re the "Miller count."

But while I think the result you describe is totally illogical, your larger point that juries can do funny things is valid.

I agree with Jane on this not being a great development.

I still wonder what problem Walton had with the question. But I guess what he did worked out brilliantly. He said "What do you mean by that?" and they responded "Oh never mind." Saved him from having to explain something.

[roanoke]

Hell from Cooper's notes can they even tell what the supposed statement was?

Honestly.

[Jane]

They are wearing jeans

Which would indicate that the are not reaching a verdict today. Sheesh I have plans in the future, I really do.

[roanoke]

boris-

Yep. At this rate it'll be Christmas before they tackle the hard stuff unless like Jane said they decided to work it backwards.

[clarice]

Well, on reflection..it is clear from Cooper's notes that Libby probably did tell Cooper that and that Fitz' twisted logic is that Libby told the FBI that to keep them from noticing that he told them more than once and from the very outset that he heard it from Cheney in June......

[ordi]

Jane

I did not mean to point a finger at anyone but glad to hear you've come back to safer ground.

You are correct the most important thing is what they are wearing! LOL

[Sara (Squiggler)]

They are still "futzing" with the Cooper count because they are working their way thru the jury instructions. They are up to Page 74 out of how many pages? The jury is trying to do in a few days what JOMers have been trying to do for over 3 years and JOMers have much more information than the jury. I know a great deal about this case, probably much more than the jury, and I'm still trying to figure out how you end up in court charged with lying about not lying about lying about not lying about .... and how that obstructs justice when the investigators already knew who the leaker was before they ever interviewed the person charged with lying about not lying about lying about not lying about ...