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’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.

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…

A question for the legal experts – would, or do, lawyers ever make it onto juries?

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.

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.

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!

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!

Maybe Cheney will tell Fitz that he never met him (Fitz). This little trick throws an opponent off balance.

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.

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.

Yes, when I was on a jury that was the method used.