The Libby Jurors - In A World Of Their Own Invention

As the Libby jury resumes deliberating this week it is worth keeping in mind a couple of points.

First, although they have access to trail exhibits (including a transcript if Libby's grand jury testimony), the jury does not have transcripts of any of the witness testimony they heard last month.  Consequently, they are relying on their own memories plus any notes they took to recreate critical testimony.  It it quite possible that on at least a few topics, the eleven jurors have offered an even dozen versions of that testimony - ironists among them may be wondering how they can convict Libby for forgetting what they themselves can not remember.  With the passage of time, this may be helpful for the defense.  Regardless, the jury is almost surely weighing a recreation of the evidence that differs from trial testimony on key points.

The second point is that the jury knows much less about the circumstances of the Libby case than do outside observers; for example, the jury is unaware of the controversy surrounding Andrea Mitchell and the question of whether she did or did not receive some sort of a Plame leak which she may or may not have passed to Tim Russert.

Eventually, the jury will come back with a verdict - if you don't like it, blame them, or the jury system itself.  And if a few of them hit the talk show circuit, we may learn just how far from the actual evidence they happened to wander.

MORE:  Current events - the judge and attorneys are dancing around the jurors notes.  (1, 2)

Byron York has an excellent summary of the jury's progress to date.

RE THOSE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS:  Cecil Turner makes a good point - in the grand jury transcripts Libby and Fitzgerald review different legal theories as to why Libby might be lying, and Libby makes a number of good points in that exchange.

The defense theory would be (I suppose) that Libby and Cheney discussed Ms. Plame on July 7, following the Wilson op-ed; Libby then lied and risked legal peril simply to
spare his boss some embarrassment.  Or more dramatically, Cheney told Libby that Ms. Plame's status was classified on July 7, so Libby lied to conceal that.

Since Cheney was not called, and since no evidence was presented showing that Grenier, Harlow, Schmall, Grossman, or anyone else was aware of her status or considered it to be an issue, the second scenario seems unlikely, to say the least.  I would have thought that if Fitzgerald had a witness prepeared to testify that he told Cheney about Ms. Plame's status, we would have heard from that witness, and Cheney as well.

Comments

[clarice]

Let's see these damn notes.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Ditto Clarice.

[steve]

Uh oh. You wouldn't like Clarice when she's cranky.

Clarice smash stupid prosecutor!

Disclaimer: This comment not authorized by Marvel Comics, inc.

[Avon]

"sounds to me like they're still stuck on count 3"

Agreed. It sounds to me that when they decided they understood this, they had it exactly backwards.

They are thinking that the the charge is that the statement was made, and not about the veracity of the statement itself. They are thinking that the fact a similar statement was made in GJ, seems to indicate that such a statement may indeed have been made previously. I'm not sure that they are implying that it was a consistent falsehood, so much as just missing the whole point of the thing entirely.

[vnjagvet]

I think it is now officially down to ridiculous quibbling among the jurors.

It has been that among the lawyers for a long time.

[roanoke]

This is Jeralyn's take working of only what is available at FDL-

'm having a hard time understanding without seeing the actual questions, but from Marcy's description, it sounds like the jury wants to know if it can consider the false statement charges in deciding whether Libby lied to the grand jury. Fitz argues yes, and the judge seems to agree, because the Government's theory has been that once Libby lied to the FBI, he was locked into a version of events that he continued when he lied to the grand jury. Wells thinks the false statement was complete in October when he talked to the FBI and it's improper to allow the jury to consider those statements in deciding whether he lied to the grand jury the following March.

The Government explained its theory here.

There also seems to be an issue as to the statements in Count 5 and the jury needing to know it only must find he lied on one of the the two dates in March and unanimously agree on which date.

I'll get you the link to the government theory next-

[boris]

Maybe the holdout has maneuvered others into convicting Libby of something he wasn't charged with.

[steve]

There's a Squeeze song with the line "I'm forgetting to remember to forget." The jury got lost in the weeds of all this meta-meta-memory and alleged lies about memories of lying to reporters. Now it looks like Fitz has got himself confused. Only Lewis Carrol could untangle this cluster-FUBAR. I'm afraid the jury is going to relieve its confusion by saying "Off with his head!"

[PaulL]

There is something terribly wrong with this jury if they are not only taking the Cooper charges seriously but finding Libby guilty of them.

If so, that would indicate a complete sweep of Guilty is coming.

[roanoke]

The Charged Lies in Counts 1, 2, and 5

via TalkLeft.com - Jeralyn.

This goes to here theory as to what she thinks the juror's questions are about.

[centralcal]

CRANKY? I am about to go ballistic!

[Tom Maguire]

It's a Thread-herder Memorial New Thread!

[PeterUK]

Is it possible to insure against being indicted by a Special Prosecutor for global warming? If so will it cover three years legal fees?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

If neither the jury nor the judge can define a charge, what is the remedy? If charges are so ambiguous they lead to this confusion, can they be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings?

[MikeS]

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that on this side of the Looking Glass there is a court where the jury repeatedly doesn’t know what the jury instructions meant.

The judge repeatedly doesn’t know what the jury questions meant.
That somehow through this process that jury could possibly determine that they do know beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby meant to deceive investigators.

[roanoke]

Oh jeez preview-

this goes to ^her^ theory

[Retiree]

Jury note to the judge
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.”

[Syl]

steve

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him) and (Libby did not know if this were true))

vs.

(Libby lied when he (said in GJ that he (told Cooper that reporters were saying Wilson's CIA wife sent him and Libby did not know if this were true))

It's even worse than that. Count 3 concerns what Libby said to FBI and the jury can't even attempt to parse out what he said to the FBI because there are no quotes so they want to use the GJ testimony instead.

I'm getting really really really cranky myself.

[Other Tom]

Sounds to me like Libby has already been nailed on at least one count.

[steve]

It would be darkly humorous if the defense was able to convince the jury that Russert was completely unreliable with their attention-grabbing tactics bt the jury seized on the ridiculous Cooper charges to salvage something for the prosecution. The only good thing about that would be the deserved collateral damage to Russert's reputation.

[MayBee]

OT- I don't know if that's true.
But if I were speculating, I would say the fact that they are in the weeds over the Stupid Cooper Counts tells me they've already found him guilty on Russert counts.

[PeterUK]

There is only one way to settle this,Trial by Combat,Libby and Fitz must go into the arena

[MayBee]

Wait. Let me revise that. I still think they may be working with a hold out or two.

[steve]

Two men enter, one man leaves! (Cue the Tina Turner song.)

[PeterUK]

Steve ,
Since this a personal grudge match,no sane government would have pursued such a pettifogging case so assiduously,why involve anyone else.Send the jury home,save taxpayer's money,give the JOMers the anticrankydote.

[cathyf]

Everyone who has been exposed to the game of plaintiffs' class actions for securities fraud understands that it is, at bottom, a racket. No one seriously claims that the shareholder "plaintiffs"--99.9% of whom have no notion that anyone has wronged them--benefit from these lawsuits. No one seriously disputes that the lawyers on both sides reap almost unimaginable rewards.

Oh, it's much worse than that. The stockholders own any and all assets which are used to pay the claims, so all of the lawyers' fees, and all of the $23 "settlements" come directly out of the stockholders' pockets.

It's sort of like if your 10-yr-old does a lousy job shovelling your walk, and you fall and break your arm, and then you sue the kid. When your 10-yr-old has no assets other than your money. So you have to pay the lawyers from both sides, and your medical bills, and the lawsuit settlement.

[gfjhgfdgjh]

dfd