Login Here
Fitzgerald has a reputation for not fussing overmuch about jury selection, other than to be sure he has people who can make a fair and independent judgment.
The Libby strategy may be interesting. I've heard a couple of things from looseheadprop. First, whereas most defendants don't want a juror who has a strong and abiding faith in authority figures, since that would favor the prosecution, in this case, the prosecution is in some sense the underdog, not the authority.
Libby would love to get someone from the 12% of the country's true believers who think the surge is a good idea, deferring to the administration as the authority. Libby may also want one or two hard core true believers who would hold out to provide jury nullification in the event of a consensus to convict.
Team Irving filed a motion this morning to try to ask jurors about their exposure to particular news accounts about this case, or Fitzgerald's press conference. Fitz argues this is a way for the defense to purposely expose potential jurors with information about this case of their choosing. This is being wrangled in court out of the presence of the jurors as I type this. UPDATE: I haven't seen this get sorted out yet, but Walton seems inclined to find a way to allow Team Irving to find a way to ask its questions.
Class and race are not supposed to enter into jury selection, but they always do somehow, and we'll see what peremptory challenges surface from either side and how well Walton guards the border on these issues.
Questioning of specific jurors is now beginning. Team Irving is asking further questions about their views on the war or the decision to go to war, if they have any problem with it or strong opinions, or just general attitudes about the Bush administration or VP Cheney. Fitzgerald says this has already been covered in the opening voir dire review, and is repetitive in individual questioning, and actually beyond the scope of direct questions about the ability to be fair. Defense is arguing people sometimes miss their checked boxes, and that this is no ordinary case and we need to probe for anti-administration biases.
Walton's audio is really bad right now, but he's saying he will allow some latitude. The Libby people are also asking memory questions, repeating some of what was in the initial phase of voir dire, basically, do you think people can forget stuff?
Questioning of individual jurors is proceeding, very slowly, because there are a lot of questions and probing, mostly by the defense. At this rate, jury selection will take many, many days.
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitz for real
Fitz me too!!
Given the expected traffic here during the Libby trial, a few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers might be in order. FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
To make newcomers feel a bit more at ease, here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
We’ve covered maybe 4 jurors in the last hour, still on the fourth.
The third was very animated, very funny, really. She kept complimenting Fitz and Jeffress on their questions. Like almost patting them on the head, but no condescending. If she makes it to the jury she’ll be a post trial press conference favorite.
Hey Pach! Did you have lunch yet? Are there platters of cocktail weenies everywhere?
One juror said she had three children. Fitz said, “I assume these are young children?”
She was very quick, saying with a southern inflection, “Oh, aren’t you sweet!”
The whole press room busted up laughing.
Pachacutec @ 4
The pace of questioning will no doubt pick up, as the lawyers become more comfortable with the questions that work best for them. The phrasing will improve, and extraneous or redundant questions will be dropped.
And it will still take a long time.
Pace yourself, Pach - and great job with the earlier liveblogging!
ccmask @ 5
No food, no weenies. Water. I could leave to eat, but for all the money I’m making, I should earn it, eh?
;)
Is Howard Fineman lurking?
Wells and Jeffress are really going after perceptions of the war. There’s an African American woman who knows people in Iraq who feels people should be brought home. She’s talking about Bush knowing they have families who need them.
She says Bush should “relax for a while.”
I don’t think Team Irving wants this one. They want to lay foundation that she has bias, but they will have to worry about their strikes showing any potential racial bias. This is DC.
mandrake @ 9
Not in here, this media room.
How about ex-WAPO, water boy…
Is he at the fountain?
Jack
No Vandehei here.
Does Libby look happy to be out of the house?
He’s off camera to the side. I can’t really see Libby.
There’s a very delicate dance going on right now with one potential juror, under questioning by Wells, to see if she believes a person can be wrongly indicted, that they could be innocent.
Peterr @
3
Nice work, Peterr. Preview rules! (I’d no sooner post a comment without previewing it than get in a car without putting on the seatbelt).
Another way to “treat” a ziggurat is to quote it, but then judiciously remove all but one pair of blockquotes.
Pachacutec @ 10
Curious, how big is the jury pool right now?
And have all been vetted as to whether or not they’ve heard about the Libby business or is that part of what they are doing now?
Thanks for this Pach. I’m on my lunch hour this Fitzmas Day.
From the master zig trimmer himself.
lol
This potential juror is perplexing Wells a bit. She’s not much of an abstract thinker, but she seems to have a prejudice against the accused. Does not get burden of proof. Wells just finally got her to say it. He had to do some head scratching before he got it out of her.
ccmask @ 19
yes, thanks Pach -our eyes and ears
ccmask @
19
Thanks Pach, I’m
onextending my lunch hour this Fitzmas Day.slainte,
cl
While we are waiting: from the ABA, Wm Smith
“St. Louis lawyer James W. Jeans has tried more than 250 cases and lectured widely on trial tactics. His approach to jury selection, though, was most influenced by his first boyhood job selling Liberty magazine door to door. Young Jeans knew his prospects soon after someone answered his knock. A slammed door meant no sale, while a smiling face showed a willingness to hear his pitch.
Lawyers must be vigilant for similar signs of rejection and receptivity. “You want as few slammers and as many smilers as possible on your jury,” says Jeans, a founder of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.
The term voir dire means “to see, to speak.” For American lawyers, though, the French term for jury selection could also be translated as “make or break.”
The few hours after the first potential juror is sworn in for questioning may determine how the trial ends, days or weeks later. Veteran Chicago trial lawyer Manny Sanchez puts it this way: “I don’t believe a case can be won during voir dire. But it can be lost.”
This potential juror is perplexing Wells a bit. She’s not much of an abstract thinker, but she seems to have a prejudice against the accused.
Sounds like a lefty blogger…
serious questions (not to interrupt the flow of live blogging, perhaps for later discussion):
1. could anyone who has judiciously followed the initial betrayal, the investigation, and the build-up to the trial here at FDL be an impartial juror? I could not.
2. would anyone in item (1) have a snowball’s chance in hell of being seated on this jury? didn’t think so.
O/T …
peterr,
Have you read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion?
BC
Walton had further questions of this potential juror, sorting through some abstraction, and now she gave answers suggesting she could be fair. Wells is back at it. He doesn’t want her, in my opinion, but Walton is trying to keep the defense from spinning an unsophisticated person’s head around too much to allow for a pretext of rejection. That’s my take on this.
In this case, this single, not higly educated, African American woman is not the prototype of the Team Irving juror. But she’s given contradictory answers under different questions.
Now we are in recess until 1:55 EST. We have only four potential jurors reviewed. We need 36 approved, including alternates, from what I understand.
punaise @ 26
Pun,
I don’t think anyone who has followed the facts of this case in any medium could be an impartial juror.
O’ course, I could be biased.
BC
Pach, you so rock! This is terrific. Having been called for a high-profile DeeCee jury (Barry’s crack trial) long ago, I agree this selection may take longer than Judge Walton predicts.
Good to know that jurors are using their answers to get some thoughts out about the administration and the war in Iraq — if you’ve only got three minutes of fame, and you know you are going to be scratched from the jury, might as well speechify, I say!
Please tell David Schuster when you see him again he has a Number One Fan on the left coast! Gotta run, now, I’ll ketchup with y’all later….
punaise @ 26
I do not lie well enough. Coupled with the uncrontrollable urge to jump and point at Scooter while screaming TRAITOR might have a negative impact
Too bad there can’t be two simultaneous posts. One for ‘trial issues’ and the other not. ;)
Bargain Countertenor @ 27
I highly recommend it, along with “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”, but Sam Harris.
I think “The God Delusion” is important reading for any person of the cloth. It is a thoughtful appraisal of both the veracity of religious beliefs and the impact of such beliefs on society.
BTW punaise,
Tell your boss thanks for letting you come out and play today.
*g*
Pach at 28 — That’s a very typical dance between the lawyers and the judge on voir dire. No one wants to have to waste one of their own strikes if they can get the judge to use one of his unlimted ones for apparent cause. Judges are always skeptical and reluctant of the push from the lawyers and the lawyers are, understandably, constrained from pushing too hard because you then risk alienating a juror that, ultimately, might end up on the jury if you need to use one of your limited strikes on someone far more egregious. It’s a very intricate tap dance through voir dire, and much of it is based on first impressions and suppositions that have to be made on the spot.
In most cases, legal teams have had background information on the potential jurors (which is filed with the court, btw, by the jurors as a “juror questionnaire” in a lot of jurisdictions) gone over with a fine tooth comb prior to the start of any of this. So the lawyers are generally familiar in a surface way of the individual jurors on the list before they ever see them in person (including profession, background, prior criminal history if they own up to it on paper, etc.). The questioning here will proceed with that background always in mind.
Have any questions to the jury pool been “Have you ever blogged?”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 35
Redd,
Do you think that Team Libby has mooted this before one (or more) private juries, and developed a jury selection model?
BC
The words “blog” and blogger” have not surfaced at all.
My money is ona pre-emptive pardoning.
My money is on a pre-emptive pardoning
Oklahoma kiddo @ 32
No reason not to. Keep 2 tabs open at the same time and go back and forth. We do it all the time when we have “special” posts, Book Salon, Blue America, etc.
*xyz @ 33
I have both God Delusion and Letter on my pile of books to read. If I could tear myself away from FDL long enough, I might get to them. Don’t know when that will be.
*xyz @ 33
I think “The God Delusion” is important reading for any person of the cloth. It is a thoughtful appraisal of both the veracity of religious beliefs and the impact of such beliefs on society.
I’m reading it now, but I’m finding Dawkin’s ad hominem attacks a bit much. Frankly, I expected more of him than I have seen thus far.
BC
While the trial blather continues, the rolling Cheney coup is underway. From Josh Marshall:
“You’ve probably already seen some of the news about the Bush White House engaging in a seemingly unprecedented spree of firings of US Attorneys across the coutry. Conveniently, they’re being replaced without senate approval under a provision of the Patriot Act. We’re digging into now and we’re finding a bunch. “
Bustednuckles @ 34
3sivund has me on a short leash. :~)
RevDeb @ 42,
Thanks, I didn’t know you were in the house.
BC
RevDeb @ 41
My name is Bustednuckles and I am a FDL addict.
I am guilty of having no less than 5 tabs open at one time bouncing back and forth.I resolve that I will not let it stop me from Fitzing on a regular basis.
punaise @ 44
that’s the art of the fugue ……..
Bargain Countertenor @ 43
I’m reading it now, but I’m finding Dawkin’s ad hominem attacks a bit much. Frankly, I expected more of him than I have seen thus far.
BC
We can disagree about matters of style (I quite enjoy Dawkins’ wit), but in the end, it is his core observations about religion as delusion that really matter.
Bargain Countertenor @ 27
BC & *xyz,
No, but it’s on my list. From excerpts I’ve seen, though, he seems long on his use of generalizations and stereotypes.
Busted,
My screen has 4 windows open each with 5 or 6 tabs and an RSS feed. Talk about addiction! It really has become one.
Happy Anniversary fellas….
*xyz @ 48
We can disagree about matters of style (I quite enjoy Dawkins’ wit), but in the end, it is his core observations about religion as delusion that really matter.
I guess I just don’t see things like citing doubts about the research of someone’s Th.D. as particularly witty. It certainly doesn’t raise the level of discourse. That’s especially true when you don’t discuss the substantive content of the research.
BC
Judge Walton has Monday as opening day of trial. Any speculation to who will be the 1st witness called to the stand?
Reminder that at 2 pm EST Jerelyn from TalkLeft will be doing a live chat on the WaPo focused on this case.
So….where do the attorneys and the defendant go for lunch? Does someone bring it to them in the courthouse, or do they go to the Firehook coffeehouse at 441 4th St. for a $23 banana cream tart? Or Rasika at 633 D St.?
I can’t see this trial opening Monday, not at the rate we’re going with jury selection.
Walton is cutting us off at 3PM EST today because he has an MLK speaking engagement.
Whuh?
He says it’s been on the calendar a long time.
OK.
I just came from picking up a sandwish at the cafeteria. Wells got the soup.
Pach,
We all send our love and respect to you. Great job.
and THANKS!
During voir dire a very good tactic is to ask people what they do as opposed to what they think or feel. For instance a good series of questions might be: do you use your checkbook registry to note each check; do you keep a running balance; and, do you reconcile your registry with the bank statement at the end of the month. Answers to questions like this are often more informative than questions about how they think or feel about this or that.
Pachacutec @ 56
Why didn’t he take care of that yesterday when he had the day off?
old gold @ 58
Questions about what people do for a living are standard so far. One guy was a tech guy in a bank, which got to questioning about wire transfers and CIA anti-terros lists, which gave an opening for WoT type questions.
Bread and water for Libby. Oh wait, I’m not supposed to be biased. Give the man some oleo with that bread.
It’s hard to be funny when it’s ten degrees outside.
and
Thank you, Pachacutec.
In the long run, serious as it is, the Libby case will prove to be one of the lesser crimes committed by his Mephistophelean boss. Someday, we’ll lift the rock that’s covering Cheney’s secret energy task force and find something like this crawling around:
That was one startling headline in the Washington Post this morning — Saudi says no need to panic over oil price drop.What peak oil?Was Greg Palast right that we really invaded Iraq, not to sell its oil, but to keep it in the ground? And what now? With Iraq in total chaos and much of its oil off the market, there still seems to be way too much oil slopping around in world oil markets. The trouble with OPEC is, everyone cheats. To get supply and demand back in a nice proper balance that keeps oil prices high, it would be nice if you could find another country whose entire oil supply you could just remove from the market. Hey, what about finding a pretext to attack Iran?
old gold @ 58
So is being super anal about checkbook balancing make you more desired by the prosecution, or the defense?
I know Fitz was featured as one of People’s sexiest people, but this lust label is just ridiculous….
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f.....ndex2.html
Even the press here in the media room had a palpalble sense of tension or excitement about this case kicking off today. I felt wired with some butterflies last night.
Now imagine what it must be like for Libby.
Sure, you can immerse yourself in the ebb and flow of what’s going on, and if you’re an attorney, you can be lulled by the process, because it feels like familiar territory to you, except you’re not an observer this time, or a hired competitor. You’re the one in the docket.
Fitz is exactly as you see him on television, when he speaks, which is pretty much never. he had one good laugh line before about how he’s not exactly known to be a frequent talker, when Team Irving was arguing in favor of its motion to query potential jurors about their exposure to specific news events, such as statements by Fitz, particularly the indictment press conference.
Fitz argued it’s a slippery slope to get to individual stories checked with jurors, on the weekend after the Veep called Libby an unwaveringly honest person on national television.
Team Irving made a point to ask in particular about jurors’ potential thoughts or feelings about Tim Russert, by name. They must be worried about that testimony.
I’ve been reading, but haven’t contributed anything yet.
No way in the world could I get selected for this jury — I have way too many preconceived opinions and too much knowledge of the background of the case. And, to top it off, I’ve met Joe Wilson in person and have the photo of the two of us to prove it.
Thanks so much for doing this, Pach.
I just wish I wasn’t going to be out of town for work at the start of the trial itself next week — unless it doesn’t start until after Wednesday. Oh, darn, I’ll have to miss the SOTU speech as well on Tuesday night (sarcasm). I would have liked to hear Webb’s response, though.
OT: this is good:
Webb to deliver Democratic response to SOTU address
Sparkles the Iguana @ 64
This series of questions is used in civil matters and jurors that answer in the affirmative are prized by defense counsel.
My background in criminal litigation is very limited, but, if I were selecting this jury, as a prosecutor I would be favorably inclined towards jurors answering these questions affirmatively. They are careful and place a premium on accuracy.
this is great! now I’m guaranteed to not accomplish anything today. Thanks, Pach –
punaise @ 69
It is so good, my mouth is already watering.
I just read Amy Goldstein’s WaPo piece and chatted with her about it. She’s sitting right in front of me.
I told her the last graf sounds like a prayer. She laughed. She wrote it, actually, before we slogged through 4 jurors in 90 minutes.
BTW, gang, David Schuster seems like a real nice guy. David Corn, sitting next to me, is colorful and a live wire of energy, and opinion.
Is this trial going to be on a 4-day/week schedule with Fridays off?
Pachacutec @ 66
I wish he would STFU up about Buffalo. Ditto - Big Russ. I wonder WTF he has against his seldom-mentioned mother. I think he’s a big f**cking windbag.
Does that get me on the jury? Cuz it’s all true.
edgery @ 74
Yes.
Thanks Pachacutec and Prof. Prop ! - it is snowing here so the damn toobz cut in and out and I have no idea if any of my commentz have made it to the actual thread
. . .now Massimo Calabrese - mangilo con un cucchiaio !, Pach, I’m sure your SO wont mind a little up close and personal in the name of citizen journamalism ;)
Bay State Librul @ 24. Nice post. thx.
edgery at 75 — Thus far, that is the scheduling plan. The judge left Fridays open on his schedule for other court business as well as a just-in-case for the trial if it starts running long. (That’s generally how things work with long trials in my experience, btw, because most court dockets are clogged enough as it is and you need a day to take guilty pleas, do sentencing and other scheduling matters, etc.)
mandrake @
72
amen. it makes me feel really good that i made a small contribution to his campaign. and for fuckwad it’ll be like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. couldn’t happen to a nicer arsehole ……
MSNBC breaking news - Jordan and Egypt support US surge.
CNN - Inarticulate fashion chat.
edited
We’re back in action in court.
If anyone wants confirmation of that from MSM, this was in wapo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00664.html
punaise @ 69
Team Irving moving to strike the last juror for cause. Fitz objecting, says she sees both sides of the issue. Here we go. First single African American female juror under review.
Pachacutec @ 66
Russert’s the guy who’s gonna sink the Scoots battleship.
As far as Walton’s letting off early today - hey - I give him major props for having set a trial date months ago - and pullling it off. It started right when he said it would.
Doesn’t happen very often - at least not in my world. I’m no Reggie fan, but, imo, he gets big points for that alone.
Interesting article in the Chicago Trib today, with Snowjob going out of the way to say that no consideration has been given to the prospect of a Libby Pardon
http://newsblogs.chicagotribun.....no__1.html
Walton arguing that he does not really like to rely only on the written questionnaire, since not everyone comprehends the questions as written well. Walton believes the totality of her responses says she can be fair, and has denied the motion to strike for cause.
Was Rove listed as Official A?
I remember Shuster did a piece saying in
Fitz’s previous work, every Official A was
indicted…
I hope his indictment was sealed….. and Fitz’s
streak was not broken…
Jack
You can track Judge Walton’s schedule at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/. Caveat: It hasn’t always been accurate.
how many strikes does each side get in fed court?
Blub @
84
Webb’s star is rising …………….
With the CIA leak trial of one-time Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby beginning today, the PlameGate CIA Leak Resource Center has all the resources you need to track the investigation and court room battle.
For all the latest breaking news, key legal documents, detailed timelines and more, see:
- “The PlameGate CIA Leak Resource Center.”
how many preemptory strikes does each side get in fed ct?
Thanks for the link to Amy’s article. It’s an interesting piece. Isn’t it ironic that TeamLibby is concerned about inaccurate misleading information when the mess is based on that flurry of simultaneous phone calls to multiple recipients that appeared designed for confusion? I would think the defense would be more concerned about knowledge of accurate information.
Peremptory strikes, defense = 12, prosecution = 6.
Blub @ 87
shorter fuckwad: i don’t do consideration. it’s a done deal!
Tim Russert is a lawyer.
Matt Apuzzo, under an AP byline has this up via Raw Story.
Not exactly blogging, but close.
I’m just wondering why Snowjob would come out and say that on the day jury selection starts. Seems odd to me.
I’m also daydreaming about Joe L’s inevitable speech to rationalize a future pardon for Libby from his dear leader…
jeffreyw @ 98
Matt’s here in the room.
Libby would love to get someone from the 12% of the country’s true believers who think the surge is a good idea, deferring to the administration as the authority. Libby may also want one or two hard core true believers who would hold out to provide jury nullification in the event of a consensus to convict.
Those people don’t live in Wash., DC.