Btw, I should explain the tedious reuse of the empty jury box. I was kind of intending to use the same image for all of these posts, so they were easy to find. Though I'm kind bored of this, what about you guys? I've got some "Justice" images for tomorrow and thereafter. Will look for some more.
Okay, we're back. All the potential jurors are sitting the courtroom, organized according to some byzantine rule of precedence. The lawyers are conferring with some woman (wither her back to us) over some piece of paper. Wells just grabbed her cheerily.
Walton is in. Asks the jurors if they've had any contact with the media. Two hands raised. We're having a discussion, now, about what to do (and there's some disagreement whether we're at 37 or 36 potential jurors; if it's the former, then we can lose one without going back into the jury pool).
We just lost one, apparently a Charter school teacher.
"Anybody else need to talk to me?" Walton asks. No one raises their hand.
We can proceed now, Walton says says.
Another sidebar.
I think they're finalizing their lists so Walton can start making them play musical chairs. (They're going to move the jurors around as people are axed, so they don't know who was struck by which side.)
Still lots of milling about.
Another sidebar. I think they had to redo everything given that that one woman was excused.
The Moment of Truth(s)!!
I only said that because I was bored. We've moved one person out. And four people into spots in the jury box. (Pach is working on who these people are).
One of the guys is a 60s white male. Said about Iraq, we can't stay, we can't go. Sometimes questions credibility of the Bush Administration. But will keep an open mind. Partner is a public defender.
Another is thirties white female.
One is a retired hotel manager.
Another is a guy who only reads the bible.
Late thirties, white female, very giggly, is in.
Lockheed woman, going after billion dollars of business, is still in.
A woman whose son was sent to prison by Judge Walton is in.
Some of the people who have been stricken is an intell guy who does software simulations, the MoveOn guy, a lawyer who knew Woodward, an Israeli MIT PhD, a GW grad student.
This is all very much like the NFL draft. They make an announcement (they're doing three strikes at once, all based on who moves where in the courtroom). And then everyone in the media room twitters about to figure out who is on what team (or rather, whether someone has been ousted or brought into the box).
Christy is whining. I want copies of everything handed to me" she says. Doesn't want to have to work for it, I guess. Lawyers, once a lawyer, always a lawyer, I guess. (CHS says: Yes, where are my briefcase toting minions? Am too used to the luxury lifestyle of a prosecutor. HA!)
Another guy who was in and is now out is a Fannie Mae investigator.
World Bank woman who only does diapers is out. (She's the one who says she doesn't consider anyone is a liar.)
There's an art critic who likes to speak in the impersonal third person ("One must be" she always says, apparently) is in for now.
There's a male webmaster is still in.
There's an opera singer still in.
The woman who has had enough of journalists is out.
Today's legal secretary is in, for now.
Also, understand, we didn't know who started in the jury box. They're moving people in and out of the box, so it's pretty hard to figure out who is where.
Can I just interrupt and say how much I appreciate the folks who are going to serve on their jury? Because their life is about to be turned upside down for the next bunch of weeks, what with having to report to an undisclosed location each day to be picked up to be brought to the courtroom. And imagine, going for 6 weeks without reading ANY blogs!?!?!?!
A bit of a pause here, as the teams figure out their next priorities. Not many jurists left. One person just pulled out of the jury box. It really is totally nuts, as jurors come and go!
Childcare provider is in.
We've got a jury!!!! More details on who is in it later.
Walton is dismissing the rest.
Trial starts tomorrow. Will do instructions tonight. Says he'll do it again, not to insult their intelligence, but to make sure they comply with the way the trial will be run.
Telling jurors not to talk to anyone about this.
"You can't start to decide anything about this case until everything has been presented to you."
Talks about the difficulty of changing your opinion once formed.
"You CANNOT have any discussions whatsoever about this case."
"You're not going to have that problem because you're not going out to lunch" Then assures them they will feed them. They get breakfast and lunch every day. Mmm. Free food.
Now he's telling a story about a guy who talked about the case to his "precocious high school daughter." She kept telling him (since she was studying the jury system) that he couldn't talk about the case. Dad said he paid the mortgage and he could do what he wanted. Daughter said, "who's the judge." So she called up Walton and ratted Dad out.
Says NO contact with the media about this case. You can't have any contact with the media. "I assume there will be a certain amount of media coverage about the case." [You think?!]
They will be providing screened newspapers to the jury. Don't listen to the radio. Don't watch the news. Says they can watch Judge Judy.
"While I believe the press tries to report things accurately sometimes they get it wrong."
If you have any contact with the media about this case, you need to let me know about it.
It's vitally important that you avoid everyone involved in this case. If people [from the case] weren't as friendly as maybe you think they should be, it's not because they're not friendly.
[Walton still] We've fixed a really nice [jury] room up for you with nice chairs, a refrigerator, a microwave. Now some discussion whether they'll get ham and eggs or not. Juice and fruit and coffee and tea and water and milk. We'll have that available at 9:00.
Timeliness is next to godliness, Walton says.
Talks about how he doesn't want to throw away our tax money by waiting for jurors.
Is the temperature alright in here?
Now he's describing the hours they need to be there. Need you here by 9:30. I generally will sit for about an hour and 15 minutes, because court reporters work really hard, and therefore I have to give them a break every hour and a half a the most. Break for lunch at 12:30 for an hour. Start back at 1:30. Unless there is some emergency that would cause us to sit beyond 5:00, we'll break at 5:00 every day (makes the point that his staff is just paid until 5 and he doesn't want them to work for free.)
In reference to computer usage, I've asked you not to get on the internet. If you need to email people, that's fine.
"There might be something about the case on the Internet." [Not gonna happen.]
At bottom, you have an obligation to make sure you can render a fair decision.
This is one of the most important things that as an American citizen that you do.
Will start at 9:30. Will take less than an hour. Both Wells and Fitz are standing looking very humble. Fitz with his head to the side. Wells with his hand in the pockets.
Fitz will take an hour for his opening. And Wells is happy to break his opening statement in two, befor eand after lunch.
Done for the day!
Schedule for tomorrow:
9:30 - 10:30 Jury Instructions
10:30 to 11:30 Fitz' opening
12:00 to 1:00 Wells Part One
2:00 to 3:00 Wells Part Two
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Fitz!
FITZ! Get well, Jane!
That’ll teach me to read the post before fitzing.
Christy! Emptywheel!
Awesome!
Is Juror No. 0677, the television producer who used to work for the National Journalism Center and was an intern at The Washington Times, still on the panel?
FITZ!!!
I am so ready for deadeye Dick’s day o’ testimony that I can’t stand it. I just wish he would lie from the start and state his name for the record as Dick Wad or something so perjury charges can be slapped on him right away.
Not fast enough on the FITZ!
Is there any reading on the racial make up of the jury yet?
LMAO!!! Christy, whining? No!! Say it’s not so!!
* still laughing *
Marcy is going to shatter ALL our illusions out of sheer boredom. Go to work on that “bubble” sitting next to you, Marcy, give ‘em a poke where it hurts in their “groupthink.” ;-)
I have reported no jury numbers and won’t confirm or deny any of them.
As for basic descriptions I’ve previously given, we’ll have more once the ball stops rolling on selections in and out. The process continues.
Rayne @
9
I’m sitting between Christy and Pach–which one of them are you calling a “bubble”?
Pardon my obtuseness, but I’m still not sure how the strikes are actually being done, and why it has anything to do with moving the jurors around. Can Marcy or Christy offer some clarification? Thanks.
Or Pach! I see you’re there too.
JANE!!
Funny bunch!
Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate the birds-eye view of the proceedings.
Nan
LindyH @ 1
I did read the whole post…only when I got to the bottom did I realize no one had common tatored yet.
I got the juror number from David Corn’s report on Day Two: http://www.thenation.com/blogs.....pid=158370
The Nefarious Leslie @ 12
They’re playing a real time game of sequential musical chairs. The potential jurors don’t actually know what group they are in, if their groups is selected to deselected.
Thank you, all three, for the incredible job you are doing. And to think it’s only beginning.
Question for anyone: Is the public allowed in to the courtroom for the trial? How are they handling?
Thanks.
Interesting pool of jurors that are left.. I am looking forward to final pick of 12 jurors.
ifthethunderdontgetya?? @ 15
Well, I did too. And the comments looked empty, and you beat me to it :)
As expected the most intelligent potential jurors are booted by the Bushies
The lawyer who knows Woodward isn’t the same young lawyer whose boss is friends with Jeffress, no?
Interesting NPR story on Judge Walton’s past
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=6937709
…from juvenile delinquent to judge
Okay, what about the defense attorney from the other day? Is he still in?
-S
Pachacutec @ 18
Oh, okay. So they’re not telling potential jurors whether they’ve been struck, just asking them to move to a different chair? Must be a bit baffling for the prospectives. :) Thanks!
Present at the creation of the new 21st century media paradigm!
Nefarious Leslie — LHP did a great post on jury selection for us here. But, essentially, what happens is that potential jurors are moved into the jury box, and then each side gets to strike (as in mark off someone, who is then removed from the pool). When that removal occurs, another potential juror is moved into the box, and then another round of strikes occurs, and so on, and so forth…until all the strikes have concluded and the jury and alternates are the ones remaining.
A regular lurker, I had to tell you all how much I appreciate this fantastic coverage. As a Canadian living in the US (i.e. can’t vote) knowing that SOMEONE whose head is not up the a** of this administration is covering this trial gives me hope. My daughter in Vancouver is watching you guys and passing on the message to her pals, who obviously are not getting the real deal through the media.
Rock on…
BTW we aliens are confused - in a trial on a charge of perjury what difference does it make whether or not a potential juror approves of the conduct of the present administration? Just asking. Makes one think that everyone inside the beltway long ago lost sight of the forest and is just counting the rings on the trees (which of course they are busy cutting down).
Also - does the defense just want people who don’t think? That’s a depressing view of the justice system here.
Great, so both Ms. Lockheed-Martin and Powerline boy are still in? WTF is Fitz thinking? I see an obvious conflict-of-interest with L-M lady. Her livelihood depends on this war.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 26
They figured they would handle it like a reality TV show…
Riveting post and thread.
Oh man I missed the zero because I was working and reading the post…
ha! Fitz anyhow!
I’ve always wondered if people just make up things to say during jury selection just so they get to go home.. especially for a trial like that one that begets controversy and could conceivably drag on unexpectedly.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 28
Thanks, Christy - I had that basic concept down, it just didn’t sound like what was actually happening, from Pach’s comment that jurors didn’t know if they were in the selected or deselected group. Sorry if I misread.
The attorney I think is out, though I want to confirm all my juror stats at the end of the process.
Muzzy @ 23
Don’t know, but he is the one that Pach said was trying to game the system and get onto the jury, right?
Pachacutec @ 36
If true - Thank God - I was most worried about that guy. A ringer for the defense for sure.
I love this post.
LOL! Make me laugh out loud and snort my coffee, why don’t you?
Fitz, I hope you’re playing several chessboards ahead…
Didn’t know if this has been asked yet, but…
Will the Cheneys be greeting them every morning with coffee and Danish?
viget @ 30
FYI … I have a family member who works for a defense contractor, and who would be firmly in the “Bush and Cheney are teh suck” camp if said family member were in the jury pool. Employment does not guarantee outlook. Just saying.
Margot @ 39
I have to agree with Margot. An instant classic.
Nefarious Leslie - The jurors were not aware that they were or were not being selected in the way they were moving around until the final jury was seated. They were informed by the judge at that point who was in and who was out.
The strikes are done and announced in such a way that the jurors do not get to know whether they were struck by prosecutors or defendants or how. It’s done this way to minimize bias if at all possible.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 43
Okay, that’s what I was thinking in my initial response to Pach. Thanks. :)
So are all the preemptories done already, then?
Prof @ 37
The one whose boss is friends with Jeffress sounded like he very much wanted to sit on the jury. Made some comment about not be able to imagine why anyone would not tell the truth under oath.
Much better than the old: “Defendants will thank and excuse Juror No. XX….”
Leslie at 44 — Yes, we have a seated jury. They are being given contact instructions (or NO contact instructions, as the case may be…) at the moment by the judge.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 47
An opportunity exists for contact with those not on the jury? If only we had intrepid bloggers present, who could hunt down these not-wanteds and hear their perspective….
Christy Hardin Smith @ 47
That went pretty fast, especially compared to the initial selection process. But, let’s see … it’s just about 5 Eastern time, so we won’t get to opening statements until tomorrow. I’ll have to spend a whole night in anticipation. *g*
TeddySanFran @ 48
Teddy, I like the way you think.
TeddySanFran @ 48
An opportunity exists for contact with those not on the jury? If only we had intrepid bloggers present, who could hunt down these not-wanteds and hear their perspective….
I’ll defer to Christy, but in most jursdiction where I’ve tried cases it is not permitted to contact even rejected jurors until after the trial and the jury has been discharged. Here in Oz it’s an offence to ever contact a juror, even long after the case is over.
Does court start at 9AM tomorrow?
Walton is being very longwinded, albeit a bit folksy and warm, in giving instructions to the jury as to how they should conduct themselves and what to expect in terms of the management of their time and their lives during the course of the trial.
Christy- Do you have a breakdown of the Jury? Men v women? Age? Etc?
Blub @ 33
Last time I got called, I got in a pool for a nasty capital case — double murder w/kipnapping and armed robbery ancillary counts. There was gonna be sequestration and a death penalty phase if he was convicted (he was, dude was guilty as hell).
I didn’t make up any B.S., but I sure played up my Master’s degree, CQE (Certified Quality Engineer), long tenure in a forensic level environmental radiation lab, youthful drug use and liberal attitudes toward drugs (legalize), and the fact that I’d done my grad thesis on the bullshit that is workplace drug testing policy.
I had my per diem check and parking valiation ticket, and was back home by lunchtime, day one. First one peremptoried off by the prosecutors.
They didn’t need me. I woulda sat on something else, but here in Clark County (Vegas), once you’re tossed once, you’re gone, done.
_
Topanga at 54 — We are working on it. The numbers/information got a bit discumbobulated after all the moving around between the jury box and the benches.
Neil @ 52
9:30.
What a mess! Popcorn everywhere…)
Thanks Christy! You’re the best!
I like the idea of using the same, empty jury box over and over. That way, I’ll know exactly where to stop paging down to find the latest.
I’m interested in the mood in the courtroom, not just the detailed events.
9:30 tomorrow morning should be preliminary instructions to the jury for about an hour, then opening statements.
Is the Lockhead-Martin woman on the jury?
I would like to send a check in to support firedoglake.Would someone please post to whom we make checks out and the address where they can be sent.
You guys are doing a terrific job.
Mostly a lurker, too little time to participate the way I’d like.
Nevertheless. I. Love. This.
Thank-you in the extreme for your perseverance, accessibility and explication.
BobbyG @ 55
Those that do end up staying usually take such cases seriously. Last time I was on jury duty, I was heading down the hall for lunch, and passed a closed door through which I could hear non-stop argument at pretty high volume. Looked at the bailiff and sort of nodded my head toward the door. He just shrugged and said, “murder trial deliberations.”
> A woman whose son was sent to prison
> by Judge Walton is in.
I would have thought that person would have been rejected based on the questionnaire. How could she be impartial about any of the Judge’s ruling?
Cranky
BobbyG @
55
Tell you the truth, I never made it out of the waiting room into a pool. For some reason, I’ve only ever been asked to jury duty on days when they wound up having too many jurors… happened to me four times.
Cranky Observer @ 66
NPR reported that the woman told Walton that “I didn’t blame you. It was his fault.”
(i just finished changing two lightbulbs in my kitchen. the sum total of my day’s productivity. other than hitting refresh.)
(hitting “refresh” - like hitting the “snooze” button on my life)
The pool reporters are going over numbers and descriptions now in the media room–either Christy or Pachacutec will do a post summarizing all this tonight.
Now they’re going through strike order, which should show something about the priorities of the lawyers (though we don’t know which side struck which juror).
rosalind @ 69
Is it time for breakfast yet?
BobbyG @ 55
As in forever? Never to sit on another jury for anything? Or just for the day?
Thank you for the update of tomorrow’s opening statements! I look forward to the opening statements. :D
montag @ 64
Nearly everyone who sits on a jury takes it damned seriously. I would have as well in that case, though I really didn’t want that particular trial at that time in my life, given the disruption it would have entailed.
_
I hope someone informs Judge Walton that those words were on the Internet within minutes of his saying them.
Great work, EW! Hopefully you get less diligent as the trial gets underway, ’cause otherwise I’m gonna have a hell of an act to follow.
I’m only off topic by a few threads - and that’s assuming it is off topic.
Richmond - I have no idea what you are trying to say with your “thousand points of light” comment.
Pach - Not to sound snide (or snarky), but why would you care whether editors or reporters found you (as a blogger) “useful/” Do you hope they like you, share info with you, invite you to go for drinks with them, take you seriously?
You et al. (and Christie, Marcy, etc.) are “useful” b/c your an independent source of information, whether you classify it as “reporting” or “blogging,” for your audience.
There is nothing wrong with trying to influence people such as reporters and/or editors for the better, but your dealing for the most part with clowns who make their money performing at the circus, so unless you plan on joining the circus, I don’t see how you are going to be useful to them, or, and more importantly, why you would want to be. The CM views news as entertainment, it’s a business from which they try to make as much money as possible, and to do that they don’t care about getting to any truth or inciteful commentary - they care about drama, shock value, outrageousness, b/c that is what they think will draw in viewers/readers/listeners - good v. evil sells, scaring the shit out of people (choose your bogeyman) sells.
And there is also the question of why you et al would care about the CM. I’ll say it again (repeating myself), the blogs give to much credence to the power of the CM - that their bullshit narratives rule the day. Cause if that were true, the dems would not won in November and Chimpy’s numbers would not be at historic lows. It might be too early to say that the majority of people have passed the CM by, but it sure seems that way.
Now we’re going through descriptions of each juror.
Lots of government employees, but I guess that’s not a surprise.
rosalind @ 69
hahahahaha~been there!!!!
Hey team! Pach, Emptywheel and Christy! Awesome coverage!
and thanks to all the great firepups throughout the day who made life easy on the mods!
The former WaPo reporter, who worked for Woodward, made the cut.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 72
No, just for that callup. I’ve been called for jury duty 3 times in the 15 years I’ve lived here. Tossed every time.
_
rosalind @ 69
707 !! know what you mean - but you are two lightbulbs ahead of me. oh dear . . .
Swopa @ 76
Oh he knows, I asked specially.
leolabeth @
64
Another lurker who wants to thank you and
wish Jane the best. I bet there are a lot of us out here!
And to think that I am supposed to teach Administrative Law in 14 minutes — and should have prepared by re-reading the cases another time.
If it were Constitutional Law, I might just ask my law students to tune into FDL, but Admin Law is a bit far afield for reading the live-blogging.
Guess I gotta go. 12 minutes now.
EPU — strange wording mine was. I just meant that when you have 100s even more smart peopl working aboout a particular subject - say corruption in the media - you are able to say much more (get much more) on it than if you have 1-3 journalists (who then get edited by a higher up) on the same topic.
Cranky Observer @ 65
Cranky, under questioning from judge walden, she said it not the judge’s fault her son committed his crime.
loosetooth @ 63
The Fire Dog Lake Company
8033 Sunset Blvd. #966
Los Angeles, CA 90046
BobbyG @ 75
Hmm, not my experience at all–but, then, for some reason, I only get picked for civil cases, and I’m surprised they don’t give the bailiffs long sticks to poke the jurors who’ve fallen asleep. There’s something about numbers and contracts that’s like sleeping pills to most people. :)
Dru - thanks for putting the address up!
We really appreciate everyone’s help!
Sounds like the Lockheed lady didn’t make it.
Have the “Lockheed Martin” and the person fond of watching “FOXx” been excused? I hope?
Don’t know about the Fox viewer–are you talking about someone from today?
How about the too eager lawyer?
Nine women and three men (or 10/2) on the main jury.
Richmond @ 95
I think he was one of the first people struck.
You guys are really awesome. Thank you. So much.
montag @ 90
I blame the lawyers. A good trial lawyer will keep the jurors awake regardless of the type of case and a bad one will put them to sleep regardless. Great story told about a lawyer whi droning on and and notices Juror #3 is asleep. He says to the judge: “Your honor, I note Juror #3 is asleep, could you wake him up?”
Judge” You put him to sleep, you wake him up.”
Delurking to say how much I appreciate your coverage. Refresh…refresh… refresh… :-)
If possible, or deemed relevant, I’m interested in the number of non-European Americans on the jury?
montag @ 89
Well, I should have been clearer about that. I meant criminal cases. Although, Grisham’s latest book “The Innocent Man” provides a serious counterexample, I must confess.
_
We had a senior status judge who kept falling asleep during a complex antitrust jury trial, so we kept knocking some books over to make a noise to wake him.
Hi. Long-time lurker, infrequent commenter. I have accomplished nothing for the last week and a half. Thank you. I put a little gelt in the pot on payday.
I just want to give a shout-out to my son nied in SF. Do you use a different name on this site? I know you’re reading, I hope you are getting more work done than me…
I’m with musicsleuth! You all have been doing an absolutely amazing job of not only live-blogging but also instructing us on what’s happening and how and why. Thanks, thanks, thanks.
Jo M @ 103
Makes me wonder… if he snored, did the court reporter note that in the transcript? :)
For the Lockheed lady, I wonder which is more: the amount she stood to benefit from the billion dollar contract or the blackmail ransom she could hang on her bosses ;)
FWIW, David Shuster up next on Hardball about Libby trial.
emptywheel @ 81
this is inconceivable
Tweety obsessed with Hillary. After Schuster’s report on jury selection, he sez to Ann Kornblut (who now works for the WaPo and not the NYT) something about the odds-makers in Vegas. Are we to be treated to this endless speculation for another year? Why won’t they talk about the real news (war, Libby trial, FBI IG report on Foley, etc.)?