David Shuster, who has done a bang-up job of covering the Libby trial for MSNBC, sent the following email:
When the jurors came in 45 minutes ago for the final evidence presented in this case, 13 of the 14 juros (12 jurors and 2 alternates) were wearing bright red t-shirts with a large white heart on the front. The shirts appeared to be new… The one juror not wearing a red shirt was an elderly woman who works as an art curator. A man on the jury, who is a retired school teacher originally from north carolina, then read a statement to the court. The man said the jury wanted to "thank the clerks, marshalls, and judge for all of the accomodations made" for the jury during this trial. The juror then said the entire jury understands their responsibilities in this case and that their "unanimity may now go no further." "But on behalf of the jury," said this man, "we want to wish everybody a Happy Valentine's day."
To say this moment was awkward would be an understatement. All of the attorneys, and the judge, appeared on the edge of their seats. At the conclusion of the juror's statement, the attorneys nervously and politely clapped…and the judge sheepishly thanked the panel for being "a very attentive jury." Then, the judge moved on…
What does it mean that one juror, who seemed particularly cantankerous during jury selection, refused to go along with the rest and wear the bright red t-shirt? Could it be that she is the only one on the panel with any sartorial taste? Or does it mean something more serious for jury deliberations next week? The issue was noted by attorneys on both sides of the case outside in the hallway.
Marcy and I were in the media room at the time and only saw the people in the courtroom laughing as the jury filed in (we don't see the jury on closed-circuit TV). It may mean nothing than one person not into making sartorial group statements, but since Libby only needs one juror to hold out, it could have broader implications. Something to think about anyway.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
I wouldn’t wear the same shirt as the rest of the jury either.
that said, I’m not happy there’s aomeone not happy with everyone else
Cantankerous can run both ways.
This looks like a possible case of jury self-nullification to me – but what the F- do I know? I’m only a blog poster.
Maybe she (the holdout on the red shirt attire) thinks that this is too serious for childish demonstrations?
was she wearing blue?
VERY VERY WEIRD.
Any chance the non-shirt wearer is as alternate?
I remember that particular juror quite well and, in my mind, I can see her easily refusing to wear a red t-shirt. She’s truly not the t-shirt sort. *g* This is a bit unusual in terms of jury behavior, though — they must be feeding them awfully well for them to be so happy with court personnel.
Great. A valentine’s cult… Oh dear.
in any event, it gives some kind of fodder for an appeal I imagine
bad choice all around from the jury
Perhaps the art curator feels she would not be caught dead in a T-shirt.
Terrific coverage, FDL. I hope everyone reading will chip in some $$ to the site – they really deserve a lot of support for their tireless (and likely expensive) efforts!
Verrrry interesting! I would read this as a signal that these jurors have “bonded” on some level. Which could bode well for their willingness to deliberate in good faith.
It could also speak to a bit of a herding…in which case, it would be interesting to see who turns up as the foreperson. One of the main questioners (we don’t know just who was active in that part)?
but since Libby only needs one juror to hold out
Since there are multiple counts, they (the jury) could, repeat could give up one or two if necessary to reach a comprimize verdict(s)
An aesthetically distasteful decision for a jury in a criminal case, in my opinion. I’ll try not to spend any further time speculating on it.
If the jury ultimately convicts, I too wonder if it wouldn’t be cause for a mistrial- or a good appellate argument. It sounds like the jury may have been telegraphing who the lone holdout is, and if she ultimately flips and votes to convict- hmm, is that a fair process? Also telegraphs to the attorneys before the close of evidence and closing arguments whom they have to convince?
I know not a lot about criminal law so I’m just guessing from an uninformed intuition of fairness, not the law- can anyone fill us in?
It seems a bit frivolous, but given that the jurors are not supposed to diliberate the case they likely had to talk about something when they were together. It also suggests that they were getting along pretty well.
All they did was thank the Court for proper treatment.
Regarding Ms. Cantankerous…maybe she is opposed to Valentine’s Day. Or simply thought it was “silly”, or that the idea of wearing a T-shirt was unflattering to her.
I think that people who are looking for signs in Tea Leaves would be better off looking at those jury questions.
People — it was a thank you to the lovely court personnel — who are wonderful, btw, and have been taking very good care of the jurors (and the journalists, for that matter). Don’t read more into this than you need to do.
No one — and I mean NO one — can say for sure what a jury will ever do in any case. It’s a fact of life with trial work, and I’ve learned in my experience not to try until I hear the verdict read out loud. But, fwiw, they did seem like a nice bunch of folks on the whole during my time observing them up close and personal in the courtroom. Very attentive to the attorneys and the witnesses. Beyond that, we’ll just all have to wait and see.
Lawyers are so blind- she’s an ART Curator- of course she’s not going to be caught dead wearing a tacky red t-shirt with a big white heart on it. Do lawyers ever get out and SEE the world?
IANAL, but I didn’t think a jury was allowed to make compromises. It seems to me that any if/then scenarios would be spelled out by Walton when he gives them their instructions.
Those jurors have already spent a lot of time alone amongst each other (all those loooong sidebars) NOT talking about the trial. My gut feeling tells me that more than one of them developed a bit of a crush on Reggie Walton and cooked up this bit of entertainment to stave off boredom.
This is so Grishamesque.
I love how we get the news from DS here first!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 17
I appreciate your thoughts on this.
A carry over from the parallel universe:
HotFlash @ 72
IIRC, Egregious said that Sealed vs Sealed was on the schedule on the courtroom door for 3:30 today(?) Any thing happening on that?
What? Before Walton? With Fitz and his team there? Were there any other Prosecutors present?
Sounds as if Fitz was going to unseal theealed indictment if there was a short day.
So hang on FDL’ers! There may be a BIG Announcement Tomorrow! It could be SHOWTIME!
Sorry, I meant to quote cozumel@13
susie @ 18
that was my reaction
susie’s right – I have known art curatorial folk since I was a child (long ago), and the older they get the less humor they have about stuff like this – after all, art is all about the exterior surface (of the artwork), so they get very careful about their own exterior surfaces.
Reminds me of The Runaway Jury. They stood and recited the pledge of allegiance – for their own reasons. It freaked out everybody.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0313542/
cinnamonape @
16
I was on a jury for a month when I lived in New York City, and I can tell you that something like this doesn’t surprise me very much. We spent a lot of time sitting in the jury room, bored out of our minds. Not being along to talk about the case, we spent a lot of time discussing what the various lawyers were wearing every day. There was talk of starting a book club. Matching holiday T-shirts doesn’t seem too far out to me. Hell, we would have had to make them.
cinnamonape @ 23
Why would they unseal an indictment before closing arguments in this trial? Again, I may seem rather clueless because NAL, but I don’t see how this would benefit the prosecution. My uneducated common sense tells me that they wouldn’t unseal an indictment right now. It would be distracting and not necessarily helpful. Lawyers – tell me if my instincts are way off base.
The one juror not wearing a red shirt was an elderly woman who works as an art curator.
Maybe she just has a “particularly cantankerous” and elitist sense of what good T-shirt art is? Or doesn’t feel good wearing a T-shirt, or wearing bright red?
Whatever, I suspect the jurors were just having some Valentine’s Day fun. The “red” does not mean “GOP” – c’mon – what are the chances of that???
It is a little wierd
but they didn’t see much of anything presented to impugn Russert’s frank testimony and that’s hopefully the key to much of the case, no matter how she may feel about “sartorial group statements.”
ok, call me ignorant on all things legal but I fail to see the harm in this humorous and well intended display. After all, you put these 14 people together for weeks on end, throw them together with the same court personnel and then expect them to lose their identities and become automatons? don’t think so.
Hasn’t Walton made a point of asking them about their lunch and whether the staff was treating them well? I think this was just a sweet way of the jury to say thanks. We don’t give service people enough thanks and recognition. The jury was being thoughtful.
IMHO, it is a good sign for Fitz. It looks like he got some courageous, imaginative types who are considerate people.
It might be unusual but it doesn’t mean it’s bad.
what a bunch of whack jobs
Quite frankly, I would feel uncomfortable wearing a red T-shirt as part of a “statement” of thanks – particularly in a case of this gravity, involving crimes committed by those at the highest level of government.
I do think it was in bad taste. It will be interesting to find out who organized it (i.e. had the t-shirts made, talked fellow jurors into wearing them, etc.)
Yes, people bond by nature, and if they are required to talk about everything EXCEPT what they are working on, they’ll grow close. They probably know each others’ kids names and so forth. I bet they don’t realize how much they are truly being “watched” by all of us. :-)
Cinnamonape makes a great point about the questions being the best tea leaves we have.
OK, I recalled wrong. This is what Egregious said at 44 on the St Regis thread this morning:
When I served on a grand jury for a year there was one goofball who would spend our sitting around waiting time thinking up cutesy theme junk for the next month such as -”Lets wear our favorite sports jerseys! Just to have a little fun”. (I was one of the cantakerous killjoys, other people loved it.) It amused some USA’s, baffled or appalled others, but it didn’t affect our deliberations.
11 pepsis and 1 coke
T-shirtgate
From my jury service, I can tell you our judge would not have been happy with this display. (Of course, our judge yelled at me when I started to take notes, even though he hadn’t forbidden note-taking.) This is what most court observers would call a “stunt.”
I wonder why the jury didn’t wait until the trial’s end? Especially since they could not achieve unanimity — that’ll drive the lawyers crazy all weekend.
Hmmm… this will put the jury consultants in a tizzy, that’s for sure.
But this does suggest to me that a leader has emerged… this “stunt” for lack of a better word, had to be the idea of some juror. In fact this smacks to me like the work of the lead character from Grisham’s Runaway Jury, the guy who wanted to get on the jury solely to influence it and prove to both sides that he had sway over the jury and that the verdict was for sale to the highest bidder. And this required a bit of coordination, possibly monetary contribution from each juror, and a lot of initiative.
Whomever came up with this idea may be pretty alpha in the group right now. To get people you don’t know to go along with this, possibly contribute money, wow. And I’d be willing to bet that it’s not the spokesman, again in Runaway Jury, the spokesperson for the jury was NOT the lead character, rather someone the lead character nominated to lend “credence” to the whole process, a grandfatherly/grandmotherly type. Hmm…..
I worked at a DC art gallery many years ago when I was a youngin’ (mainly making copies and doing other mundane tasks). Art curators sometimes wear stupid t-shirts and even tacky clothes and many of them had a sense of humor about all forms of expression.
Maybe the art curator was just afraid that they get into trouble. When I was a juror, I took it very seriously and was afraid of doing anything wrong.
BTW that Shuster snap is a keeper!
mayan @ 37
11 pepsis and 1 sprite
What if the shirt said guilty, guilty, guilty?
I hope noone else came up w/ this as I did not read all of the posts prior, but what would walton say, ‘Well it is freedom of speech’?!?
I guess I must be a cranky, over-serious person. I just don’t see it being appropriate.
Considering who these people are, how much money they have and have raised, the resources they have available, what they stand to lose, and their proven and demonstrable disdain for the law — does anyone really believe that they wouldn’t tamper with the jury? They only need to flip one jurist.
All they have to do is find the one jurist with Limbaugh and Hannity on the radio pre-sets, and bingo.
/tin foil hat.
cinnamonape at 23 — As I said in the prior thread on this, there is absolutely no information that Fitzgerald or his team were in any way involved with that hearing. Walton heard it, but there is no other information about the hearing. Deep breath time. Really.
Could this in any way lead to a mistrial?
John Kerry on Hardball right now – says “there are no doubts that Iran is creating mischeif for us”, but also believes we need to deal with Iran re: the Taliban, weapons, and Iraq itself.
Kerry says he supports the resolution before the Senate now (i.e. stuck in filibuster-land), but believes we must move to a binding resolution.
He says it’s an appropriate role for congress to ensure the military is well equipped, well trained, and taken care of. He’s going on about how the multiple call ups by National Guard members are really affecting their lives & careers (like losing their owned businesses).
He says its counter to IRaq’s best interest and our best interest to have the US keeping a long-term presence and permanent bases in Iraq. He thinks permanent bases incite more violence against us. He says we should announce that we will close any permanent bases created by a deadline date.
He says we need a legitimate diplomatic effort to get the stakeholders to stand up and define the future that they want. They won’t do this at the end of a gun barrel. Our longterm presence and building of permanent bases hampers progress.
He said one American soldier should not die or be maimed because the Iraqis are using them for their own power struggle.
(this is all paraphrase).
Here’s my promise – no matter what the verdict, I won’t whine at all about stupid things like Valentines outfits that the jury wore. I hope the same is true of Libby’s supporters.
Any bets on whether the fellow who read the statement is the foreman of the jury?
That’s just really fucking weird.
I’m going to wonder if it was Recent Arrival From North Carolina, because I don’t see it as the kind of thing a DC resident would come up with. Perhaps that’s regionalist, but there you go.
I suspect the one juror wouldn’t wear a T-shirt ‘on the job’, so to speak, unless there was a written note that it was ‘casual day’. I’d be embarrassed wearing a shirt like that, myself. (Shirts like that are really casual. Like the Rocky Horror Rodent Show shirt I have hiding in a drawer.)
Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
LandOfTheFree @
11
it’s an aesthetic statement, prolly.
I am guessing the shirts are kind of cheesey bad art design and not “fine art” one would find in a museum gift shop– Maybe Munch’s The Scream with a big red heart on it [snicker]
If that’s true, then why is it the art-snob juror can’t even find it funny/ironic and just wear it for ha has?
that’s kind of a red flag to me.
Does anyone know if the art curator works for any number of the fine art museums within the District of Columbia? The majority of these venues are national museums whose staff, by nature, keep their heads down, wisely for obvious reasons. Bush& Cheney’s administration have wreaked havoc on the NEA and NEH staff morale from day one of their reign of fear & loathing on career federal employees who know well their contempt and pattern of purging real or imagined progressive intellectuals.
It does make me cringe. And for me to cringe, well, the thing must be pretty dumb. I feel embarrassed for them.
Maybe the ‘Little old lady from Pasadena’ has physical limitations that prevent her from putting on a t-shirt? Happened to me!
David Shuster on Hardball right now.
old gold–
I’d bet no. Someone else put him up to it, because it lends credence to the act. If someone’s trying to influence this jury, they would not appear as the spokesperson. And that someone would definitely want to be foreman.
God, this is right out of Grisham’s Runaway Jury…sometimes real life is stranger than fiction.
Waiting for the barber today, and was forced to read NY Post.
Two opeds, Fred Thompson, and Jpod, both ragging on Fitz, no harm done, yadda yadda.
Of course, there was no off-setting voice of reason/unpaid shill.
This is the Kerry I liked and supported. I hope he puts all presidential aspirations behind so he can be the honest and forceful advocate for “fighting men & women” and a sane foreign policy that I know he wants to be
This could be good news for Libby. It reveals that the jury, with one exception, is highly sentimental and errs on the side of emotion over reason….the kind of jury to be sympathetic enough to give an authority figure like Libby the benefit of the doubt. Or it could mean they are not going to give the benefit of the doubt to Cheney and Libby, who while authority figures, are the furthest thing from warm and fuzzy.
Who knows? Have to trust the process. It’s all we got.
newspaperbrat @ 56
I was hoping you would chime in. Thanks.
It’s possible the poor soul wasn’t able to come up with a t-shirt like the others and there’s nothing else to read into it.
Amazing how Mary was able to blog all those discussions between the attorneys and the judge. What a gal!
Tweety says he is stunned by Libbey’s loyalty.
Swopa’s got a new thread upstairs.
jeffreyw @ 66
I wonder if he’s equally stunned cheney’s abandonment
If the shirt’s not “fly”
You must nullify!
My 65, sorry, MarCy. My apologies.
this is why I have never served on a jury and probably never will, I really hate dumb ass group think dress alike nonsense. Unless it would be really funny, but then it’d be funny for one minute watching the reactions of everyone and then you’re stuck there all friggn day wearing that dumbass t-shirt.
Maybe ms art curator is one of those solo-gig-types for a blandscape gallery and not a museum curator. I’m sure it is beneath her to wear such garb.
Weird as hell. Never heard of a jury doing such antics. Sorry, I’m a grownup. Good for the curator. Can’t imagine ever doing such a thing in my past jury experiences.
Oh, and another check to FDL snail addy. You guys are making history. I continue to be in awe at your incredible coverage of this.
urban pirate @ 61
I used to buy the Post back in the day, for the late box scores. Finally I grew so disgusted with Rupert Murdoch’s empire I balked at even giving them a quarter.
If the hold out for the shirt wearing is an art curator, I’m going out on a limb and say no way would she also be a hold out in favor of Irving. Artists and art business people, curators included (sweeping generalization coming up here) are for the most part not conservative, and not sympathetic to this administration at all, and most likely have their bullshit detectors on high. She probably thinks as an art curator and an arbiter of taste by profession, that cheezy Valentine’s t-shirts are not something she’d be caught dead in. Just a guess. Hope the shirt is the only thing she’s holding out on and that they are all in agreement that Scooty Scoot’s defense story is bogus.
Sorry – but i have tried a lot of cases, some for far longer than this – i have never heard of this happening, outside of Grisham’s book (runaway jury, btw). As an attorney in this case, i would be very nervous; indeed, very angry at this stunt. total b.s.
it sure looks like it signals there is one holdout – whichever way she leans. I dont think the judge would be out of line re-instructing the jury that they may not discuss case until it is submitted to them; maybe even go as far as to inquire individually if anyone did, so as to boot off the offending juror before submitted to them.
and i would sure know what juror put them up to this and brought the tee shirts. this one should be voirdired separately to see if there is cause to strike him
On topic – It means nothing.
And off topic. And with apologies to Jane. More for my apparent new nemesis Tom Schiller. Maybe not. I don’t really want attribution or “credit.” Who am I kidding, of course I do.
the anti-thesis @ 71
That’s it. That’s the thing that is making me squirm. Besides being brainless. Have any of you ever been forced into those horrible “team building” exercises that are really childish? They can be very awful. I worked for a lady that was really into it. And she treated us pretty shabbily the rest of the year. It was so weird. I just wanted my paycheck.
I’m an artist and was a gallery director for a awhile surrounded by post-menopausal kooky artist women and I can make the gross sweeping generalization that it’s nothing to worry about.
Art snobs against valentine’s day and stupid tshirts unite!
I understand what CHS remarked above on the t-shirt subject.
However, if the jury had filed in perhaps w/a “thank you” Valentine’s Day card signed by all & given it to the judge for the court staff, rather than coming in dressed like the St. Val’s Pep Squad, we wouldn’t be discussing it…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 47
It’s just really strange that this sealed indictment, as I recall, was issued on (or around) the same date as the Libby Indictment. And then it shows up again? On this day?
Same judge…
That’s why I asked if any other Federal Prosecutors were around.
Didn’t anyone bother to look who was going into or out of that set of chambers?
I wonder if it is really true that they just decided yesterday that Libby would not testify or if they knew all along? I also wonder if Libby’s team told Cheney et al, that Libby would testify and would call him hoping that that would put the squeeze on Cheney and now that Libby has not testified but CAN STILL make a plea agreement whether this is some other kind of squeeze. Like I said, Libby there still can be some kind of settlement anytime before the jury’s verdict is in.
Also, I see where Jeralyn has said that she believes reasonable doubt exists. I don’t see any reasonable doubt from here but maybe that is because I don’t want to see it. Or maybe Jeralyn is just saying that as an officer of the court? as Jane suggested yesterday on PoliticsTV? Argh! Do we really have to wait until Tuesday? This is going to be a very long weekend for Libby too. Maybe he’ll break.
Like I said just wondering.
I hope the non-red shirt person was NOT the person who used to work for Bob Woodward. I’m still worried about that.
Woodhall Hollow @
20
Thank you. I’m going to subscribe to your explanation, because I don’t like the implications of my gut feeling: it was creepy.
If I were to read the “tea leaves” of the Valentine’s Day T-Shirts, I would say that it means that the jury really respects Judge Walton, and will hang on his every word when he instructs the jury. Which is a good thing for the prosecution, I think, because he will remind them about the limitations on Wells’ ability to argue the “Libby Was Overwhelmed By Other Much More Important Matters” Defense.
On the other hand, of course, he will instruct them about reasonable doubt, and that the government must prove its case, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything, the defendant doesn’t have to take the stand, etc.
But he should also tell them that a “reasonable doubt” means more than just a doubt based on speculation. Which is really all that Wells has given the jury in terms of Libby’s alleged memory defense. Yes, it’s possible that he forgot about his conversations with Cheney, Bartlett, Martin, Fleischer, Schmalls, Cooper, Miller, etc. It’s possible for anyone to forget anything. Yes, it’s possible that he “misremembered” a discussion with Russert that didn’t occur — perhaps a discussion that occurred with someone else. (Rove? “Hey, Karl, reporters are telling me that Plame is CIA!” “Really, Scooter, reporters are telling me that too!” “Yeah, Karl, THAT’S the ticket! Reporters!”)
But has the defense given the jury any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that supports the assertion that Libby actually did forget? “Supports” doesn’t have to mean “proves.” Libby doesn’t have to prove he forgot. But he can just SAY he forgot (or in this case, have his lawyer just say he forgot). And I don’t see anything in the record that supports an actual memory loss. I just see argument.
Christy, Marcy, Jane, Swopa and Pach, what do you see that I don’t see? Am I just in a State of Denial?
Schiller should be Schaller. And no, it was not purposeful.
cinnamonape at 80 — The point of a matter being sealed is that you don’t get to see who goes in and out of the courtroom because it is sealed. Jeralyn was trying to track down any info she could yesterday, egregious said, but I haven’t heard anything from her on whether she found out anything. But really, it’s impossible to speculate on a sealed DC circuit matter, given the number of criminal cases and high level government cases that they deal with on a week to week basis. Truly, — if we knew any facts to link the cases, we’d tel you guys. But we don’t — and speculating about what it could be, when there are SO many options, is just that — speculation.
Victoria at 82 — The non-red-shirt person had nothing to do with Bob Woodward.
Goodness people – give it a break.
Fourteen people that have been together for several weeks are showing some human emotion.
I think it is wonderful that they show this kind of spirit. And if the one lady doesn’t want to go along, that is fine also.
Isn’t that what democracy is all about?????
JoyB @ 77
I used to work for a company GE bought. Team building central. Enough said…just the phrase makes me cringe.
What troubles me about this thing is that the box of T-shirts arrived in the jury room with a note signed “Love, Scooter.”
Somebody already hinted she’s not the body type for a T-shirt. Maybe there simply wasn’t an XXL? Maybe she thought it would be bad taste to wear one? Whatever, who knows.
But as to why most of them did wear them: Do these jurors have daily contact with their loved ones? Maybe it’s a cheerful Valentine “I love You” message?
I agree it comes off a bit like dumb ass group think dress alike nonsense but it’s probably just innocent fun, born out of boredom and perhaps out of separation on V-Day. I seriously doubt they have come to any kind of consensus yet among themselves about the case. The hard work is all still ahead of them.
bellesouth @ 81
I don’t see what sort of plea agreement Scooter could do. Fitz would want something of value and the only thing that qualifies is his boss. I just don’t see that happening
Were there little pacemakers next to the hearts on the t-shirts?
Criminy! Red-shirted jurors? 90% of comments theorizing, speculating, bloviating…
C’mon folks, Y’all are acting worse than the MSM on Clinton fer Chrissake.
There’s absolutely nothing you can make of it; please please please don’t go rabid about something that is not in any way central to the issue at hand. Unless you really *want* to be like Malkin, Coulter, … et. al.
[now hiding under desk to avoid flaming arrows]
What’s tasteless is the wet T-shirt contest they had after court closed. I heard Comstock won.
My son just reminded me these t-shirts cannot be from the RW. They have hearts on them and we all know the right doesn’t have a heart.
I really can’t thank everyone enough for all the work you’ve all put it. It’s quite beyond my vocabulary.
HELLOOO!!!
Dont you people read John Grisham Novels.
This jury has been bought and paid for and that was their way of saying that they are in Cheney’s pocket.
Notta Flatlander @
94
You get nothing but hearts from me.
Notta Flatlander @
94
you can run but you can’t hide!
this is pretty funny
I am so sad they aren’t re-enacting this on Court TV, today’s would have been great.
HA!
I’ll have to settle for:
“that’s why Valentine’s Day T-shirt wearing jurors are having the Best Week Ever tm!”
I’m all over the place on this one, aren’t I? I apologize for being that way.
I’m with former fed on it’s nice people bonded. I’m also uncomfortable about silly group activities. I was just discussing with a friend how the Internet itself, the online environment, causes us to be rather more dramatic and harsh when discussing other people than if we were in person together discussing this. Or if we had to say these things about the jurors on t.v., with our own faces showing, with more accountability for judging others. It can get pretty harsh online.
It probably means that the art curator finds the bright red shirt with white heart aesthetically offensive. And that she has NO sense of humor. Sorry, typical art curator, and I’ve known many.
But this is a curious and bizarre thing for the jury to do.
Hmmm, curiouser and curiouser …
That is really funny. But I wouldn’t read too much into it – I think the elderly art curator found the t-shirts cheesy, as I would have. Also, I would’ve refused to wear the t-shirt just to make observers crazy with speculation about why I wasn’t wearing it.
hmmmm – is this an indication that the fix is in? i smell a rat! and did the judge and attorneys find this a bit odd? what say you people?
Let’s trust that the jurors had a good reason to justify having their provocative heart-ons. I know it’s always an awkward moment for me when mine is obvious like that.
Thanks to D Shuster for his hard work and consistently high quality reporting.
Thanks too, again, to Jane and the crew for bringing all of this to us. I think we’d all agree of the unanimity in this.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 64
As curator of paintings for a small fine arts museum I wish I didn’t know the fear and loathing and punishment Bush, Senior and Junior have visited upon our nation’s cultural institutions. And for fellow firepups interested in the first President & Mrs. Bush’s administration need only read “Leaving Town Alive: Confessions of an Arts Warrior” by John Frohnmayer (Houghlin Miffin 1992).
melandell @ 75
Exactly. That’s what I would be concerned about
{{{{{{{ Sharkbabe }}}}}}}
Happy Valentine’s Day!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 87
Wheew… thank you Christy!
Speaking as a tree-hugging, tie-dye wearing pagan hippy chick who often has to design/order/hand out t-shirts for teams where I work … ick. I’m with the curmudgeonly art curator. This is court we’re talking about here! And what’s more, it’s court in an area where “dressing down” means you can leave off the tie.
It does seem a little odd that they would do this, rather than having everyone sign a card. Maybe it wasn’t actually a juror’s idea, but came from a juror’s spouse instead?
However, the statement interests me more–they obviously talked about the fact that it’s important that this statement of visible (almost) unanimity is only supposed to go so far. They’re not having conversations about the case, but they’re having conversations about having conversations about the case, if that makes any sense.
bplanet @ 74
Hey, you — Of course this topic would be the subject of your first post! I knew you couldn’t stay away from this discussion as soon as I saw what it was. ROFLMAO!
Mmmmm.. David Shuster.
I forgot to ask egregious yesterday, does he wear any cologne?
We’ll probably get the story about the tshirts sometime after the trial, assuming that any of the jurors are interviewed (or will they be allowed to talk about it?).
I wouldn’t have worn the t and I’m no art curator. I simply don’t like doing things just because the “others” do it. As a matter of fact I’d go out of my way not to. As another matter of fact I avoid people who try to get others involved in “group cards” “group thank-yous” “pot-luck dinners” etc. (Not saying I’m at all normal.) I also understand the importance of not getting involved in group-think at any cost – in the quest for truth.
I sat on a jury for a federal case that went on for 2 months, including the week of Christmas. After lunch one day, the woman who was to become our foreman arrived with a shopping bag full of jolly santa hats, which she passed out to each of us . . . next was a trip down the hall to pose in an empty courtroom, sitting in the jury box, wearing the hats.
I have the photograph to prove it actually happened. Whoever said above that the jury is just trying to find ways to relate and relax without discussing the one thing they all have in common was right, imo.
And I can tell by the kinds of questions these jurors are asking that at least one of them is smart and determined to do their duty. My bet is that they’ll convict on at least 1 count and probably 2. If there’s a holdout, that person will eventually wear down–especially if the rest give in on one of the counts.
It’s unbelievably tense in a jury room when people refuse to listen to reason! We had the full on drama for a full week of deliberations: sobbing, storming out of the room, yelling, omg . . . in the end common sense more or less prevailed, but it was not fun.
on the t-shirt thing – look, this is bad for the prosecution. Remember:
1. Prosecutor cannot appeal; only defense can.
2. One juror is already on the outs with the jury – and verdict must be unanimous.
I would expect that J. Walton and Fitz are taking this very seriously; i cannot over-emphasize that this kind of thing simply DOES NOT HAPPEN. EVER.
At this point, you would have to ask judge to voir dire jurors, in camera, separately; you would have to ask whose idea was it; who paid for shirts; what was discussed; and then you would have to move on to find out if they have been discussing evidence among themselves. That is the real issue; the shirts are a signal.
Fitz knows he gets one shot; defense gets the appeal. Right now, i would expect in camera review, and possibly motion for mistrial.
Late to Shirtgate, but — wasn’t it the elderly museum curator who, during voir dire and speaking of herself, said, “One would presume one could be fair”.
Or something like that.
The gesture is tacky & so innocent. I’ll bet they were on sale at a nearby street vendor’s table. The marshalls would’ve alerted Judge Walten if it were improper.
We’ve got lots to speculate on before Tuesday, don’t we?
Re anti-thesis at 305pm, “I am so sad they aren’t re-enacting this on Court TV, today’s would have been great.”
I’ve wished Keith O would do Scooter Libby Puppet Theater!
Who organized this?
My guess is the one person in every group who is sentimental (The court staff have been sooo good to us!) and is the first to send all of his/her co-workers an annoying email saying “let’s buy a gift for xyz co-worker whom we hardly know in the branch office who lost her doggy this week.” That type. She/he dreams this up and has the shirts made and shows up at the courthouse with them (hmmm, wouldn’t they search her/him and ask what is this?). So now they are in the holding pen and she drags out the t-shirts and gives them the spiel. I’m surprised that more didn’t decline, but then I suppose one can get giddy after a couple of weeks on a jury.
Hurray for the holdout on the t-shirt.
Maybe I just have an overactive imagination, but it seems to me that the only explanation for the red t-shirts and the statement along the lines of “…our unanimity may go no further” would be that the woman not wearing the shirt was the lone holdout.
These people have spent enough time in sidebar that somebody probably muttered the word “guilty” and it opened the floodgates. Everyone except for the old woman thinks he’s guilty as sin – you’d have to be smoking crack to believe Libby.
I recall a similar situation in the trial of Dennis Koslowski of Tyco: a lone holdout on the jury actually winked at the defense and got busted, and subsequently kicked off the jury.
Hopefully they’ll just kick the lone holdout off the jury and replace her with a guilty vote.
Can they do that?
Best to take her for a walk on a slippery stairway, just in case.
The tee-shirt thing was a sweet acknowledgment of the courtesy and consideration that Walton has extended to them. BUT…
I would still like to know and when are the 12 voting members of the jury selected from the pool.
Shuster gave the same statement, pretty much word for word on Keith Olbermann’s show tonight.
The jury should be wearing this T-shirt.
Stockholm Syndrome for sure. So, who is their captor — Judge Reggie. What is their sympathy to him? That he should get some relief from Wells. So, what did they do? They lightened things up with Valentine’s Day t-shirts. Woo hoo!
I think I’m gonna shoot off an e-mail “letter to the editor” to Timmeh Russert, or maybe Wolf Blitzed, demanding to know why they’re not reporting on this 24/7, wasting my time with piddlin’ little nothing “news” like they usually do. If I can’t get my daily fill of drivel from them then what am I to do, turn to the Intertubes? Good drivel is hard to come by and we can only truly depend upon the MSM to deliver it daily by the buckets-full.
I served on two trial juries. I was foreman in both because I told them, “I’ll do it.” It was that simple. In one case they went for ‘guilty’ and in the other the vast majority went one way and three were holdouts. They had no good reason, they were just obstinate. After the judge pulled us in to check on our progress we returned to deliberating and the 3 flipped instantly and together. When we filed into the courtroom the final time the judge said, (paraphrasing) “This ought to be interesting because somebody sure was lyin’ in this case.”
I hope Reggie Walton gets a massage or something when it’s over. He deserves a little something nice for having done a good job. I’d almost forgive him for what he did to Sibel Edmonds.
Happy Valentine’s Day everybody!
Oops, darn, too late it’s already past midnight. Sigh…..
Maybe she thought it was a religious symbol and not suitable in court. Maybe she had a low threshold for bullshit. Or taste. We’ll know soon enough, won’t we?
BTW, I wouldn’t wear one either. See all of the above.