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

Comments

PMII

Steve,

I agree with you here. And I hate the double negatives. When the jury gets there answer, they will spent 2 days trying to remember the question.

steve

As theo commented earlier, we could all be overinterpreting this second note, too. Juries ask academic questions sometimes, and this particular group doesn't seem to have a Mussolini-like focus on Fitz's railroad schedule, so they may just be dicking around or laying the groundwork for serious deliberation.

Jane

the note seems to ask if Fitz has to prove to a 100% certainty that Libby had to remember all that stuff he claimed to forget.

Steve,

I still think that switches the burden - It's not up to Fitz to prove that Libby had to remember but rather to prove that Libby didn't forget.

Those are entirely different things.

kazinski

It occurs to me that the "reasonable doubt" note is penned by someone, and probably in the majority, that thinks that Fitz proved beyond a RD that Libby was lying about forgetting. But the reason for the note is that there are one or more holdouts that don't think Fitz made his case that Libby couldn't of forgot beyond a RD.

The wording of the note seems to solicit the answer "NO, he doesn't have to prove it wasn't humanly possible to forget." Which is intended to be used as ammunition against the holdout(s).

PMII

Jane,

On your earlier post - you're so smooth!!!

Rick Ballard

Barney,

The Sanchez whining may have something to do with this. (May 2006)

On Wednesday, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group in Washington, reported that Jackson and his wife gave $16,000 in campaign contributions to Loretta and Linda Sanchez, sisters and Democratic congresswomen from California. While there was no evidence that the contributions were illegal, the group said, "It is unclear why a Kentucky businessman and his wife chose to single out politicians from California and Louisiana." Loretta Sanchez serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

A little innoculation for when the Feds start publicizing the results of the investigation of 'Cold Cash'.

steve

Jane: Law of the excluded middle? Remember=not forget.

saki

The more I think about this note, I believe some or all jurors are saying; the government did not prove to me that it is impossible for Libby to have forgotten but I/we want to find him guilty anyway.
The way the note is written, I think possibly the note writer does not like this question.
Wht say you?

hit and run

bio mom:
By the way, since you didn't ask I'll tell you anyway. I think Rudy Guiliani will be the next President of the United States.

Oh, I woulda asked if I weren't a Dumas (city in TX, by the way).

I agree.

steve

Or if you prefer: "Does Fitz have to prove that there is a 0% chance that Libby forgot?" Answer: NO

lurker

I agree, Jane!

Sue

a Dumas

Is that where you are from? If so, we are from different worlds, even though we are both Texans (you at heart, it seems). I am in the deep Piney Woods of East Texas.

obsessed

I hope my post at 4:19 will suffice for poor ol' Obsessed, whose obsession seems so great that even the most fundamental and uncontested facts have eluded him altogether. I guess that's why they call it obsession.

so, uhhhh ... here's your post from 4:19:

Cleo darling, the penalty for disbarment in Arkansas is a prohibition against the practice of law in that state for five years [snip] you silly girl!

I guess I'm a silly girl too, but at least I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. The fundamental and uncontested facts about Arkansas disbarment statutes had indeed eluded me ... altogether. And now I'm so confused and embarrassed that I'm going to have to scurry back into my little troll den and scratch at my fleas in bewilderment. You don't think that's where Osama's hiding do you? No - I forgot - he's in Baghdad - phew - dodged a bullet there.

Barney Frank

It's kind of hard for me to see it any other way than steve's version at 4:40.
However, we don't know whether this is the question of one or more hold outs or whether the entire jury is asking.
If the entire jury is then they should sequester them in the Romper Room studio.
On the other hand if the only thing between Libby and conviction is that a couple of people think reasonable doubt equates to humanly possible then Libby's not going to strewing any roses out of a hat anytime soon.

Sue

I have tried to read the note in a way that looks good for Libby, but I can't make it even rearranging it into some semblance of the English language. I think there is a holdout(s) for voting guilty. If they don't have a strong conviction they will likely vote with the majority to end their ordeal as they probably all feel it is by this time.

MayBee


Sue,
I think so. The problem seems to be that if there are holdouts they possess an untenable view of reasonable doubt.

I read it as a holdout for acquittal, and the writer of the note has some disdain for that person's opinion.
As someone said ealier (Sue?), we don't know how well that person is able to express his doubt, but it could easily be someone who disagrees is trying to overstate what they are saying to make their doubt ridiculous.

hold-out:I just don't think the government proved Libby was lying
guilty guy:Why not?
hold-out:It just seems possible Libby was telling the truth
guilty-guy:Well, it's humanly possible, but the government doesn't have to prove that. Here, we'll ask the judge

MTT @ 1:08, I absolutely agree with you. If they are parsing the obstruction charges for exact quotes, I fear they are seeing incorrect statement = lie= perjury = obstruction.

hit and run

Sue:
Is that where you are from? If so, we are from different worlds, even though we are both Texans (you at heart, it seems). I am in the deep Piney Woods of East Texas.

I am from Dallas. I gradiated from SFASU.

SFA-Fn-SU. Git more piney wood than that!


My family, went on noooomuerous trips out west that took us through Dumas, Dalhart, Amarillo, Raton, NM, Trinidad, CO, etc,,,,,,,,

Now about yer Piney Woods,,,,

MayBee

Elliott- You noticed the time on the second note. I do think that means something. I think it means they wanted the dictionary yesterday to look up "reasonable", were going to submit the question earlier today, talked about it all day without getting anywhere, and ended up submitting it before they left.
I suspect they've been going around reasonable doubt for a few days now.

garytheyoung
"Valerie has been incredibly careful with what she tells us, it's almost like she is still working for the CIA. The biggest element of the movie to us is the story of two people who spent their lives in service of their government, and were then betrayed by that government."

Guess that answers any questions about POV.

hit and run

Ok, kids goin ta bed now. i'll be back in 1/2 an hour....or more....depending on their prayers....

Sue

I am from Dallas.

I was born in Dallas, but wasn't raised there. My heart is there though. Both of my children and my grandchild reside there and I take every opportunity to head west! Stephen F. Austin, huh? That, my friend, is deep, deep in the heart of the Piney Woods. I am not quite that deep. ::grin::

Sara (Squiggler)

Or if you prefer: "Does Fitz have to prove that there is a 0% chance that Libby forgot?" Answer: NO

Why would Fitz present any evidence to prove any chance that Libby forgot? Fitz's contention is that there is 0% chance he forgot.

Does Fitz have to prove 100% that Libby's contention that he did forget is unreasonable? Or did the defense have any burden to prove that Libby did or could have forgotten?

PeterUK

The Betrayed,note the drawn hunted look.

lurker

OT:

Democrats Send Out First Subpoenas For Show Trials

Sigh...

Here we go...

As expected...

What would the outcome be?

Other Tom

Poor Obsessed is more troubled than ever now...

MayBee

or yeah, what kazinsky said. exactly.

steve

Sue: I live in Dallas. Haven't seen your heart lying around, though. Just a grin with some colons strewn about.

Sara: Huh?

Syl

Jane

I still think that switches the burden - It's not up to Fitz to prove that Libby had to remember but rather to prove that Libby didn't forget.

Those are entirely different things.

Of course they are. But tell that to the jurors.

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 a reasonable doubt.

I just can't read this any other way than at least one juror is saying 'it's not impossible for Libby to have forgotten, therefore we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'

LauraMae

IMO, Alec Baldwin was born to play Joe Wilson. The important hair, the smug conceit.
For Val, I suggest one of those Georgia bank-robber girls. They've already got the sunglasses.

Sue

Haven't seen your heart lying around, though. Just a grin with some colons strewn about.

::grin::


PeterUK

Given that the questioning had more in common with the methods of the Geheimestadtspolizei than justice in the "land of the free",no notes,no lawyer,interrogated for hours,until he slipped up,If I were on the jury,I would regard it as entirely feasible that this was human error.
It is also appalling that something which was trivial at the time can be blown up,post fact,into a case three years in the making.
Sorry folks,this is the Central Committee of the Albanian Beetroot Farmers Collective at work.

Elliott

Sue,

First of all, I agree with you and Jane that there is something strange about the question. For startersIn the first instance, they replaced "for example" with "specifically." Perhaps they thought it would make the judge more likely to answer. However, it makes me wonder whether the question they ask describes the issue they are debating or an issue they consider analogous.

The second and to my mind more substantial oddity is that they ask whether additional evidence should have been presented. Does one of the jurors really believe the judge would have let the prosecution present a case that lacked necessary evidence?

Taken on its face, I think the note suggests that at least one juror thinks the Government needed to argue that Libby was incapable of forgetting a particular incident rather than using other evidence to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not forget.

It looks to me like the question was written in the morning and submitted at the end of the day. In between, I would guess that the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were discussed without minds being changed.

Along the lines of something that has been suggested above, the defense probably hopes that this note does not accurately reflect the position of the holdout(s).

PeterUK

Zero Mostel as Joe.

Sara (Squiggler)

Steve: you asked -- "Or if you prefer: "Does Fitz have to prove that there is a 0% chance that Libby forgot?" Answer: NO"

This doesn't make sense to me because it is Fitz's contention that there is 0% that Libby forgot. If the jury is questioning whether he had to prove or proved this contention, then I say that is reasonable doubt. Otherwise the expectation reverses the burden and makes the question: Does Libby have to prove there is 100% chance he did or could have forgotten?"

steve

"Of course they are. But tell that to the jurors."

I don't get this argument. Why doesn't remember=not forget?

"I just can't read this any other way than at least one juror is saying 'it's not impossible for Libby to have forgotten, therefore we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

I agree that this is the most probable interpretaion. The problem is that "not impossible" is much more defense-friendly than reasonable doubt. It's not impossible for every air molecule in the room to collect in one corner, but it's not reasonable to think it ever happened to anyone.

But it's not clear that we are interpreting this correctly. They may be sorting out legal standards prior to voting for the first time. Or the holdout could come back and say, "I'm not saying just that it was humanly possible, I'm saying that there's a decent chance of it." Or they could agree that Libby lied, but only to avoid embarrassment and not to obstruct justice. Etc.

Syl

Of course, I like MayBee at 4:54

hit and run

Sue:
Stephen F. Austin, huh? That, my friend, is deep, deep in the heart of the Piney Woods. I am not quite that deep. ::grin::

I didn't start at Stephen F. until my "jr" year. (scare quotes b/c I didn't take a traditional 4 yr course)

I met mrs hit and run 2 days before she started her freshman yr there.

And it's been downhill for her ever since!

clarice

I like MayBee anytime, but I hope she's wrong on her 4:54 post....

Barney Frank

Rick,

I'm sure you're way off base. Just because a guy from Kentucky who has confessed to bribing other Democrats on the same committee, gave $16,000 to a couple of Dems from SoCal, which as we all know has little to no defense industry, you shouldn't jump to conclusions. Didn't Speaker Starkist promise us the most ethical congress since Abscam?

Wonder what's in the Sanchez's frozen food section?

steve

Sara: You say,

"This doesn't make sense to me because it is Fitz's contention that there is 0% that Libby forgot. If the jury is questioning whether he had to prove or proved this contention, then I say that is reasonable doubt. Otherwise the expectation reverses the burden and makes the question: Does Libby have to prove there is 100% chance he did or could have forgotten?"

Fitz may be contending, rhetorically, that there is 0% chance that Libby forgot, but that is above and beyond the burden of proof he needs to meet. If he can show that there is less than a 5% chance, say, that Libby forgot, most people would say that that's beyond a reasonable doubt. (Of course that means that in cases like this, there will be about one innocent guy locked up out of twenty convicted.) Libby, by contrast, should ohly have to prove that there is at least a 5% chance that he forgot. But there's a big difference between 5% and 0%.

hit and run

Sue:
I take every opportunity to head west!

OK, we can play this game if you want, or you can just say, back off.

I spent a summer in Tyler as a youth director........................

I luuuuuuved Tyler. I was in Tyler when mrs hit and run said 'yes'.

Sue

Taken on its face, I think the note suggests that at least one juror thinks the Government needed to argue that Libby was incapable of forgetting a particular incident rather than using other evidence to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not forget.

So basically, a juror was looking for the 'smoking gun' evidence and got 'circumstantial' evidence and doesn't like finding Libby guilty on circumstantial evidence? Fitz argued that in his rebuttal. Circumstantial evidence. Because he knows he doesn't have a 'smoking gun'. It may be hard to change that person(s) mind if he/she/they think a 'smoking gun' is required to convict.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

"JMH, which of those examples do you think is Fitz' lost diagram of his case?"

Unfortunately, Typepad locked me out when I tried to post the link for that one. Seriously! It would look a lot like this one -- if you erased enough connecting lines to turn it into a big "C' for Cheney.

I think there are a lot of different ways to read the jury notes we've seen so far, some more likely than others. I'm not at all sure, however, why folks seem so quick to assume that there's a lone holdout either way -- or so quick to blame the jurors for the difficulty they may be having, for that matter.

If there's one thing the notes confirm, it's what I've been saying about what shoddy work Fitzgerald's indictment represents. Just how poorly conceived and badly written do your charges have to be -- and how mediocre your trial work -- to leave a jury confused about what they are actually being asked to acquit or convict the defendant of doing? Sheesh.

Sue

I luuuuuuved Tyler. I was in Tyler when mrs hit and run said 'yes'.

Tyler is nice. But no banana for you...

steve

Fitz kept referring to the underlined articles found in the files because they were the closest thing he had to a smoking gun. More like a gurgling water pistol to me, but still.

To me, the official talking points that didn't mention la Plame were the closest thing the defense had to a smoking gun. It's not like they anticipated those showing up in a cockamamie trial when they wrote them up. So leaving her out of the story backs up Libby's claim of nolo obssesso on the wife.

hit and run

Oh and my dad's lineage runs through Paris, TX.

Though I speak almost no French.

clarice

Yes, JMH, I agree--bafflegab like his interrogation of Libby in the gj and some of his arguments in court.

hit and run

OK, son's gotta go to bed, even though I am fascinated with Extreme Engineering where they are building the USS GHW Bush Aircraft Carrier!!!!

Heck - I've sen it 12 times now...but still...

Syl

clarice

I like MayBee anytime, but I hope she's wrong on her 4:54 post.

On the note issue I think her little example explains a bit and softens it in that the holdout is actually expressing reasonable doubt.

And I embrace it because if the holdout is only say it's 'not impossible' that's not good enough.

As for the bottom part misstatement=lie=perjury=obstruction I have the same fear quite frankly.

They seem to be way too detail-oriented and thus are missing the thrust of the defense case...besides seeming to have conceptual difficulties with meanings of basic legal terms.

steve

JMH: I'm with you on how meesed up this whole prosecution is. And I've been defending the jury's possible confusion on previous threads--they're being asked to untangle a Gordian hairball. I just find the second note worrying, even though it is not clear and convincing evidence that Libby is in trouble.

Sara (Squiggler)

Steve, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but to phrase it that way, aren't we seriously getting into the realm of the thought police and prosecuting thoughts rather than actions?

I don't think there is a way for Fitz to prove Libby didn't forget. Shoot, with all the focus and crack legal minds here, we cannot seem to remember salient facts from posts of just a few days ago. Example, read back to the question about the lawyer on the jury. We had a whole section of comments about the Consumer Protection Attorney just a few days ago, yet no one seemed to remember until someone went to FDL.

And we have oodles of comments and posts about all the facts here that we should remember because we had to take the extra step and type something about them, which increases the likelihood of remembering. I really object to Fitz's characterizations of "conversations" or "discussions" and see this as very disingenuous on Fitz's part. How can the jury think that Libby's memory hearing something that isn't even about what he was interested in finding out is more memorable to him than it is to those imparting the information?

Elliott

Rick:

hit and run's lack of Gallic fluency reminds of something you said earlier: "Fitzonics is the lingua nonfranca of Fitzlaw."

Non Franca....

So he does have redeeming qualities.

Syl

JMH

I'm not at all sure, however, why folks seem so quick to assume that there's a lone holdout either way -- or so quick to blame the jurors for the difficulty they may be having, for that matter.

::waving hand::

Guilty.

:(

Sue

Oh and my dad's lineage runs through Paris, TX.

Anyone north of the Sulphur River is a yankee. Whether they speak French or not. ::grin::

Ralph L.

For Joe Wilson, Danny Aeillo, the ditzy brother from Moonstruck. Is there any more important hair in Hollywood?

PeterUK

What ever else this is,the long deliberations of the jury reflect badly on the Special Prosecutors case which has probably been longer in the making than "Waterworld" and just as much a dog.

Sara (Squiggler)

How does that dreaded word "intent" come in to play?

MikeS

backassed
Libby's not charged with remembering. He's charged with lying when he said he was surprised.

Actually in the underlined transcript there is a kind of thread where Libby talks about what surprised him.
First it was because he hadn't heard about Plame before, then it was that maybe Russert had said 'something more', then in the end Libby is pretty firm saying what struck (surprised) him was that Russert thought it (nepotism) was so important.

Sue

I think the long deliberations spell doom for Libby receiving a pardon from Bush. Had they come back quickly with a guilty verdict, Bush could have argued BDS. That they have spent days deliberating makes it appear they have taken their job seriously.

steve

Sara: What you and I agree on is that there is a much greater than 5% or 10% chance that Libby really did forget about some or all of Wilson's wife...Valerie Plame...who worked at the CIA...in CPD..who sent Joe on the trip... as these matters came up in fragmentary ways among the press of other significant events. And his memory about his memory would be even shakier.

But that belief about the facts should not be used to move the goalposts in the law. The juror's note asked about the legal standard, and some of us inferred from it that some members of the jury have decided that there is a less than 5% or 10% chance that Scooter fibbed and want to know if that's good enough to convict. It is.

Sweetie

Cheney = Alice Cooper if he'll bite the head off of a bat like in the 70s

Opening scene: Cheney and Libby are walking down a White House hallway. Cheney holds a bat deperately trying to wiggle free, Libby holds a powerbar. They stop to chat outside the oval office. Libby takes a bite of the powerbar, and Cheney bites off the bat's head and says, with a mouthful of bat head and various bat head parts stuck in his teeth, "get Joe Wilson and that secret agent wife of his, the constitution be damned!".

Cut to Joe and Val, feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen. Joe says "when we're done with this let's go purchase some carbon credits", to which Val responds with "only after we've visited the elderly at the hospital".

The rest of the movie kind of writes itself.

clarice

HEH--Sweetie, you've been peeking at the script.

Elliott

By the way, anyone think the Armitage-Woodward conversation will make it into the movie?

Sara (Squiggler)

Steve: got it, thanks.

steve

Correction: Less than 5% or 10% chance that Scooter DIDN'T fib.

Sheesh. All the negatives are killing me. I'm feeling very positive tonight.

boris

Libby receiving a pardon from Bush.

Cheney will get it done if necessary.

MarkO

This will be one stupid movie. I would rather watch “Jason and the Argonauts” the worst movie of 1965.

clarice

I agree, Boris.I don't know about the timing, but it will be done.

Imust B Crazy

Betrayed

Starring Al Gore and Cindy Sheehan. Coming soon to a soapbox near you.

clarice

Imust--where will they find the body doubles for the love scenes?

Elliott

Clarice,

I know that you hope MayBee's wrong about the first note. What do you think about the second note?

Mark O.,

Once I read Fitz droning on about how Ms. Plame was nothing more than "an argument" to the administration, "Wilson and the Argument" became my choice for the title.

PeterUK

Clarice,
"where will they find the body doubles for the love scenes?"

There must be a school of whales about somewhere.

MayBee

I'm not at all sure, however, why folks seem so quick to assume that there's a lone holdout either way -- or so quick to blame the jurors for the difficulty they may be having, for that matter.

Somewhat guilty. Although I don't think there is necessarily a lone hold out.
I'm just looking at the note and imagining myself in the jury room. If I think a case hasn't been proven, I'm not going to budge and say it has been. I wouldn't send someone to jail on shoddy evidence.
If I think a case has been proven but someone else doesn't (or a few people don't), I am going to try to convince them that they are using the wrong standard of guilt. Once you've gone through all the facts, that's all that's left to argue about.

I also agree that it isn't necessarily the jury's fault that they are in the weeds. It is Fitzgerald's fault that he planted the weeds and called it a case.
I have looked at the charges and thought it is clear that if something was or wasn't said or thought by Libby, the jury must convict. When I look at the charges, they say to me that if Libby wasn't "surprised" when talking to Russert, he's guilty. Or if Libby didn't say "reporters are telling me that" to Cooper, the he's guilty.
Then I've read the jury instructions and thought that the charges don't really say that at all. I find it all very confusing, and if the jurors don't know where to turn, I don't blame them. I would prefer, however, they just recognize the absurdity of the case.

clarice

I think Libby told the truth about what he told Cooper and Cooper's notes are fairly corroborative. I think he was explainging to the gj his state of mins when he spoke to Cooper. So, I personally would find reasonable doubt on both.

Isn't this count the very same one that the note was about the other day though worded differently?.

Syl

boris

Cheney will get it [pardon] done if necessary.

If Libby is convicted and also loses on appeal, then if Bush feels pressure he will 'retire' Cheney.

I hope if all this turns sour that Bush will surprise me. I never misunderestimate him, but I don't misoverestimate either.

windansea

Fuck it..

I am over reading a bunch of gotcha garbage

aquit hung or pardon I don't care

It's just a game I don't wanna play

davandbar

Is this a fair definition???

Beyond a reasonable doubt = it would be unreasonable to believe that it could have happened any other way.

Did Fitz prove his charges to the point that
...it's unreasonable to believe that they could have happened any other way?

I'll answer that myself... NO

steve

There definitely is a "void for vagueness" argument for the jury to just look at the mess that's been dumped on them and say "You've got to be kidding" and just vote for acquittal. But this group looks to be more of an eager-beaver, can-do, detail-oriented bunch. Let's hope that enables them to pick apart all the "conversations" where Libby discussed and/or was or wasn't surprised out Plamay and her role.

Syl

Wait

Let's say they're pushing for acquittal and the one or two who aren't are accusing them of the impossible strawman (fitz must prove impossible but he didn't).

acquitters: no we have reasonable doubt
convicters: no you have unreasonable doubt
acquitters: do not
convicters: do. I'll prove it. Ask the judge!

Then one of the convicters dictates the question.

WINDANDSEA

I don't want to play this game either, but I can't get it out of my head.

PeterUK

"It is Fitzgerald's fault that he planted the weeds and called it a case."

That the jury is, to say the least confused,is an utter indictment of Patrick Fitzgerald,he brought this dog's dinner of a case to court.The whole mess is a disgrace to a civilised country.

Elliott

Clarice,

The earlier note, in which it seemed that the jurors were asking whether Libby was charged with lying to Cooper or lying about what he said in their conversation, concerned count three (lying to the FBI).

I still wonder why in this new note about count one (obstruction) the jury didn't make any reference to count five, where can be found several Libby Grand Jury statements the Government views as false.

boris

I would prefer, however, they just recognize the absurdity of the case.

Ditto that.

Human perception seeks to derive coherence from chaos. If the jury works too hard at imposing a pattern on the inkblot, they're more likely to see what they want to see than arrive at the most reasonable conclusion, FUBAR mixup with too many cooks, too many agendas and too much BS.

Sue

Syl,

I've tried and tried to read the note that way, but I can't make it work. It looks to me like a holdout for acquittal and not the other way.

Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence

I read that to say that the jury recognizes that Fitz didn't present any evidence to something.

that it is not humanly possible for

This is the 100% factor that Steve was referring to upthread.

someone not to recall an event

Memory defense. Did the prosecution counter it? That seems to be the question the person hung up can't get past.

in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This last part is where I go towards a holdout for acquittal. It seems to me they are saying some of us have reached the guilty beyond reasonable doubt stage, but someone else pushing the bar too high.

That is my take, anyway.

Barney Frank

--I'm not at all sure, however, why folks seem so quick to assume that there's a lone holdout either way -- or so quick to blame the jurors for the difficulty they may be having, for that matter.--

Agreed on the first point, partial agreement on the second.
It's hard to fault them due to the messy and ambiguous nature of a lot of the testimony, but surely after four or five days they should all know they are not being asked to convict him for what he said to Cooper as opposed to his testimony about what he said. And how could any being even slightly more developed than a gastropod not know that 'humanly possible' and 'reasonable doubt' are not equivalent?

clarice

Elliott, regardless that a different crime is being charges in the two counts, don't both notes go to the same cooper-libby exchange and the Libby testimony relating to it?

Elliott

Another source of puzzlement for me regarding this jury is their reluctance to provide a follow-up question when the judge requests clarification.

Sue

If I were the holdout for acquittal, I would be arguing that everyone had memory problems. Every single witness the prosecution put on had to correct their testimony, receive immunity, or 'feel' a rememberance. Libby's testimony is he didn't have those conversations with Miller and Ari. The trier of facts needs to decide who is telling the truth. Libby or Ari and Miller. All 3 of which have memory problems. Fitzgerald is asking them to put a man in jail with witnesses who exhibited the same problems Libby seemed to be having. That is why I would continue to hold out. With Russert, if I only had what the jury has on him, I would have a harder time finding reasonable doubt. Cooper would have been easy for me. Acquit.

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, the problem though tends to be that the majority tend to hold the bar too low as evidenced by the number of people who tend to think a person must be guilty by nothing more than they are the defendant. Or worse, that the police and prosecutors always tell truth and a defendant never does. Then someone like me gets on a jury and screws up all the CW because I never believe a word the police or prosecutors say unless it is backed up by hard forensic evidence or absolutely disinterested/unbiased third parties.

MayBee

Fitzgerald is asking them to put a man in jail with witnesses who exhibited the same problems Libby seemed to be having. That is why I would continue to hold out.

Agree. How do you think others on the jury would try to convince you that you are wrong?

Syl

Sue

Yeah, I agree. It was a hopeful shot in the dark. ::insert sheepish grin::

However, something hit me. The foreman writes the question? Is there anything that says that the question must be agreed on by all the jurors?

I mean if one juror has a question and isn't satisfied with what the others tell him, can he just say he wants to ask the judge. The foreman than shrugs and writes it out.

MayBee

I think Libby told the truth about what he told Cooper and Cooper's notes are fairly corroborative. I think he was explainging to the gj his state of mins when he spoke to Cooper. So, I personally would find reasonable doubt on both.

Isn't this count the very same one that the note was about the other day though worded differently?.

I so agree with your first paragraph. Very interesting observation on your second paragraph.

MTT

Elliot,

The answer is that they already have found Libby guilty on Count 5.

Barney Frank,

"but surely after four or five days they should all know they are not being asked to convict him for what he said to Cooper as opposed to his testimony about what he said."

Nope. They're confused about this.

Why?

Because it's confusing.

Rereading the charges and the explanation as to what constitutes guilt (listed above) makes it easy for the prosecution to get a guilty verdict.

The jury only needs to agree on one statement of the many that was intended to obstruct (see the definitions) in order for there to be a finding of guilt.

Yes, there may be one (or more) holdout(s) on this count, but the bar is set fairly low for a conviction.

I agree, Fitz is a mad genius.

He knew what he was doing when he brought this case.

Albanian Beet Farmer Collective Style.

Just sayin'.

clarice

Oh, I definitely think that, Syl.

Sara (Squiggler)

Syl, the foreman is like the Chief Justice, first among equals. Any one of them could send a note at any time. The foreman doesn't have special privileges.

Elliott

Clarice,

That's right. The first Cooper note was basically, "To whom is he charged with lying?" This one is, "Where is he alleged to have done it?"

hit and run

Fuck it..

I am over reading a bunch of gotcha garbage

aquit hung or pardon I don't care

It's just a game I don't wanna play

Posted by: windansea | March 02, 2007 at 06:07 PM


I'm with you. So.

When can I come out and get on the boat? Let's go fishing.

Shel

but surely after four or five days they should all know they are not being asked to convict him for what he said to Cooper as opposed to his testimony about what he said. And how could any being even slightly more developed than a gastropod not know that 'humanly possible' and 'reasonable doubt' are not equivalent?

Highly troubling, isn't it? If they really were confused about whether the charge was Libby lying to Cooper vs. the GJ, I am very frightened for Mr. Libby.

I can empathize with them getting caught up in the minutiae as they are deliberating, but at some point SOMEONE has to hold their hand up and say, "Wait a minute! We are making this much more complicated than it is!"

Please tell me there is at least one person in that jury room with common sense.


Sue

How do you think others on the jury would try to convince you that you are wrong?

By lowering the bar for reasonable doubt. The same arguments Fitzgerald used. If x happened then y is proven. Even if x didn't register or got lost because of a, b and c. I think those that are trying to convince the holdout he is wrong are using the same arguments you find anywhere on a left leaning website. How could Libby have forgotten something so imporant as a covert CIA operative?

Something else that struck me while I was typing this. Do you think the art curator looked up the meaning of reasonable doubt over last weekend?

clarice

That's what I think. Someone is struggling with the notion that if that is what he told Cooper, how could he be lying when he told the same thing to the FBI and GJ.

MayBee

Because it's confusing.

Rereading the charges and the explanation as to what constitutes guilt (listed above) makes it easy for the prosecution to get a guilty verdict.

Oh man, MTT, I am so with you today.
As Jane noted yesterday, the jury instructions make things look better for the defense. But the charges themselves make it easy for the prosecution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame