
Here's the halftime score:
We need 36 jurors qualified before we get to peremptory challenges, to allow us a full jury with alternates.
They've reviewed 19 prospective jurors so far, of whom four have been dismissed. One of those was one excused due to work conflicts, and the other three because they harbor varying degrees of inability take the administration or its members, such as Vice President Cheney, at their word. The AP's Matt Apuzzo has more .
That leaves us with 15 of the needed 36 now at the lunchtime break in the niddle of day two of what is scheduled to be three days of jury selection. We will probably take all day tomorrow.
Jump in to the comment thread for any questions you have of me, and once jury selection begins again, I'll be typing notes and updates as fast as I can throughout the afternoon. Oh, and if you appreciate the work we're doing on this and other days, please have a look at Christy's request for an infusion of financial support to cover our costs.
Later on tonight, I'll have a wrap up of the day's events posted here and at the Huffington Post.
UPDATE: One of yesterday's qualified jurors just had to be excused. See details here.
UPDATE II: Word around the courthouse is Cheney will testify in court in person.
UPDATE III: At the end of today's voir dire, we seem to have 24 still in the game, 9 excused. I'll recheck my notes before making my summary later tonight. We need 36 total before we get to the peremptory challenges by either side, to make up a jury with sufficient alternates.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Ah, there may be no time for Q&A. Looks like we’re about to start up again.
One prospective juror from yesterday reported to the judge today her boss is giving her a hard time about her required court appearances. Judge Walton is going to call her boss.
D’oh!
Foul! You can’t get your own Zed!
That’s probation.
Pachacutec @ 2
the dog ate her homework
next up, 50ish white male with a job related to media that makes him aware of news about iraq. Oy.
If everyone who hates Bush and Cheney is bumped by the defense — will there be any jurors left in the pool?
What an outrage!
Is the judge considering that type of dismissal “for cause”? Or is there a limit to the number of potential jurors who can be dismissed for their political views?
After a jury is selected what then will be the first order of business?
Boy, this jury selection process really does highlight the small town nature of DC.
Even people you would not expect to have contacts or familiarity with any of the principles or potential witnesses in this case, or people discussed during testimony, do in fact have some contact somewhere, however tangential.
This last guy was just excused, though. He’s just to close to many of the press people more or less associated with this case.
Meanwhile, the boss of the woman who had trouble with her boss said she won’t get fired but won’t get paid if she’s out. Jury stipend is only $35 per day. She says she wouldn’t mind serving, but has to look at her finances. She has asked to be excused, and the judge has excused her.
She was really very sweet.
Thanks again Pach.
I really appreciate the time and effort.
It is neat to see behind the scenes.
P.S.
If you see Judy skulking about,
give her a Bronx cheer for me.
The next juror is on methadone maintenance and may, on that basis, have difficulty being fully attentive to the proceedings.
Walton: “Counsel approach.”
There goes that one. We’re not doing too well after the lunchtime break. We have fewer jurors than when we started.
The next fellow is a white male retired math teacher. I won’t get into his life specifics, but he’s bene through the wringer with some health and recovery stuff, disease related.
Pachacutec @ 11
Fitz will want him. Math teacher.
Generally, Jeffress seems better at memory questions from the defense checklist, and Wells better at the Iraq and administration questions, but only marginally.
Our friend in the propaganda arm of Team Libby, Barbara Comstock, is in bright red today.
OT:
Isn’t this hackademic.
…and deadpan irony snakebites yet another blinkered ideologue.
Golly gee, D’Souza, using your ’scholarly’ logic,
(using ’scholarly’ in the sense of ‘Look at this fresh gold nugget I pulled out of my ass…The fact that it is a suspicious shade of brown affects its gold-like status not one bit’)
…Prescott Bush, supporting the Nazis financially as he and his family did before and during WWII was the modern state of Israel’s BFF for doing his part to drive so many of the Chosen People out of icky old Germany into the Promised Land, and cull the herd of those weaklings who remained.
Perhaps a posthumous Freedom medal is in order.
Meanwhile, keep putting the ass in assclown, Dinesh.
>:(
Pach, Please tell David Corn that Cornbloggers appreciate his latest blog entry about opposition to Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Our Iraq policy is the most important issue to the American people today, the tin ear and willful stuborness of our President, notwithstanding. Tell him we appreciate his coverage of the topic, and want more of the same. (link to article at www.davidcorn.com )
Pachacutec @ 14
Old Scratch
On each side, how many jury prospects can be refused?
I’m surprised they only found three people who said they couldn’t “take the administration or its members, such as Vice President Cheney, at their word”. I would have thought that group would be better represented.
neil @ 16
He’s not back from lunch. Maybe later if I can catch him.
This witness is another who wants to believe the administration but is becoming leery of the Iraq policy.
Re: Cheney: “I’m not sure I’d want to go bird hunting with him, either.”
Pachacutec @ 22
LMAO!
Pachacutec @ 13
Walton is allowing BOTH of them to question EACH witness? WTF? How ccome I never get judges like that?
Oklahoma Kiddo
per earlier threads -
Defense gets 12
Fitz gets 6
Oklahoma kiddo @
7
Opening statements, and the govt will put on its case, motions to dismiss by the defense, followed by the defense case, arguments, instructions to the jury, motions, verdict.
ROFL!! He said at the end of his questioning, to Walton, “I have pictures of my grandchildren if you want to see them.”
This guy was a totla southern charmer. He had a great quote about his wife, too, after describing all the hip and joint replacements she’s had, he said, “She has a lot of bad joints, but she has a heart of pure gold.”
He charmed everyone.
looseheadprop @ 25
No, just one or the other.
Pach-Do you think some of the potential jurors are afraid to serve on this trial because of the nasty reputation of Team Bush?
How funny is this. Pach, you are blessed!
Chady @ 29
Not necessarily, but a couple of people with executive branch jobs seemed very circumspect about conveying their opinions of the administration, one way or the other.
looseheadprop @ 25
looseheadprop, you and I must not have lived right.
Pach, Is Nina Totenberg there? I would drink her bath water….
It is going to be really hard for the defense to have 12 jurors to be on Libby’s corner when, so far, the words: Iraq, Dick Cheney, or President Bush is mentioned in the potential jurors’ questions and just irritate most of them. This trial is simply the worse timing for Libby and his team since the Bush has a Baskin Robbins Presidency, and gotten negative responses by the American people from his speech and 60 minutes interview last week and now his interview with Lehrer last night on PBS.
No Nina.
Pachacutec @
27
LOL. Sounds like a foreman-to-be, if he isn’t struck.
Thanks for the play-by-play commentary.
The next 60ish African American woman is now being questioned by Wells. I think he’s trying to get her struck, since she says she does not think the administration was forthright in its case for war, though she says she can and would be fair base don evidence if administration officials testify, such as Cheney.
uwyoalum @ 33
Before she took the bath, hopefully.
Oh my. Wells is doing his down country shuck and jive voice and it sounds like tin, to me.
Did you mean lunchtime break in the nibble of day two?
Jeebus, Wells is arguing his case with rather wide latitude here in voir dire, relative to memory and how to decide if someone’s memory is mistaken or if someone is lying. He always wants another bite at the apple after Fitz asks his standard question about how a juror would figure out if someone had a bad memory of if they were lying.
Pach at 22 — Bwahahahahahahaha!
SP Biloxi @
34
a what?
A question for the legal experts - would, or do, lawyers ever make it onto juries?
Sparkles at 44 — I never have. SIGH But I have had a lawyer on one of my prior juries which, I am happy to say, found in my client’s favor in a civil trial.
Well, this 50’s white female was just excused quickly for the now familiar reason. She does not feel she could believe administration members on an equal footing with others.
Pachacutec @ 41
Please do tell, when you have a moment, what sort of answers meet this query. Seems it could be a difficult thing to ponder off the cuff.
HotFlash @ 43
31 Flavors - 31% approval rating. At least, I think that’s what it means.
People usually talk about some variation of hearing all the testimony and available evidence before making a decision.
Scarecrow @ 55
Busted! I guess it was sooo constitutional they just couldn’t do it anymore.
I am surprised that Cheney hasn’t taken Libby on a hunting trip by now.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 44
Yes, because I was on one, once. It even related to some pro bono work I do (domestic violence). I was stunned.
Pachacutec @ 39
Ordinarily,Wells sounds rather patrician
hackworth @ 47
Indeed. I would answer, “I would try to see if they had a motive to lie.” Which would probably get me kicked out of this pool….
Attorney General Gonzales just announced that Bush will not reauthorize the warrantless surveillance program.
Just like that
Looks like they’ve been watching all the jurors explain how they could never trust anything the Bush people said.
looseheadprop @ 53
Yes, that’s my point.
My guess is that the 60ish black woman with war motivation questions will get the hook. Can you tell if she is still in play?
Scarecrow @ 55
The Warner / MCA bill? allows for other people to authorize actions, iirc. I don’t trust this statement.
AZ Matt @ 51
what? so he could shoot him and have him not have to go through the whole trial?
hackworth @ 57
She’s still in play. She was clear that she believed she could give everyone an equal assessment and deal with the evidence.
j.cro @ 59
That thought did cross my mind.
Scarecrow @ 55
He won’t “reauthorize” it, they’ll just do it unauthorized. Then 3 months from now we’ll find it reauthorized in a tiny footnote to the Patriot Act that was appended at 3 a.m. by Joe Lieberman.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 58
According to the report, Gonzales said this surveillance would be done under the FISA Court.
AZ Matt @ 61
I’m snickering right along with you.
I think this next guy may get through ok, but we’re not done yet. Here comes the Fitz memory follow up question after Jeffress.
darkblack @ 15
That was good!
Can someone succintly tell me why Fitz did not go the criminal conspiracy route versus the perjury, obstruction trail?…
It would be greatly appreciated…
Canadianhoser
This one is still in, no excuse for cause.
Canadianhoser @ 67
Insufficient evidence. Needs Libby’s full and true testimony.
j.cro @ 64
With the Bush Administration I am just very cynical. Guess they wouldn’t want me on the jury for this trial.
hackworth @ 47
I’d tell them I usually go with my gut, I look ‘em in the eye and check out their body language, then I do whatever I was gonna do anyway and made up some story supporting it, and I’m right every time too. - W
Pachacutec @ 68
Could you tell us a bit more about this one?
Pach you are an absolute hero — you do FDL proud. Hope the TradMed folks are enjoying their ‘lake visit; y’all won’t find a better voir dire liveblogger than our lad Pach!
The Bushes always figured that Hitler had the wrong idea- just implemented it in a taseteless manner.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 62. Touche.
You wouldn’t be here otherwise, correct? For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t be picked either.
o/t
http://www.rawstory.com/showar.....270957.stm
Top Iraqi condemns US over Iran
that would be this Top Iraqi Official
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123.....jpg?size=l
oh crap, MSRNC - Sen Clinton using words like “cap” as I type . . .
*xyz @ 72
Trying not to let to much out that might get to identity, per court orders, but 50’s white male, pretty mellow guy, has a person close to him who is involved as an officer of the courts, but takes from this that the process is very important and he must be fair and open to evidence.
If Cheney is called, for Libby, will he have to appear in person?…
Do we know if & when Cheney has been deposed?…and if that record exists publically?….
Thanx for the concise answer Pach….stellar work dewd, but it sure sounds like fun and not work, cept in a faintly Gallic way
j. cro & AZMatt:
less margin-busting ziggurat-creating quoting, please?
Good stuff Pach. Mucho gracias.
Was gonna make smart commment yesterday AM about those fingers…
“I got BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!” [tadum/crash!] off the ‘White Album’…;~>
—
OFFtopic:
Anyway, just called Congressman Neal’s (D-MA-02) office locally. Registered doubts, objections protestations and plan(0$) about the ME. Staff reassured my that I’d be pleasantly surpized on the floor Thurs/Fri.
I have hope.
Also got a guage on calls. We’re not alone.
Word here in the prss room is people expect Cheney to testify in person, on site.
Any word on whether Condi or Judy Judy Miller will testify in person?
Speaking for myself, I would be wary of the charmer Pach describes. But, that’s personal.
Pachacutec @ 78
Thanks. That is very helpful. I completely understand and appreciate that you must act to preserve anonymity of the potential jurors at all times.
Canadianhoser @ 79
The piece de resistance would be Jabba the Chainy getting sliced and diced by the Fitz on the stand.
Malkin is back, posing on a sheetless bed, asking “How ’bout it, boys?”
Thought you would want to know. :)
Sparkles the Iguana @ 62
Exactly! OR Spector will do Bush’s bidding AGAIN…
Richmond at 83 — Judy Miller will almost certainly testify in person, as will Condi if she’s actually called. Cheney represents a whole higher level of security planning, though,which was why there has been a lot of speculation that he would testify via remote previously. Very interesting that he may testify publicly instead — says to me that Team Libby is calculating the need for some Veep gravitas (Cheney, for all his many faults, is very persuasive and commanding in public) which would not translate as well over a video monitor. Very interesting indeed.
Wonder if that is coming from the impressions they are already getting via jury selection? Hmmmmmm…
Pachacutec @ 82
Woohoo! That’s surprising, actually. I hope the press is guessing this one right. I sorely want to see the matching of wits between him and Fitz.
Hey, are they allowing cameras in the courtroom during the trial?
Pachacutec @ 82
Damn, Pach. Perhaps we could all chip in and get you some kevlar?
Guess warrantless spying programs are only effective under a gooper congress.
When ya got a gooper congress, they’re ESSENTIAL to national security- when ya lose the congress- they really aren’t that important.
Pachacutec @ 82
darth testify
Fitz watching this juror being questioned by Wells, 40’s white female. He has his hand on his chin, looking up.
A-MEN !
yes, yes, as once they are invited in, garlic and crucifixes aren’t worth a crap !
Thanks Christy! My word, this is amazing! Not just that Pach is there, but also that so many others CHS and LHP etc etc are commenting on our inquiries too. What a difference from the one point of view talking head NPR or MSM reporting, after the event on radio or tv, with no real means of listener engagement. As with the last election (which broke my computer, I swear, this is a new era indeed.
j.cro @ 76
elegantly de-zigged.
tryggth at 87 — Good lord, are you trying to make me lose my lunch?
She wants a couple of more battalions for Afghanistan, cap troops as of January 1 and 6 month conditions on Iraq for making positive steps towards revenue sharing, death squads, which, if not met would require re-authorization of the war.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 98
I’m scared sheetless.
Caperman-
That would be Hill not Malkin, I presume.
I guess I should already know this, & sorry if it’s been addressed already (really!), but isn’t it pre-qualifying the jury in the defense’s favor if the jurors all have to say Cheney is “credible” or (sheesh) “trustworthy”?
“Cheney’s credibility has emerged as a key issue, with defense lawyers looking for a panel that can trust the vice president, expected to testify on behalf of Libby, his former chief of staff.” http://news.bostonherald.com/p.....eid=177643
SharonW @ 90
I remember the Cheney/Edwards debate.
Edwards had to backtrack and correct Cheney’s false assertions before he could rebut them. It was exhausting.
Even though Edwards was right, he got tired and was overwhelmed by Cheney’s unflappable demeanor and unending rhetoric.
Maybe Cheney will tell Fitz that he never met him (Fitz). This little trick throws an opponent off balance.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 93
I’ve been hearing this for some time.
This next woman is a scientist, of rather notable accomplishment and education, who does not seem to esteem administration politics, but her commitment to getting evidence, the scientific method, leads her to say she can and will be fair. Wells is trying to get her to say something to prompt her to say something so she is struck for cause, bias. He’s working it, and he’s had some success with this before.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 89
Re Cheney live (is that an oxymoron?) - Libby’s attorneys are thinking “The odds are good” that he’ll provide gravitas. My sense is that Cheney’s goods are odd…..
Wells’ tactic is to draw out the inquiry process, even with longer preambles to his questions, to wear the potential juror down to get what he wants.
Now he’s asking the woman to “promise” him she would be fair if she’s selected. Jeebus!
HotFlash @ 43:
Yes, that what I meant by the Baskin Robbins comment. After his speeches this week and last week, majority can conclude that President’s presidency is on life support. And many of the questions to the potential jurors only adds more salt in the womb to them and diffeculty of the defense to find the jurors in their favor even though Libby is only being charged with perjury and not being a leaker or being part of a WH conspiracy.
Teddy at 80.
Yes. Will do. I’m usually a lurker.
Very sorry.
Dana at 102 — The judge won’t allow someone who staunchly believes one side or the other has the premium on honesty. But it would be supremely unfair to allow a juror who says outright that they could not ever believe a word said by a particular witness, no matter the facts backing up the statements. That’s bias, and has to be weeded out. And, unfortunately for Team Libby, there’s a whole lot of bias out there against Cheney. If they are relying on him as a character vouch of some sort, they have to be getting a little nervous — but they also have to have expected this in a DC jury pool.
My guess is that Judge Walton set out some ground rules with counsel as to how far he will allow the probing on this to go — where the lines are of taking things too far or not. Most judges set ground rules or parameters for things like that where you ahve a big factor in a trial: racial prejudice, gender bias, etc. — it’s no different from Cheney bias, in some ways, I suppose. ;-)
Three senior senators — two Democrats and one Republican — have formally introduced a non-binding resolution that condemns President Bush’s plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) were joined by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), an outspoken Republican critic of the president who served in Vietnam.
Senate aides tell CNN the resolution is aimed at showing the country Bush does not have support from the majority of Congress. Polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose the escalation of war in Iraq; Bush has promised to send more than 21,000 additional US troops.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 98
Just be thankful Kate O’Beirne didn’t go on that trip…
hackworth @ 103
And Fitz could charge him with perjury right there and then. Oh well, wishful thinking.
Pach at 108 — That particular tactic would result in a sharply worded bench conference in the jurisdictions in which I have practiced law.
Harry Reid on (cspan 2) the Senate floor upset about the republicans decision to oppose the ethics bill.
Continuing on from my critiquing of the New York Times bio of Scooter Libby of a few threads ago, they have another article up “The Nuremberg Hangings — Not So Smooth Either” by Tom Zeller Jr.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.c.....th-either/
which reports that several of 11 hangings of high level Nazi war criminals were botched. It quotes one Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., a professor of law at the University of Georgia, as its source. There is a link “many of the executed Nazis fell from the gallows with insufficient force” but this takes you only to a bibliography of Wilkes’s works. As far as I can tell from perusing this bibliography, Wilkes is not a Nuremberg Trials scholar. Wilkes does cite a famous news account of an eyewitness by Kingsbury Smith “The Execution of Nazi War Criminals, 16 October 1946”:
http://www.mindfully.org/Refor.....6oct46.htm
Smith notes that Julius Streicher went down kicking and that it was clear he was strangling. The executioner descended and as Smith writes, “Something happened that put a stop to the groans and brought the rope to a standstill.” Smith implies (although it is not entirely clear) that the following execution of Fitz Sauckel was also by strangulation.
Wilkes asserts that Smith “discreetly omitted mentioning” that some of these executions were botched and that death occurred, not by a broken neck, but by strangulation. However, as you can see in the quote above or by going to the article, Smith did. Wilkes mentions Sauckel but not the much more graphic account of Streicher’s execution. Wilkes also mentions the prolonged death struggles of Ribbentrop (14 minutes) and Keitel (24 minutes). There is no indication of these in Smith’s article. Where Wilkes comes up with his alternate narrative and its details is unclear.
Maybe things happened the way Wilkes says or maybe they all took a slow boat to Argentina. The problem is you can’t tell from the Times article. Wilkes is certainly entitled to his opinions but Zeller the author of the Times article is citing him as an authority and it is far from clear that he either is an authority, or the best authority, on the subject. This is the kind of sloppy journalism that starts me looking for ulterior motives. The effect of Zeller’s article is to minimize the botching of the executions of Saddam Hussein and one of his lieutenants Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti. See they screwed up at Nuremberg too. As I was reminded by another commenter, some recent executions were botched in this country. The difference as I said then was (unlike states in this country or the Allied Powers) the Iraqi government is struggling for a minimum recognition of its legitimacy, efficacy, and relevance. It’s not that just the executions were botched but everything to do with the Iraqi government including the executions have been a botch. In trying to make it just about the executions and then to minimize how they were handled, Zeller’s article is dishonest, not only in its methodology but in its intent.
“Cheney bias”
AKA–Sanity
If only jurors without Cheney bias are allowed- they’ll be mad as 12 hatters!
Pachacutec @ 105
Honesty and logic and evidence and facts are DEEPLY ingrained in scientists. And scientists do a lot of arguing and debating on their own — they are not easily trapped.
She’s still in, it seems. Wells did not get her to break on bias, and he ahd Fitz did their usualu dance at the end on the memory error versus lying decision making process. Wells is leaning heavily on the importance of following the judge’s instructions.
Considering how difficult it is to get DC folks with a favorable (or at least neutral) impression of Cheney, pehaps Scooter’s legal team should insist they move the trial to the Marianna Islands
“If this here fat guy stood up and lied to you 100 times- would you believe him the 101st? No? Well then you’ve got CHENEY bias!!
ReddHedd at 111 — thanks for your response to Dana @ 102….I had the same question myself.
T- @101
Yes, I meant HRC.
The WaPo noon update on jury selection.
Pachacutec @ 107
He’s got to be careful, though, that his questions don’t start down the track of arguing the case. Isn’t that out of bounds during jury selection?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 115
I think Walton is giving a bit of latitude because of the unusual circumstances of this case, the public issues involved, the war issues, etc. Plus, Wells is pretty good at this.
punaise @ 97
damn…that was nice
I appreciate an artful dezigging.
and Thanks cbl for this
see,…I never knew that particular critical detail
Sharon w @90
No. Televised coverage isn’t allowed in federal court rooms. They have closed circuit coverage for the media, but unless you’re in that room with Pach and the media gang, you and I can’t see it.
Pachacutec @ 108
Can you DO that? I’ve never heard of such!
Pachacutec @
39
Works like a charm in this neck of the woods. I can do it on demand and thought I had it trademarked until Greg Garrison used it to take Mike Tyson down.
Of course, your mileage, or venue, may vary.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 48
Thanks, Sparkles & SP Biloxi. I’m not an ice cream fan ;)
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.c.....33073.aspx
David Schuster is also blogging the jury selection- here’s a link to his ongoing ramble.
Pach at 126 — My guess? Walton is giving them some latitude with the jury selection to undercut any potential avenue for appeal if there is a conviction. They can’t claim jury bias or misconduct where they have a jury so carefully selected, absent some clear, evidence-based showing of egregious action on the part of jurors. (VERY difficult to get evidence of, btw.) Walton doesn’t want there to be a jury selection/venue issue for appeal.
Smart thinking on Walton’s part.
why is libby entitled to a jury that gives cheney’s testimony any credibility?
are we saying that since cheney has proven to our judgment to be a liar, anyone that relies on him for their self defense is innocent by virtue that cheney has a reputation of being a liar?
huh?
cheney has proven to most of us that he is a liar, the fact that libby needs a liar to support his case is his problem, not the problem of jurisprudence
this is like saying;
“I need a particular prostitute to vouch for me, however since most people don’t believe this particular prostitute, you can’t put me on trial”
no, cheney is not on trial, libby is, if libby needs to rely on cheney’s worthless reliability’s reliability that has nothing to do with the jury
my opinion
Scarecrow @ 55
Okay, Gonzales says Bush won’t reauthorize. So what? How many times have these people shuffled TIA? As much kabuki as these guys to stage for us, I can’t trust this news to mean anything more than that they’re trying to drive their surveillance program back underground.
rwcole @ 133
He’s sitting right behind me.
One of the things I am going to enjoy most about doing trial coverage next week is getting to thank David Shuster for his reporting on this case. It’s been a fact-filled, well-researched thing of beauty. And I, for one, am awfully grateful for it.
rw ! 112 -
Hagel’s participation may go a ways in explaining the timing of this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....&eurl=
of course all those rumors of Romney & Huckabee seen speeding off from Moveon HQ are just loose talk*g*
From Schuster’s coverage:
“Going into the questioning of the 13th prospective juror in this process, eight people had been approved for the next round… four had been “excused.” Once the judge gets to 36 for the next round, there will be enough to survive the number of strikes allowed by the defense and prosecution and still have 12 jurors and 4 alternates left for the trial.”
TheOtherWA @ 128
Thanks. I knew they wouldn’t allow them for jury selection, but wasn’t sure about the actual trial.
Pachacutec @ 120
Fitz has to be hoping to get the math teacher and the scientist.
I’d like to reiterate my earlier comment complimenting Judge Walton for getting this trial going on the day that he said - what, six months ago - that it would start.
My compliments, Reggie.
Wish that happened around here; at least occasionally.
pacha- Probably cribbing from yer posts.
This retired hotel housekeeper, a 60 African American woman, made it so far, but her answers are soft spoken and not expansive. She’s been on five juries, but her answers are rather monosyllabic and frankly, almost inscrutable.
Shuster “Both the prosecution and defense teams have body language experts who are analyzing the way prospective jurors answer questions in court.”
Are you sure there are no psychiatrist there, too?
Is this normal and how much do they rely on them?
Would be interesting to know how scientists tend to rule in criminal cases…Are they inclined to think that the evidence is never enough?- Or are they “hang em high” types?
I want to re ask my question;
why does a person’s pre disposition to the reliablitly of cheney affect his status as a member of the jury”
I think cheney is a public figure and it is what it is solely due to cheney himself
I think the defense needs to use their preemptory challenge for these candidates, I don’t think they should be dissmissed by the court
Christy Hardin Smith @ 115
Christy, why do you think the judge is allowing it to go forward unchallenged? If I were that juror sitting in the chair, I would do whatever I could (and whatever wouldn’t get me charged with contempt of court,) to be OFF that jury.
IMHO, YMMV.
Julie
Christy Hardin Smith @ 138
Boy, do I second that. I can remember nights when I lived to see his reporting of the day’s events on this subject. Even after yesterday’s live-blogging session here, I still had to watch Shuster last night on Hardball.
THANKS DAVE!
perris @147 - good question
j.cro @ 76
Nice job of zig-squelching, j.cro. Appreciated.
rwcole @ 147
Seems to me that Fitz would want people who can focus on the specific charges and evidence. People not easily distracted by bright shiny objects. Or people who will shed their common sense in the face of authoritarians.
The next guy is a
latemid 20’s white male who did not believe we should have gone to war, did not believe the wmd case, but thinks we probably need to stay now. He feels he can be fair to both sides in this case.perris at 148 — It’s not just a question of Cheney, but of the whole Bush Administration. But, in this particular case, feelings about he Veep would easily rub off on Libby, his cheif Deputy at the time all of the events in question took place. It’s integral to the case and, thus, relevent in terms of a bias question.
Taylor’s got a new one goin topside.
OT - Senior Bush Official Misled Congress About Oil Industry Payoff
I’ve heard (which I suppose is my version of “some say”) that the weaker side in a courtroom would prefer not to have professional or highly educated types on a jury precisely because they are more likely to see that a particular case is weak. Any ideas about this?
This guy is getting through too. Now we’re up to 20, I think, of the 36 we need to be eligible for jury duty. We’ve had 8 excused.
Pachacutec @ 158
Can you tell us anything else about this latest mid-twenties guy? Is he a professional, a student, etc?
Hugh at 158 — That can be true for some attorneys, although I was never one of those sorts. I think some folks feel that they’d rather have jurors they could manipulate than who will eek the truth of the facts and evidence. But that varies from attorney to attorney, to be honest. When I was prosecuting, I wanted jurors who would use common sense and render a fair and just verdict. Period. The last thing I ever wanted was to convict someone incorrectly.
“Seems to me that Fitz would want people who can focus on the specific charges and evidence. People not easily distracted by bright shiny objects. Or people who will shed their common sense in the face of authoritarians. “
Don’t know- scientists and technical types are sometimes black and white in their thinking- which could be good for a prosecutor- but they might also tend to look for a degree of proof that can’t be found on this planet- interesting question- any opinions Redd?
Anyone know if this is a high number of “for cause” excused?
Hugh @ 157
Seems logical. I’ll buy that.
Ummm Pach…
Dude….Is it possible to have a kinda breakdown of the panel so far?…
Like gender split, age split, race ,ethnicity (if possible), income,etc?…
“I’ve heard (which I suppose is my version of “some say”) that the weaker side in a courtroom would prefer not to have professional or highly educated types on a jury precisely because they are more likely to see that a particular case is weak. Any ideas about this? “
I was once questioned to be a juror in a case involving accounting procedures- it soon became clear that none of the attorney’s wanted anyone who knew ANYTHING at all about accounting…
I’m guessing here- and extrapolating from one case- but I would guess that if you’ve got one juror who has or claims technical knowledge- there is the risk that they will dominate the jury and win over others who may have more insight into other factors- such as “was he lying?”
*xyz @ 160
He’s both.
rw at 162 — I think it honestly depends on a case by case impression. I generally went with a gut feeling on something like that — depends on the strength of you case, how much scientific evidence you are getting into for forensic testimony, the specialty of the potential scientist/prospective juror in question, and a whole host of other factors. It can be a very good thing to have someone who is interested in detail on the jury if you have the sort of case whre keeping track of details and not getting distracted by tangents is important — but, then again, if the person seems obsessive about that sort of thing? That might not be so good, because you don’t want someone manufacturing reasonable doubt where there isn’t any otherwise.
Canadianhoser @ 165
I can’t do meta right now. Later.
Capeman at 163 — It seems fairly reasonable to me, considering the high profile nature of this case, the high level of the players involved, and the small jury pool and small town nature of DC from which the jury pool was pulled.
Pach:
Don’t know if you have a feel for this, but has anyone gotten through that you think Fitz should challenge, or do they all appear reasonable?
mandrake @ 104
I cannot figure out how they will handle the security unless they restrict access to the courtroom that day
Pach: wrt Cheney and security, it amazes me how he is able to do the Press the Meat circuit on the Sunday talk shows no problem. Unless (drumroll) they bring the show to him.
sonate @ 171
There is one woman I think may be someone who very much believes in the administration more than she let on, maybe two. Others seem down the middle. This last guy, for instance, seems pretty calm and without strong opinion, but if I were doing voter analysis, psychographics and demographics, I might peg him as a Bush voter.
Redd–Thanks- makes sense.
One would think that somewhere there is a catalogue of general information about how people tend to vote in criminal cases by demographic group:
somethin like “men vote to convict 90% of the time- women 80%”
African americans tend to vote to convict only 50% of the time
Those in technical careers vote to convict 70% of the time
etc.
Would give lawyers something to work with.
twolf1 @ 156
Related story in the L.A. Times: Democrats Drying up Oil Industry Tax Breaks
“Word around the courthouse is Cheney will testify in court in person.”
And I am sure that Melanie Sloan of the CREW and Wilsons’ attorney, Joseph Cotchett will be keeping a close eye on Cheney as well anyone of witnesses that are part the Wilsons civil lawsuit. I just read that the Wilsons attorneys stated that Cheney doesn’t have immunity. Cheney’s lawyers (which were part of the Clinton impeachment team) need to re-educate their client, hand him the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones civil case, and brush up on the Supreme Court ruling against former President Clinton’s request for immunity for being sued in a civil lawsuit. Clinton’s case will bite the Veep big time. I am looking forward to Cheney’ testimony on the stand as he told Vulture News Network (Fox News) that “Libby is a honest man.” The July 7-14 2003 time line will certainly screw Libby big time in this trial.
The last guy I metioned just got through, now we have an elderly Asian male. I suspect he may get through as he has no opinions about. . . stuff. Nice guy, though. Heh.
hackworth @ 103
Maybe Cheney will tell Fitz that he never met him (Fitz). This little trick throws an opponent off balance.
Funny.
“dryin up tax breaks”
Guess we aren’t hearing “Roll Out the Barrel” comin from those oil company boardrooms any more!
Is it appropriate for jurors to be dismissed if they say they have reservations believing what administration officials say?
If I were presented with two witnesses: a crack whore and a physician, I’d be hard pressed to say that I’d weigh their testimony evenly.
In this case we’ve got journalists whose central job function is to report facts versus the word of administrative officials whose central job function is to meld public perception in their favor (i.e. sell shit to a pig farmer). hmm?
rw at 175 — My own personal jury selection secret? I used to love grandmas. They don’t take any crap from anyone, and they hate liars. *g*
Christy Hardin Smith @ 137
I completely agree with you Christy, he has become a breath of fresh air with his coverage of this over the last year!
I have a question about the pre-emptive challenges. Are they done sequentially — defense first and prosecution next (or vice versa), or are they done concurrently, with the possibility that one (or more) potential jurors might be challenged by both prosecution and defense?
Also, I assume that the challenged jurors are not informed as to who challenged them. (The few times I’ve gotten into “the box” I was challenged, but was not told which side did so, although I assume that it was the prosecution.)
This nice old accountant will get through, I think. He’s totally apolitical, does not follow any politics.
sonate @ 183
They are usually done in rounds, like picking teams in the playground. I do one then you do one (or 2 in this case b/c the defense has many more)
There is strategy in it b/c you hope that the other side will use up one of their challenges on a juror you would have struck
twolf1 @ 156
These references spring up and bring long buried stories back to life, of sorts. It’s going to look like a Dawn of the Dead movie….or part of the Apocalypse.
I agree with perris on Libby’s poor choice of associates not being the responsibility of the court
:-)
LHP @ 185 186:
Thanks.
We’re up to 22 in, 9 excused. We just had a young latina excused for lack of language proficiency.
This next woman is very funny, animated. She’s waving her arms saying when this story broke, she remembers the name “Scooter,” but not much else, as she was in the hopsital recovering from surgery, on morphine, at the time.
Pach,
Robert Cox at Media Bloggers Association must be there with you. He just mentioned you and FDL, in a fond, legitimizing manner.
BTW, he only has one post up on today’s proceedings, and that was about the guy who didn’t want to go hunting with Cheney. Amature
Pachacutec @ 144
Wow. I guess that’s what put her on five juries!
This woman can’t stop giggling. She’s telling the story of how a family member was mistakenly arrested for stealing his own car.
Now Walton is laughing with her about Judge Judy. Don’t even ask!
I’m off to a meeting. Great work again Pach! Thank you very much.
This laughing woman is still in the game, too.
There’s something very American Idol about this.
We’re all rooting for more jurors in the pool just to get this part done, though it is entertaining. Each person is a little mystery, and we get to know them a bit. It’s interesting.
Pachacutec @ 197
If it was anything like American Idol last night, must be a little scary, too.
ccmask @ 172
Yeah, we know they shut down all the surrounding streets every time he has a dental appointment.
I’ve never watched Judge Judy or American Idol…
have I missed much?
Should I give over some of my time at the Lake and TNH to broaden my horizons?
I second the emotion of gratitude to you for blogging this. This is such an amazing opportunity. I feel so lucky to have access to eyes and ears on the ground…FDL rocks! And of course, FDL being Christy, Jane, Pach,…etc. :) It is the next best thing to being there.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 181
Remember William Kennedy Smith’s attorney (was it Roy Black?) who ended up getting married to one of the jurors?
Any signs Wells and Jeffress are looking for hot ladies?
njr @ 199
YEah, two mintues of each. That’s all you’ll need..and all you’ll be able to tolerate. :-)
Pachacutec @ 108
Pach, This guy is a high priced lawyer? getting a promise from a juror before the trial? It’s the same as asking her if she will vote in his favor during deliberations. geezus!
oxide @ 202
YEah, two mintues of each. That’s all you’ll need..and all you’ll be able to tolerate. :-)
Suspicions confirmed, thanks Oxide. I’ll stay where I am.
This next retired white male auditor has some interesting background I don’t feel I can convey without making him possibly identifiable. Very much the analytical type. Can’t tell if he’s going to get through or not. Jeffress is working on him.
Bingo, I think he’ll get through. Politics bore him. Avoids things like Meet the Press.
Pach, we greet you with sweets and flowers.
Thanks for your heroic efforts, and your kindness to share.
Is it me or is this court session running way longer than yesterday’s?
re promising Wells to be fair to Libby: of course it’s the juror’s duty to be fair to both Wells’s client (i.e. Libby) and Fitz’s client (i.e. the United States). But if the juror said “of course I promise to you, the judge, and the opposing counsel that I’ll be fair to both the defendant and the country” that sounds like an instant ejection ;-)
SharonW @ 208
I think Jundge Walton had some previous speaking commitment yesterday, so they cut off the proceedings at 3:00…
SharonW @ 209
Yes, but we adjourned early yesterday. Today, the judge is worried about getting set to set a jury by 3PM tomorrow, and he’s jamming. He seems intent to start Monday.
Scarecrow @ 63
USAID(CIA) funding is going to go through the courts? The judge Peace Corps thing makes more sense, but what about the one that Chayes hired?
This auditor is in so far, but I have a gut feeling the prosecution might drop him. He comes across to me as one who just viscerally feels uncomfortable coming to a conclusive judgment. He likes to feel a bit more removed, analytical, empirically certain.
HotFlash @ 131
Oh. Carvelle ice cream and New Oreans?
none @ 209
None, I’ve been a juror before. It just raises the hair on the back of my neck that an attorney could say such a thing to a potential juror, for some weird reason. Of course you’re charged with being fair and weighing the evidence, and coming to a decision with the other jurors. That’s any juror’s job. At the same time, the “promise me” statement just strikes me as manipulative. I would also have the creeps re: is the guy going to have me charged with perjury if he doesn’t think I’m being “fair”?
IMHO, YMMV,
-S
I’ve been in jury selections where the jury was in the box and watching as the defense and prosecution used their challenges.
Defense: “Your honor, the defense would like to excuse Juror #3.”
Judge: “Juror #3, thank you for your service - you are excused. Would the next candidate please take seat #3. Madam Prosecutor, do you have any challenges?”
Prosecutor: “Your honor, the people would like to excuse Juror #7.”
No reasons given, just politeness all around. At times I could probably guess as to why a given person was excused, but some were a complete mystery.
Thanks, folks, I forgot about the judge’s speaking engagement. However, by my time this is also running over 5 p.m. When does the court close…6?
SharonW @ 216
When the judge says “It’s over.”
214
Lucy Firre says:
Oh. Carvelle ice cream and New Oreans?
I guess I should have said Carvelle instead of Baskin Robbins.. LOL!
I had read on the lastest on Gonzo. I just hope that the Senators rally around Feinstein in regards to the firings of the U.S. Attorneys. And Gonzo says that the firings were not “political.” Please…If someone doesn’t fit into Bush’s circle of bases in his hidden agenda, then you are simply hosed big time…
Pachacutec @ 107
That dirty low-down no-good son-of-a-bitch.
Peterr @ 218
Really? Or are you just being funny? If so, could he be holding an extended court session to get through the jury selection in the time frame (Thursday) he was shooting for?
Strategerie @
215
I’ve also been on a couple of different juries in my time. Minor charges and once a manslaughter case.
Took every single one of them seriously. That atty was trying to provoke the juror into an injudicious statement.
I’m guessing he would have loved my instinctive answer:
“Yes, I promise to be fair to your client, even if his attys are condescending and insulting.”
I’d likely have been out in a flash.
SharonW @ 220
Really - although “It’s not over ’til I say it’s over” does come to mind.
I’m not a lawyer, just been a juror a couple of times. In each of the trials (state court, not federal), the schedule was flexible to a degree, and the judge tried to reach certain points of the trial by certain dates to keep things moving properly. Thus, on a couple of occasions, we were kept longer than we expected - although one judge noted “I’d like to keep rolling today to finish this witness’ testimony, but if we stay past 6PM, (IIRC), then we have to pay overtime and we can’t afford it. Court is adjourned until tomorrow at 10AM, and we’ll pick up again with this witness.”
Thanks, Peter. It seems we’ve lost Pach though. It’s been a good 40 mins. since he last posted. Maybe it IS over for the day. :)
Peterr @ 216
Yes, when I was on a jury that was the method used.
hackworth @ 103
The “expert witness” Scooter wanted to bring in assured Fitz she’d never met him before. He had to remind her that he had examined her in another case some years before, when he was in New York.
The best part, of course, is that she was a memory specialist.
“Maybe Cheney will tell Fitz that he never met him (Fitz). This little trick throws an opponent off balance.”
That would be funny if Cheney said that..
“The best part, of course, is that she was a memory specialist.”
Yeah, Elizabeth Loftus. Who can forget her. LOL!
Tom @ 19
Well…..maybe those other people are all lying!
You know…since it’s ok to lie!
Any maybe those liars will put those other liars into jail!
Questions permitted during voir dire.
It’s worth noting that sock puppetry is reason for banning from this site. Enough said?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 44
I’m not an expert and I no longer practice law, but I was a practicing lawyer for ten years and I was picked for a jury this past year. It was a small drug case, but still. And when I was still practicing, a partner at the firm I was at was picked as a juror for a criminal matter even though he had been a US attorney for many years.
Peterr @ 216
That’s why they’re called peremptory challenges (or strikes)- you don’t have to give a reason, and nobody gets to argue. Note this is a different word than pre-emptive, not a speeling typo. In jury selection, a peremptory strike generally isn’t appealable, and is made at the discretion of the striking party, “putting an end to all debate or action.” In contrast, a pre-emptive strike is what we did to Iraq.
I’m just a law student, so I don’t have a helluva lot of personal experience with this, but the only case I know of where peremptory strikes were successfully challenged was J.E.B v. Alabama 511 US 127 (1994), a supreme court case resolving sex discrimination in peremptory strikes. The case was about child support, and the baby-daddy (they had DNA evidence that the kid was his, 99.9% or something like that) complained because the mother’s attorneys struck all the men from the jury pool. The all-female jury ruled for the mother.
The way the book tells the story, she would have won anyway, because she had a great case based on the DNA evidence… but the issue was whether it’s OK to discriminate by sex in the jury selection process. The SCOTUS said no, it’s not, because people have a 14-th amendment right to serve on juries. They gave the guy a re-do trial, to protect the rights of men who might have sat on the jury. Of course Scalia wrote a dissent saying, effectively, women are different than men, and it’s OK by me to recognize those differences with peremptory strikes. I think he gets the right answer, but for the wrong reasons…
Pach,
In spite of the fact that I wished for more out of this leak case, I always got good vibes from Fitz. What are your impressions so far, and how would you compare the defense lawyer to Fitz?
Thanks
A.T
I don’t understand the jury selection process in this case. It seems that we retreat from intellectual complexities and paradoxes in our daily cultural dialogue - often arriving at, and settling into, a simplified, dumbed-down conventional wisdom. Informed opinion and a commitment to justice exist side by side in the value system of a democracy: We are educated both to be aware, and to respect due process. Of course I think Scooter Libby is lying to cover for Mr. Cheney. Why wouldn’t I? I’ve paying attention. And of course I would pledge allegiance to due process if I had the opportunity to sit among his jurors. This is a life dedication, a spiritual commitment to the U.S. Constitution, cultivated in Civics’ class.