Powered by TypePad

« Global Warning Solved! (But Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting To See This Implemented) | Main | Jury Watch - Home For The Weekend »

March 02, 2007



PMII & Ralph L.


Oh no fair!

Did anyone see Tom change his arrator to narrator-after the fact!?

I'm taking my crayons and going home...

Well seriously...I've got pretend work to do.

WA Moore

theo and roanoke -

One can expect in 91% Democrat DC that at least a few of the jurors have BDS and most have close family members and friends with BDS. They surely realize that after they deliver a verdict, they have to go home and defend any not guilty counts in this high profile case to family members, friends and co-workers (most of whom do suffer from BDS). In a case like this one where the obvious decision is not guilty on all counts, the preferred outcome for individual jurors may be a hung jury which would allow individual jurors to claim after the fact that they voted to convict. Under this scenario the jury simply does not want to make a decision.

I'm not wed to any scenario, but there is something odd going on.


Hilarious Cheney jokes at Bumperstickerests link waaaaaaaaay up there ^^^^^^^^^.


Nothing, Jane. We're working on getting you a cameo appearance in the Wilson/Plame bodice ripper as a birthday present, though.

That is so thoughtful. You guys are GREAT!

Ralph L.

Bodice ripper? Is that what they meant by "outing?" No wonder she's upset.


Worked for Janet Jackson.


SD, your sequester and diet thing probably violates the constitutional amendment against cruel and unususal punishment. And would likely result in assault charges against one of the jurors by the time its all said and done. Not guaranteed, but I know I would get cranky as hell in short order without my nightly ration of single malt and cigarettes.

And I feel your pain on the jury duty issue. There are few that are more unwelcome in the pool than those with hard science degrees.


WA Moore, I think you are right that something odd is going on. However, if they were thinking like you suggest, I would think that they wouldn't have asked for friday afternoon off, and that the they wouldn't be contemplating further deliberations next week. If some members wanted to hang the jury, by now, I would have expected that they'd inform the judge they were hopelessly deadlocked.

But what do I know?


Jane, my county clerk accepted my Dr's note as a permanent excuse from jury duty.


I'm not wed to any scenario, but there is something odd going on.

I said this before, but I want to repeat it, and hey, who is going to stop me?

I think at this point the jury is looking for a way to find him guilty. They are parsing all the Fitz evidence, and looking for ways to dismiss the Well's evidence. Then they can say they looked at it 6 ways to Sunday saw absolutely everything and came to the right result.

(And I think all this because of the report that they would not make eye contact with Libby but were in a great mood coming into Court. They figured out how to make it work for them.)




A documentary starring Ozzie Osborn and Paris Hilton


Taranto has some reader suggestions on offsets--get Gore to give them 5,000 smackeroo offsets so they can afford to pay the difference and get a Prius. There's more like that,
And someone notes that snails save energy by using mucus trails which may be okay if you're not a cocaine sniffer.
And then there's this:
""Democrats May Cut Bush Military Budget"--headline, Associated Press, March 1, 2:32 p.m. EST

"Democrats Nix Idea of Military Budget Cuts"--headline, Associated Press, March 1, 3:07 p.m. EST "

WA Moore

Patrick- Maybe they are waiting for the judge to demand a status report.



Recall that the "wouldn't make eye contact" came from FDL. On MSNBC.com, Isikoff (not exactly a cheerleader for Libby) said they did look at him. Maybe that will change your perspective. I still don't know what the @#$%! they are doing, but, as you can see it hasn't stopped me from giving my two cents.


Oh boy.


Pretty nauseating stuff, but the Sweetness blogger does suggest Cindy Sheehan for the role of Val.


My two cents:

Joe Wilson - Joe Wilson
Valerie Wilson - Valerie Plame Wilson
Dick Cheney - Chris Matthews
ChimpyMcHitlerBush - Will Ferrell
Scooter Libby - Gene Hackman
Fitzmas - Jason Leopold
Wells - Denzel Washington
Walton - Bill Cosby


That would be funny if the Jury was waiting for Walton to demand a status report, and Walton was waiting for the jury to throw in the towel. :Wells & Jeffress "Kaching Kaching." sitting around with about 25 associates waiting for a verdict.

WA Moore

OK, That's my favorite scenario. The jury is hopelessly deadlocked and waiting on the judge to call them in for a status report.


Posted by: kaz | March 02, 2007 at 10:39 AM

kaz, I was thinking more in terms of less comfortable = quicker decision.

I'm in a densely populated area of SE Virginia. Like as south and east as you can go without leaving the state or getting very wet. You would think they had lots of people to choose from, they could give me a rest.

When I got this one, I called the clerks office and voiced my frustration. He took it rather well, must be used to it. hahaha


artist conception of jury room

from FDL

Carol Herman


First, ya all are gonna have to wait and see.

The jurors are using this weekend to "prepare" for their turns in the limelight. (And, yes, some hairdos take almost all day to create.)

As to what they'll decide? It all has to do with what they "learned" during the weeks of preparation. Can they speak and be understood? Or will they sound "de-constructed." Like idiots who graduate with Ph.D's? IF they're in tune with themselves, but not with the audience that has already disappeared ... you can expect ONE of TWO THINGS.

If they find "guilt" on any charge? You'll be entertained as they "splain" it. While they talk, will some of the hairdos also dance?

Or, they'll come out saying ACQUITS. Which is easier than saying any of the garbage that would flow with "rehearsed" lines.

But to judge beforehand? No thanks.

If this jury were really up to par, they'd have at least released ONE NOTE on a question that asks to "simplify reasonable doubt."

Anyway, they're 15 minutes of flame fame will be fleeting.

And, just watch what Wells is prepared to do if there are guilty charges in the mix. Because then? The show ain't over.

And, the longer this runs, the hotter the pot gets under pelosi. Who can't drive this crew into 2008 without a lot of wheels falling off her bus. We'll also get a better view of Hillary's hips. Which will look gigantic, flipped over her broomstick.

Other Tom

WA Moore, I respectfully disagree. Not with the part about BDS among the jurors, their friends and their families, but about the conclusion that they would allow that to affect their vote. I may be the most naive guy ever to survive trial practice, but I have never wavered from my belief that something close to magical happens to people when they get on a jury--the really do take it deadly seriously, and they try to be fair. This doesn't make them immune to being bamboozled or head-faked, but I do trust them to overcome their prejudices. If they weren't able to do that, in this case they'd have strung the defendant up on day one.

If they're studying the evidence and the time-line in exquisite detail, I think they will have a hard time buying the notion that after all those summertime mentions of the wife, even thou;gh the conversations are in some cases disputed, Libby had forgotten about her by the fall. I have a hard time buying it myself. But maybe I have a reasonable doubt...

And now I am off to a hydraulic lunch. And I warn you, after two Martinis I become irresistible to women.

ARC: Brian

WA Moore, I think you are right that something odd is going on. However, if they were thinking like you suggest, I would think that they wouldn't have asked for friday afternoon off, and that the they wouldn't be contemplating further deliberations next week.

Actually that supports WA Moore's thesis. Process is more important than the result. Concensus is more important than the result. As an aside, I hate these sorts of approaches. Especially, the "every opinion is equal" sort of arguments. And in Business these sorts of lets all get consensus meetings are a sure sign of project failure due to exhaustion. Sometimes someone needs to make a decision even if nobody agrees with it.

At some point the facilitation process will break down. At some point the jury will want to get out of there and will be tired of following the process for the process' sake.

I anticipate at that point the jury dynamic will change radically.

My concern is that they horse trade charges (guilty on some, acquital on others) to leave with a consensus and in a reasonable timeframe.

At some point the Judge will start to pressure the jury for a decision, won't he? Can the Jury deliberate a month long trial for 2 months?

Kevin Spacey

When I see pictures of Patrick Fitzgerald I think of Kevin Spacey.


5 61.0 65.0 1 53.5 7083 -11.5

For what its worth, the "market" is less convinced Libby will be convicted, it has fallen steadily from 80% to about 60%, actually the last trade was 53.5...www.intrade.com


The thing about these group decisions, is usually one or two of the best in the group could decide the same thing in hours that it takes the group to come up with after weeks of lengthy meetings. OTOH in an organization if those one or two do it on their own a signficant number of the group will not buy into it, work to sabotage it or otherwise undermine the entire operation. Sad but true.

I could have picked out of the available applicants the right head of school in minutes--it took hundreds of hours of meetings and oppo skullduggery and undoing it for the large group to do it, but once it was done and the group reached the same decision in an obviously open and transparent way, that was it.


Valerie - Gwyneth Paltrow
Joe - George Clooney
Fitzgerald -Sam Waterson
Tim Russert - Jack Warner
Matt Cooper - Tom Arnold
Judy Miller - Judy Davis
Walter Pincus - Ed Asner
Andrea Mitchell - Katherine Harris
Scooter Libby - Ed Begley Jr.
Wells - Terrence Howard

Barney Frank

Where are the trolls today?

Is it a snow day and they're all out on their sleds or what?


I was once on a traffic case jury, the guy was guilty as hell, the defendant's lawyer said something about "speed recording devices being prone to failure", everyone wanted to acquit based on that, I got tired of arguing and the guy got off...so I take issue with OT's notion that everyone takes jury trials very seriously...but of course this is not a 1 hour deliberation traffic case so maybe people do take "big" trials more seriously, but somehow I doubt that is always the case.


Does anyone here think that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger? Just asking.


(ask for a troll a ye shall receive)


"Is it a snow day and they're all out of their heads or what?"


"Does anyone here think that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger?"
Saddam had already bought uranium ore,yellow cake from Niger,Iraq's existing stocks were from Niger.



The thing about these group decisions, is usually one or two of the best in the group could decide the same thing in hours that it takes the group to come up with after weeks of lengthy meetings. OTOH in an organization if those one or two do it on their own a signficant number of the group will not buy into it, work to sabotage it or otherwise undermine the entire operation. Sad but true.

Wait. Even if the group decides through consensus and the group buys into it, if those outside the group scream 'no' some members of the group will waiver and change their minds.

Think Congress. Iraq war.

Joe Gloor

Ah ha!
That just proves he wasn't trying to buy it, just as Wilson said.
Saddam already had some.

(just thinking outside the box - with my tin-foil hat on)


This is a hung jury.


It certainly has not been proven that he DID NOT try to buy uranium from Niger. Of course Joe Wilson is so full of himself that he actually thinks his trip and report were somehow a deciding (or should have been a deciding) factor in deciding whether or not to take out Saddam. The Niger story was but one small piece of the equation...it basically came down to something Bush said in a State of the Union speech and it was not in the "16 words"..he said "trusting in the sanity of Saddam Hussein is not an option"..no matter what liberals say the reason was, the reason Saddam was taken out was that his history and the preponderance of the evidence was this guy was too dangerous to remain in power. He wanted the world to think he had WMD, he wanted his neighbors and the Kurds to think he had WMD, he wanted to be "respected" like he had WMD..and GWB called his bluff...the rest is history


Jon Lovitz as Fitz,

"So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you know my wife, ... Morgan Fairchild?"



Does anyone here think that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger? Just asking.

Wilson reported that Saddam tried. Just saying.

Joe Gloor

Syl - "Wilson reported that Saddam tried. Just saying."
We can't believe anything Wilson says.

T.J. King

When I read that Zucker productions was handling the movie, I had a brief fantasy that David Zucker would make a movie similar to some of his other work.


It appears that his brother Jerry Zucker is the one running the show and I don't know what his angle is. According to the article, the Wilsons and J. Zucker's are buddies.

How I wish someone would make a comedic bonfire of the vanities movie about NBC's infighting and Judith Miller's scrambling to avoid another trip to Jail.

Scene - NBC editorial meeting room

Characters: Russert, Gregory, Mitchell, Chris Matthews

Mitchell: Tim, I am tired of carrying your water, I gave you the tip from Armitage and you blabbered to Libby, you were supposed to keep your mouth shut.

Russert: How the hell did I know this would end up in a subpeona?

Gregory: Look, I never get included in anything, and of all the luckk, the one time I'm in the loop, I wish I wasn't.

Matthews: Loop? Ha! Loooop? Ha! Davo, you are always looped, thats why you can't remember from day to day, whether you are in the loop or out of it. Ha! Out of it? I made another good one, ...Gregory, your out of it!

Mitchell: Look, if this thing goes to appeal and they get a real judge that puts me on the stand, I'm spilling the beans. I'm going to tell them about how I told you guys about Plame as soon as Armitage told me the whole thing. Heck, I pick up the bill for the sushi Armitage and I eat on his desk every tuesday, then he's got the balls to give an exclusive to Greta, She doesn't even put out.

Russert: Don't threaten me, Mrs. Greenspan, I tried to stay out of the Grand Jury, and up till now, I've been able to stay out of jail, and if we are lucky he will get acquitted and we will be done with this thing and back to the Rudy watch. That down state "G man" is goin' down.

Gregory: [hiccup], Jail? I can't go back there. I think Ari is on to me. Why would he claim he told me, he never told me crap. He doesn't even say hi, when I say hi to him. You know what I mean. Look away, he gives the look away. Tony Snow says Hi, but he told me I'm a male version of Helen Thomas. Typical Fox News!

Matthews: Ha! Dave, In that press conference the other day I thought the President was going to give you a wedgie you were so buzzed. Tim, Maybe for a change the Dave-meister can bail you out of Jail. You can act as your own counsel, you're an attorney, right?

Russert: Non-practicing, yes.

Mitchell: You are about to become a non-practicing Journalist, Timbo.

Russert: Look Judith Miller went to Jail because she wouldn't play along with Fitz, I plan to ride this thing out. Ari played, Armitage played along, I can too.

Matthews: Imagine the access we'll have if Fitz gets his wish to become AG in a Hillary WH. We'll have the goods on him. Ha! Free reign! Web Hubbell all over again!

Mitchell: Miller went to Jail, because she had a security clearance, she can recieve classified info but can't pass it on. She's in a catch 22. Why do you think Cheney mentioned her? Fitz can send her to jail for a dozen different things and if she squeels we will kick her ass up to Georgetown and back. Anyway, she worked at WINPAC in 2001 when she was writing her book, she and Valerie used to hit the happy hour at the "Tune Inn" every other Friday. She was screwed from day one.

Matthews: Your all screwed, Ha! I love it! Hey has anyone seen Bill Clinton lately? Svelt! Hot! I love it! Tell me he is not shooting for the Ambassadorship in Bangkok, Thailand.

Gregory: Ya want a hit, Andrea.

Mitchell: Shut up David!

WA Moore

Other Tom - "...something close to magical happens to people when they get on a jury...."

As a lawyer you have infinitely more experience than I with juries. My experience is limited to serving as juror on more than half a dozen relatively low-profile criminal cases over several decades. In my experience in these cases most, but not all, jurors were constructive and followed the instructions of the judge.

The current situation in DC seems more analogous to jury trials 100 years ago in the deep south of black men for the charge of raping white women. By analogous I mean in the sense of pressure to convict imposed upon jurors by the expectations of family and community. I realize this analogy is not totally fair, but neither is it reasonable to assume that jurors in high-profile cases are immune to the pressure of family and community expectations.


nice script....

sammy small

W.A. Moore's conjecture is certainly an interesting scenario. However a concensus does not take into account the vested political interests jurors will have. I can't believe that it won't be pervasive.

In an atmosphere such as this, getting to a consensus will be almost impossible on all counts.


Pretty good.

Since Gregory is the French speaker (heh) in the crowd, I'd rework it a bit:
Gregory:Fleischer told me? Balls. I told HIM. Wilson's wife--PlamAY, I said-- and he has the nerve to say he told ME.


Joe Gloor

Syl - "Wilson reported that Saddam tried. Just saying."
We can't believe anything Wilson says.

Of course we can't. But wilson didn't 'say' it, he reported it to the CIA.


Anna Nicole Smith as Plame'
But does TM play himself?


What pervasive interest to convict? Pheh. They are democrats for the most part..most people here are, but they are mostly urban professionals w/ a lot of experience in organizational lunacy.They are not exactly ward heelers.

Joe Gloor

Syl - "Of course we can't. But wilson didn't 'say' it, he reported it to the CIA."
Wasn't it an oral report?


Clarice I hope you are right but in today's dog eat dog politics where everything is highly political and partisan it's hard to believe Democrats would give Libby the benefit of the doubt...


"That just proves he wasn't trying to buy it, just as Wilson said.
Saddam already had some."

So Saddam could have made a nuclear weapon.

WA Moore

Clarice - your 11:23 AM post

I agree. In the business world the greatest risk of failure of any venture is from undermining by employees who disagree with decisions. You either take the time to sell it up front or risk failure.

It seems obvious that the type of consensus building necessary in the business world does not and should not apply to juries, especially criminal cases. The defense should be required to convince only one person (thinking independently) of reasonable doubt in order to avoid conviction.


Joe Gloor

Wasn't it an oral report?

It was private, not public.

DerryDA derryDoo Doo


Missy - You triggered it for me:

Joe Wilson = Charlie Sheen
Valerie = Shelly Long


According to Court TV, the jury sent two more notes before they left today.


This could indicate that they are sorting through the evidence and haven't even voted yet (as someone said on another thread).




Joe Gloor

Syl - "It was private, not public."
Well that's why he could lie about it later.

Syl - "DerryDA derryDoo Doo"
What does that mean? (I'm new here).


Yes, WA Moore, I agree. I do think the organization of the process, however, is helpful. And if the facts the non-consensus voter chooses are on the fact chart but gives different weight to, he/she has a point that the interpretation is a reasonable one.
For example, I doubt that the short skirt the witness wore would make it to the chart. A witness' inconsistency should have though. Whether you give that more or less weight, the instructions make clear that is a reasonable basis on which to doubt his testimony.

bio mom

I started not liking this jury after the Valentine' Day stunt. Childish. Silly. Yesterday's description of "giddy" just reinforces the impression. I think they like all this for some reason. Makes them feel important. And wouldn't you be REALLY important if you convicted one of the evil Bushies?? I have absolutely no faith in them coming to a reasoned, fair decision. If I felt otherwise, even a conviction would not disturb me that much. Not if I thought they did it with care. But this group does not inspire confidence.


More info -

UPDATE 3:07 ET. Here are the jury’s notes, and this time, it ain’t about post-its. They want the judge to clarify the term “reasonable doubt.” And they’ve got a technical question about Count 1 of the indictment, which is the obstruction charge.

This bodes well for the defense, right?

bio mom

Just posted on Court TV's blog:

Court TV has learned that before retiring early for the weekend the jurors in the Scooter Libby trial sent two notes to the judge. The judge intends to deal with them in open court Monday at 9am. The notes' contents have not been revealed publicly.

UPDATE 3:07 ET. Here are the jury's notes, and this time, it ain't about post-its. They want the judge to clarify the term "reasonable doubt." And they've got a technical question about Count 1 of the indictment, which is the obstruction charge.


THE 2 NOTES the Jury sent.
What is the quote they should use re Count 1--that is what is it Libby said and what is reasonable doubt. Must the SP prove that it is not humanly possible for the defendant not to recall before they can find proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.





If it were possible to sit everyone down and convince them through logic and reason that point (A) is correct and point (B) is false, there would be no liberals in the world.

The woman who knows the girl in the short skirt is lying is positive of this fact – because she had a daughter-in-law who wore skirts just like that and all she did was lie. The judge told her to use her life experiences, and although all the other jurors are fooled, she isn’t.

Other Tom

Good point about the southern juries of old. I would like to think that that was a deep-seated, cultural hatred that we don't see today except among the kinds of folks who take Larry Johnson seriously, and there are very few educated professionals in that category. I would like to think it, but I can't be sure.

Odd we're not seeing anything about the two jury notes.

Back from the two-Martini lunch. Astonishingly, the women somehow were able to resist me. And so it's nap time.

WA Moore

Clarice, Agreed. Use the group skills to organize the facts and testimony, but not to drive to consensus decisions.

The only things I'm sure of is (a) I do not know what is happening in that room and (b) speculating is a fun way to pass the time while waiting.

In any case, my daughter just arrived with my 2 year old granddaughter and it's 65 degrees outside, so I have something more important to do for a few hours.

Other Tom

My most recent post was being typed while this fascinating stuff about the notes was coming out. Brother...


OT, the notes are online now--look just before your last post,
WAM, I envy you, Behave,


As count 1 statement 3 (pages 63 & 64) do not contain quotes, are we supposed to evaluate the entire Libby transcripts (testimony) or would the court direct us to specific pages/lines

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt". Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


I'm sorry, I couldn't copy the notes so I retyped them.

Okay, what do they mean?

bio mom

What kind of gibberish is that second note? I have read it three times and STILL have "reasonable doubt" that I understand the question.


Don't the @#%! jury intsructions define "reasonable doubt?" Oh for crying out loud....



No, they are not hung on all the counts.

I still think they have found Libby guilty on at least count 3 and now perhaps, all that remains to be resolved is Count 1 where they may be divided.

Libby guilty.


Or not.

In any case, this will be revealed on Monday.

Just sayin'.


They want the exact language the SP is relying on in Count 1 for these two parts of Count One:
"1)(a)(ii) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, at the time of Libby's conversation with Russert, on or about July 10, 2003, Libby was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, Libby had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic.

(1)(b) Contrary to Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that Libby had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did Libby advise him that Libby did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, Libby confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that Libby had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. "

As to the reasonable doubt note, I will dig up the instructions on reasonable doubt and tell you how the Court will respond in a minute.

Other Tom

Christ--eight days and it comes to this? I retract everything I've said about juries. In fact I retract everything I've said, period. Now it's REALLY nap time.


A thought occurred to me about this jury.

Many of us assume that because the residents of DC are heavily weighted toward the Democratic Party, that their bias is toward conviction of a Bush Admin official. This may be true, and I think if someone were charged under the IIPA or something similar where it was the established bureaucracy vs. a Republican this might hold true.

However, in my experience many in DC are fairly cynical, and one of the greatest objects of their derision is the media. They seem to be particularly attuned to the buffoonery and self-referential nature of network news types. They're in on the "joke", that politicos uses the media, and that the media uses politicos.

Maybe because this trial diminished into a Libby vs. Media, the jury is on a more even keel – they're skeptical of all parties.

Which might not be a bad thing.

Joe Gloor

It's the double negatives that make it confusing.
I think they're asking:
"Does the government have to present evidence that someone could not possibly recall".


#2 is strange. It is almost like someone on the jury is holding out, which is good news for the defense. Yet it semms that the others may have argued that person down to a point where he/said finally "Look it is in the realm of human possibility that Libby forgot".

Strange. It will lead to fireworks on Monday between the lawyers.

hit and run

Beer #5 says hi.

Joe Gloor

"Does the government have to present evidence that someone could not possibly FORGET?"


I think the notes cut both ways.

The one about Count 1 is VERY positive. They are focused on the third of the three possible obstructions. They need not consider that if they have found obstruction on either of the first two statements. And they do not seem to know when the hell Libby is supposed to have said the statement. VERY good news -- at least at first blush and at least as to Count 1.

The request for an instruction on "reasonable doubt" is not so good. In my experiences judges hate defining reasonable doubt. The jury is just supposed to know it when they see it. And the way the question is worded reads like a set up. OF COURSE the jury can find something is true beyond a "reasonable doubt" without finding that it is not "humanly possible." This looks like they have a hold out on reasonable doubt on some aspect of the case and want the judge to tell them that the hold out is not reading "reasonable doubt" correctly.

We shall see.


The government has the burden of
proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not, or, in some cases, that its truth is highly
probable. In criminal cases such as this one, the government’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, as the name implies, is a doubt based on

reason -- a doubt for which you have a reason based upon the evidence or lack of evidence in the case. If, after careful, honest, and impartial
consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more

important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based on reason. The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty. Its burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

And the defense will surely ask him to remind the jury of the instruction re memory:

As you have heard, the defense contends
that Mr. Libby confused, forgot, or
misremembered all or parts of some of the conversations that you have heard about during the trial that form the basis for the charges that have been filed against Mr. Libby. You are also being asked to evaluate the accuracy of the memory of other witnesses who testified in this trial. In considering Mr. Libby’s position and the testimony of any other witness

whose memory is at issue, it is appropriate for you to take into account the following:
(1.) Your assessment, based on your life experiences, of the capacity of human beings to remember things they said and were told when asked to recall those matters at a later point in time;
(2.) The amount of time between when a person said or heard something and the impact the passage of time had on the person’s memory to accurately recall those

(3.,) The circumstances that existed when the person was exposed to the events he or she is asked to recall;
(4.) The nature of the information or the event the person is called upon to remember;
(5.) The circumstances that existed when the person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(6.) The circumstances that existed

during the time between when the person was exposed to an event he or she is asked to recall and when that person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(7.) Your assessment of the memory capacity of the person whose memory is in question; and
(8.) Any evidence that was presented during this trial that shed light on any issues related to memory of the individuals you have to assess in this trial.


The "humanly possible" question is very bad news for LIbby. That kind of straw-man argument suggests that they've decided that they're pretty sure Libby didn't forget, and will convict unless the judge tells them that they must find Libby's claim "humanly impossible"--which the judge, quite rightly, will not do. Time to fire up the appeal engines.

Charlie (Colorado)

The disembodied voice of Charlie

on Charlie's Angels -- the late John Forsythe.



To take off just a bit of gloom, it could just be that they're arguing about reasonable doubt on Libby's memory failures but still don't have motive and materiality nailed down on whatever count they're considering.

Or maybe their "facilitation" process makes them want to get all the terminological confusions out of the way before they actually deliberate on the evidence.

OK, maybe grasping at straws now.


" This looks like they have a hold out on reasonable doubt on some aspect of the case and want the judge to tell them that the hold out is not reading "reasonable doubt" correctly. "

While the prosecution need not prove it is NOT humanly possible, the answer is if the jury finds it IS humanly possible, there is reasonable doubt ..and that is what the judge must make clear on Monday.


Steve --

Unfortunately I think your first post on "reasonable doubt" was is more likely. But let's not be too certain yet. Maybe it was just an academic question. Like the perhaps apocraphyl story where the jury asks if they can give the plaintiff in a civil suit more than he/she asked for and then renders a defense verdict just because they wanted to know the answer.

Still good news on Count I I think.


If I was Judge Walton-I'd sent the note back just like last time.

See what the hell they do with it.

I'd have one word on the bottom of it.



Clarice --

If the jury finds that a certain set of facts is "humanly possible" they absolutely do NOT have to find that a contrary set of facts has not been proven beyond a "reasonable doubt." To hold otherwise would equate "rasonable doubt" with any kind of theoretical doubt whatsoever.

I would bet real money that the judge does nothing more than re read his instructions on "reasonable doubt." This is an area so fraught with reversible error that I think he will tread lightly. He may however take the bait and tell them flat out that just because something is "humanly possible" does not mean that they must find "reasonable doubt" as to its converse.

Charlie (Colorado)

"Does anyone here think that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger?"
Saddam had already bought uranium ore,yellow cake from Niger,Iraq's existing stocks were from Niger.

So, yes.

bio mom

The jury doesn't want to be responsible for the decision about reasonable doubt. They want the judge to make the decision for them. That's my read. And the judge should force them to make the decision, as is their duty as jurors. Judge should just read again what he said about reasonable doubt before they started deliberating. He said they decide using their common sense. What is so difficult to understand about that?! Stupid jury! No wonder they giggle and wear Valentine's tee shirts. Their collective mental age seems to be about 16.



How much do you want to bet that the jury wanted the dictionary to look up the meaning of "reasonable"?


The best thing I can see is there is someone holding out. If that someone doesn't cave, we have a hung jury on at least some portion of the verdict.

Joe Gloor

They certainly didn't pick the foreman based on his writing skills.



Yep. Looks like they are trying to use the judge to tell that person that they are being unreasonable.

bio mom

Roanoke, I bet you are correct about that!!


I agree with Roanoke's 1:02 post.

It would be very hard to continue to hold out on this basis once the law is explained to them again.


going back to read more snark,
Variety *had* to time the announcement before the verdict.

the Plame's are gonna
"invent the narrative" even if it outs
current CIA info and employees.

victors write the history and all that.

me thinks they've swallowed the po-mo
"end of history" pill.


PUK--I wish you and H & R and Soylent were doing the script..Hmmm..that gives me an idea.......*finger to lip*

Posted by: clarice |
March 02, 2007 at 09:00 AM

cut off the M. Moore crowd before
they get started.

i nominate Iowahawk.


If someone is experiencing doubt that the prosecution proved its case, that is reasonable doubt. You don't need another definition. You are the trier of the facts and if the facts don't fit you must acquit!

The comments to this entry are closed.