fitz!!

FITZ!

Congratulations, halo!

-S

From RBG and Peterr:

Merry Fitzmas

Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.

1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the topic of the current live blogging.

2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum — especially during live blogging.

3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that comment to get caught in moderation.

4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3 quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for the people behind the scenes.

5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to keep things from getting caught in moderation.

6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.

Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.

Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?

Thanks.

Also, from Peterr’s rules — “The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Jane is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”

WOW!!

Footz .. !!!!

I’m just thrilled not to be dead last as usual, when everyone else has moved on…

As someone said on the Gabbly chat (can’t remember who, it moves so quickly), if there’s a conviction by “only 11″ jurors, the conservobots will put an * next to the verdict, no underlying crime, and all that rot. Gird up your respective loins.

So there might be more to this person’s story than an inadvertant comment caught over Sunday dinner with the Joneses? Why is Wells ecstatic?

Looks like Babs Comstock just earned her paycheck. Any chance the dismissed juror will be interviewed?

Jane – any speculation as to the specific reasons why Wells would be happy and Fitzgerald pissed?

Why is Fitz upset??? Enlighten the ignorant…

Ed*ard Teller @ 9

So there might be more to this person’s story than an inadvertant comment caught over Sunday dinner with the Joneses? Why is Wells ecstatic?

Probably because he sensed this juror was not friendly to the defense.

so the absence of the t-shirt was significant…

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

Frank Probst @ 10

Looks like Babs Comstock just earned her paycheck. Any chance the dismissed juror will be interviewed?

If I were wells, I would instruct, or at least request, the juror not to give any interviews until a verdict was returned.

Could this lead to a mistrial? Or maybe another question, would this normally lead to a mistrial?

“CW has it that things are going to be a bit nutty from hereon in.”

I hope you don’t mean wingnutty.

If there is anything else you can share about the CW, please do. Thanks for everything.

Uh-oh. That doesn’t sound good. I’m not liking the way this is going.

Wells may think the woman’s adverse and Fitz think she’s on his side.

But like all of us trying cases we ourselves are just guessing at this point. For all Wells and Fitz know, there are 11 votes tallied up already one way or the other and this was the last roadblock.

Or they simply haven’t finished yet.

The Nefarious Leslie @ 16

Frank Probst @ 10

Looks like Babs Comstock just earned her paycheck. Any chance the dismissed juror will be interviewed?

If I were wells, I would instruct, or at least request, the juror not to give any interviews until a verdict was returned.

Once a juror is dismissed, they are free to do as they like. Wells, or anyone else, can’t instruct them to do anything. He can ask politely, but that’s it.

IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset? Is this a slam dunk for an appeal? Damn it! I was just starting to believe we would see karma in action here.

Alicia @
14

so the absence of the t-shirt was significant…

Well, for one thing, she was not a “sheeple”, so that could make Wells happy.

I don’t get it. The Art Curator was the one thought to like Shooter, right? Why would Fitz be pissed? I hope Jane can fill us in.

CancerCures at 17 — It’s not currently going to lead to a mistrial because Judge Walton sent them back to the jury room to resume deliberations (see Jane’s liveblogging below). Courts generally try to avoid a mistrial if at all possible — because a retrial of a case costs the government and the defendant a LOT of money, including from the court budget, and that is not something that anyone has to spare, frankly.

I don’t care about the no-T-shirt holdout…I wanna know the instigator? WHo thought it up? Why? Maybe the Art Curator brought them in, and only had 11 (on purpose accident…etc.)

Just mho.

IANAL, but the one I live with just said “anyone who thinks they can get inside the mind of a jury is full of sh**.”

Did CNN say that they’re continuing deliberations with only 11 jurors, rather than using one of tha alternates? What sort of implications will that lead to?

logorrhea @
15

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

Don’t know, my guess is that the two women who were alternates always looked quite sympathetic to Fitzgerald and Wells decided it was in his interest not to have them in the pool. Although one has to wonder, since Wells only needs one, wouldn’t it increase his chances to have more jurors rather than less.

I’ll tell you one group that did not want to start over and that is the Jury.

Jane Hamsher @ 36

Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?

Jane, Couldn’t he argue that the juror poisoned the deliberations?

Peterr @ 21

Once a juror is dismissed, they are free to do as they like. Wells, or anyone else, can’t instruct them to do anything. He can ask politely, but that’s it.

Figured as much, which is why I added the “at least request” part.

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

> IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby
> seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset?

Everyone is speculating on thin air, including Wells and Fitzgerald. And Fitzgerald in particular might be playing a tactical game vs. Wells with his “p*ker face”.

Cranky

Attaturk @ 30

I’ll tell you one group that did not want to start over and that is the Jury.

But if they start over it wouldn’t be with this jury, right?

Attaturk @ 33

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?

Take it for what it is worth. It is from the Corner, National Review

Re: Libby Update 3 [Andy McCarthy]

Back from a week of 89 degrees and sunny at poolside in Manzanillo … to 3 inches of snow in New Jersey. Trying to catch up but still take one more family day away from the fray.

Byron’s post is very interesting. Defense lawyers virtually always move for a mistrial when a juror has to be stricken during deliberations. Reason is obvious: Jury must be unanimous to convict, and it’s tougher for the prosecutor to convince 12 people than 11. Almost always, these mistrial motions are denied. Federal rules allow the judge to accept a verdict from 11 jurors regardless of whether the parties agree. (If it gets under 11, that’s a different story.)

Byron seems to be saying Ted Wells, far from objecting, actually asked for the deliberations to continue with 11 jurors. That is a sign that the defense is very confident and obviously likes this jury.

02/26 11:04 AM

Attaturk @ 33

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

He didn’t request a mistrial this morning, though, did he? How could this form the basis for an appeal, if he’s requested to go on with 11 jurors?

Jane Hamsher @ 29

logorrhea @
15

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

Don’t know, my guess is that the two women who were alternates always looked quite sympathetic to Fitzgerald and Wells decided it was in his interest not to have them in the pool. Although one has to wonder, since Wells only needs one, wouldn’t it increase his chances to have more jurors rather than less.

It’s all “gut” by this point. He thinks his chances are better without someone new, so be it. Doesn’t mean he’s right.

if Libby waives his right to the full complement of 12 jurors, he’s barred from raising that issue on appeal, n’est-ce pas?

Jane Hamsher @ 29

logorrhea @
15

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

Don’t know, my guess is that the two women who were alternates always looked quite sympathetic to Fitzgerald and Wells decided it was in his interest not to have them in the pool. Although one has to wonder, since Wells only needs one, wouldn’t it increase his chances to have more jurors rather than less.

Okay, that is fine with me.

As long as Wells isn’t smiling like the Cheshire cat because of information he picked up about deliberations from the time that he just spent in chambers with the judge and jury.

I’m glad Wells and Fitzgerald are apparently reacting to the fact that another juror wasn’t added, not because of something they gleaned about deliberations.

Attaturk @ 33

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

but Wells got what he wanted….and that means that he can’t appeal a verdict based on there being only 11 jurors….

Attaturk @ 33

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

Yes, and I suspect that Fitz is pissed off because someone is messing with the Rules of Justice. The whole situation would piss him off, based on what we know about him.

Jane Hamsher @
29

logorrhea @
15

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

Don’t know, my guess is that the two women who were alternates always looked quite sympathetic to Fitzgerald and Wells decided it was in his interest not to have them in the pool. Although one has to wonder, since Wells only needs one, wouldn’t it increase his chances to have more jurors rather than less.

Agree with Jane. Plus, the defense did a LOT MORE due diligence with the real jurors than the alternates. The alternates didn’t even get the full “Do you think Dick Cheney is a lying sack of shit” treatment. Which means that they’re more likely to be, um, sane.

There already is one alternate on (a PhD from MIT scientist). So Wells probably figured one more could sink him.

Seems to me that the art curator was a problem child and not likely to go along with the other 11 jurors. Wells may think this bodes well for the defense or he may be bluffing. Considering how the trial went, I think the best the defense could hope for is a hung jury and the art curator certainly seemed like a person who wouldn’t mind being the 1 out of 12 voting the other way.

That said, I imagine Fitz’s frustration is over the fact that the judge didn’t seat an alternate. Fitz strikes me as a guy who likes to go by the book and doesn’t like loose ends. A jury of 11 is a loose end, and is a potential line of attack on appeal (even if Libby agreed to a jury of 11, an appellate lawyer could always argue that advising Libby to go along with 11 jurors rather than seating an alternate constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel). Had the judge dismissed the curator and seated an alternate, I think Fitz would have been more satisfied. Just a guess.

If there were a mistrial, I wonder if Scoots would get himself another lawyer- you know, one who understands that it’s not supposed to be all about the lawyer?

well. . .

i think the odds of a conviction
have just risen, and appreciably so. . .

the contrarian is gone. . .

so, again, we wait for fitz-mas
morning to come. . .

time to let this one rest,
a bit, and just. . .

c h i l l. . .

fitz was most likely ONLY
concerned about losing a
second juror — and THEN restarting
everything LATER in the deliberations — just
as he said in open court. take him at his word.

clearly, now, libby cannot appeal
a decision to go with 11 — cool!

Wells argued to only have 11 jurors. Fitz wanted an alternate added, his reasoning being that if one of 11 becomes ill or is exposed to info, you have more problems. I’m unclear if that means Wells feels confident/Fitz is less confident, or if Fitz just wants to wrap this up sooner, and worries that if a second juror is dismissed, they will have to basically start deliberations again with two new jurors. Fitz strikes me as a guy who wants to get this done quickly. He has momentum, and doesn’t want it to drag on. My gut says the break in momentum makes Wells happy, Fitz annoyed.

p.s. I think people are over-reacting to the T-shirt incident. Seriously, a 70 year old MOMA art curator might not want to be caught dead in a cutesy t-shirt. I really think it indicates a lot more about personal style than her being on an opposite side of where the jury was leaning (and lets remember, the T-shirt thing happened BEFORE deliberations, not after.)

Jane Hamsher @ 36

Bingo!
Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?

Attaturk @ 33
dharmarific @ 31
Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Well that’s not only a good point, but the correct one.

If I was a moral and upstanding person I’d admit I completely boned my response.

Jane, did you lose a pair of glasses Friday?

I smell jury-tampering.

Gang, listen to me, please:

The art curator was an unreadable (as far as this case) individualist elitist. I have no idea how she was leaning, though she often seemed a bit bored by testimony.

Look for a more unified jury that will work hard to deliver a verdict. I have a hunch who the foreperson might be, and a hunch who organized the tee shirt thing. I think this may be the same person, one who has previously been a jury foreperson.

Fitz may have fought for and wanted an alternate, and thought that Walton’s caution in this regard was badly placed, legally. But, if I’m not mistaken, defense has forfeited its right to appeal if it has been supportive of continued deliberations with a jury of eleven.

One of the alternates, an African American woman, clearly looked dubious of the defense. Wells may be happy to keep her out (she would be a 50/50 shot to come back in), and Fitz may have wanted that chance.

We won’t know what came out in chambers so there’s not really much point in speculating what Fitz may be pissed about. He may even think this juror should not have been dismissed, and may have felt she was a good juror for him.

raven @ 35

Attaturk @ 30

I’ll tell you one group that did not want to start over and that is the Jury.

But if they start over it wouldn’t be with this jury, right?

If they declare a mistrial, then everything goes back to square one. If they had chosen to replace this juror with one of the alternates, then they’d back up to start the deliberations all over again. It wouldn’t matter if they had finished four of the five charges – they’d have to start deliberating all over again.

Starting deliberations over can make for a cranky jury, to have 2.5 days tossed away, and can put unintentional pressure on the new juror to “go along” rather than have full deliberations. That’s what Walton wanted to avoid, and the jury too.

Breathe, people.

The “media effects on jurors” article is available through JSTOR if anyone cares. Lots of public libraries subscribe to JSTOR.

Thanks Pach.

I thought that the judge dismissed the alternates once the jury went into deliberations.

The way I look at it, if a juror was exposed to media coverage and trying to use it in arguments, and the main media coverage I am aware of lately has been the WaPo op/ed pro-Libby express, then getting her dismissed is probably a good thing.

Jane Hamsher @
36

Attaturk @ 33

dharmarific @ 31

Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.

Bingo!

Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?

I screwed up this post earlier. Jane at 36 is right and I was wrong.

I am afraid we should consider staying off topic to the trial as a result of such contamination. It is a fact that the world in the tubes is a substantial factor now, and it may be that we must help

but, we have principles and humanity at heart. our enemies do not

Let me just say I am infinitely relieved that there is no mistrial. We just dodged a bullet. Can you imagine the gut-wrenching process of starting this whole trial over again?

I hereby commit myself to avoiding FDL and getting tons of work done for the rest of the day.

Take care everyone!

Wait, lemme understand…

…if there’s a mistrial, does that mean that all the facts that have emerged about the Vice President deliberately revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political vengeance suddenly become moot? Just checking, because last time I checked Cheney was a lying treasonous sack of crap and I’d hate to see that go back into question…

This gang has always been about perceptions and not reality, so could it be that Wells is playing a game? Maybe he just wants us to think he’s happy with this development.

Fairfax @ 56

I thought that the judge dismissed the alternates once the jury went into deliberations.

I doubt it. They usually sit in an empty room all by themselves while the “real” jury deliberates.

I wish the jury had been sequestered during deliberations. Is it rare to sequest for only part of the process?

I’m wondering whether the judge took into consideration how close the jury might be to a decision in determining whether or not to go with 11 jurors. If the foreperson were to tell the judge that he/she thought a verdict could be reached within a few days, then it might make sense not to re-start the deliberations. Don’t know if the foreperson is allowed to respond on something like this under the circumstances.

Reading between the lines of Well’s comments, it seems that he was defensive about “not being on the precipice of a mistrial” or somesuch. It seems to me that one reason Fitz would want to have the next alternate join in deliberations now is that it is more dangerous for an alternate to be tainted. He is concerned about the short bench of alternates and believes the deliberations are going to go on for a while. He WANTS them to take their time, because the more they go through the evidience, the less the memory defense holds water. Introducing a new juror, particularly one he thinks is sypathetic to the prosectuion, would tend to push any pro Libby jurors to look more carefully at the evidence.

Just a WAG, but that’s my take on why Fitz preferred to go with 12.

logorrhea @
15

Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?

I have heard that one of the alts that Fitz wanted was a vote against Libby based on her courtroom behavior. I’m guessing that Fitz just wanted to make doubly sure he got a conviction. The art curator might have been on Fitz’s side as well but I’m guessing that the jury is probably glad to be rid of her for personality reasons.

Frank Probst @
63

Fairfax @ 56

I thought that the judge dismissed the alternates once the jury went into deliberations.

I doubt it. They usually sit in an empty room all by themselves while the “real” jury deliberates.

Typically, a judge will release the alternates and let them go back to work, school, home, etc. but subject to recall if they are needed. Unless the jury has been sequestered, it is rare for a judge to force alternates to stick around while the jury deliberates.

Pat_AlexVA @
50

Jane, did you lose a pair of glasses Friday?

Pat, I did! I’ve been looking everywhere for them. Blue?

Jane Hamsher @ 69

Pat_AlexVA @
50

Jane, did you lose a pair of glasses Friday?

Pat, I did! I’ve been looking everywhere for them. Blue?

Yes, blueish grey. I could swing by…

Fitz is probably worried he’s going to see a replay of the George Ryan jury. That case is still on appeal and from reports I’ve read, the defense actually has a chance of prevailing, due to weird jury happenings. In that situation, one juror was dismissed for talking to a call-in radio show, IIRC. Turned out she thought Ryan was not guilty.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions. But defense lawyer often ask for a mistrial when they think they are losing and there is a problem with the jury. The fact that Wells didn’t – worries me.

Well may not want a mistrial because he is now intimately familiar with how hard it is to defend a lying sack of shit…

Maybe he just wants us to think he’s happy with this development.

thought that too Susan S . . .fits in w/ my sense of the Big Swingin’ Legal Dick mindset

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

none @ 54

The “media effects on jurors” article is available through JSTOR if anyone cares. Lots of public libraries subscribe to JSTOR.

I’ve always wanted to get those JSTOR articles. Are they free at the Library, on libraray computers?

Perhaps Wells was concerned that by restarting deliberations with a new juror, this would mean the jury would be considering evidence with the Wells sob being a mere distant memory.

Restarting deliberations would also mean yet more careful consideration of the evidence, including the nine he-saids and she-saids that support the government’s case.

I’m sure this has been asked and answered but,if found guilty and an appeal is granted,the previous trial and sentence no longer exists,right?If so,can a pardon be given while a matter is under appeal?Something tells me I’m not going to like the answer.

froggermarch @ 66

Reading between the lines of Well’s comments, it seems that he was defensive about “not being on the precipice of a mistrial” or somesuch. It seems to me that one reason Fitz would want to have the next alternate join in deliberations now is that it is more dangerous for an alternate to be tainted. He is concerned about the short bench of alternates and believes the deliberations are going to go on for a while. He WANTS them to take their time, because the more they go through the evidience, the less the memory defense holds water. Introducing a new juror, particularly one he thinks is sypathetic to the prosectuion, would tend to push any pro Libby jurors to look more carefully at the evidence.

Just a WAG, but that’s my take on why Fitz preferred to go with 12.

Makes the most sense of any explanation I’ve heard.

Maybe it was the nature of the “media tainting” that led to the reaction of Wells and Fitz. It might have yielded an insight into the juror’s sympathies.

Say, if the juror is going around telling a funny joke she heard on Letterman that starts out, “Libby, Cheney and Bush are sitting in hell, and Satan comes up to them and says …”

I’m pretty sure that the lady in the picture is Mrs. Scooter.

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Mrs. Libby, who circles Scooter like a protective hawk and glares at anyone in the courtroom who laughs.

Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed.

I think the artsy curator and the Ph.D in mathematics (likely foreperson?) had enough of each other……As a prosecutor, I didn’t like mathematicians, engineers, or other analytical types on my jury because they tend to over analyze the proof and seem to want more evidence than the law requires to prove the case…they want to erase all doubt before they convict. Hence the request for tape, pictures etc. The case boils down to the grand jury testimony and the obvious voice change when Libby was caught in his perjurious statements….you dont need pictures or masking tape to see the proof.

It seems from reading this thread that Fitz is probably pissed for two reasons:

1. The alternate juror seemed good to him.

2. (more important) I suspect that Fitz wanted to keep the jury at 12 to lower the possibility of a mistrial. As many have said, 11 is okay, below that is iffy and I am sure Fitz thinks a mistrial would be a disaster.

We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be pissed. Period.

Having a bit of experience in these type of jury issues, I can relate that Pach’s comment @52 is the best synopsis you are going to have without much more info, and we are not likely to get that info until after everything is over.

Jane Hamsher @ 81

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Mrs. Libby, who circles Scooter like a protective hawk and glares at anyone in the courtroom who laughs.

Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed.

Thanks Jane.
The only person that girl should be glaring at is Dick Cheney.

nolo @
47

well. . .

i think the odds of a conviction
have just risen, and appreciably so. . .

the contrarian is gone. . .

so, again, we wait for fitz-mas
morning to come. . .

time to let this one rest,
a bit, and just. . .

c h i l l. . .

fitz was most likely ONLY
concerned about losing a
second juror — and THEN restarting
everything LATER in the deliberations — just
as he said in open court. take him at his word.

clearly, now, libby cannot appeal
a decision to go with 11 — cool!

Unless, as ornary as she appeared to be, the art curator was actually sympathetic to Fitz. The jury consultant would have known who his allies were and Fitz might have just lost one. That doesn’t mean the others aren’t good. It just introduces a level of uncertainty that Fitz is uncomfortable with.

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant.

Update from hair boy … take it for what it is worth.

Libby Update 5 [Byron York]

Andy — Thanks for those thoughts. It did appear this morning that the defense seemed a bit more upbeat — just body language and facial expressions — than did the prosecution. On the other hand, there’s a lot of buzz about the juror who was dismissed. She was the former art curator who declined to wear a T-shirt with the rest of the jury on Valentine’s Day. At the time, there was speculation that perhaps she was a dissenter, and her presence was dividing the jury, which would be good news for a defense team hoping for a hung jury if it couldn’t get an acquittal. In that scenario, her removal could conceivably be bad news for the defense. On the other hand, I thought that as an art curator, she probably refused to put on the red T-shirt for purely aesthetic reasons. In any event, she’s gone. Does that mean a divisive factor has been removed, or that there are other problems? You got me.

We could speculate all day about why (or if) Wells is happy (or not).

But I have no doubts that Fitz is pissed. Hell, I’m pissed. No matter what happens, this jury result will have an asterisk next to it. If they convict, the talking points will be endless. If they acquit, it will be harder to accept. And if they are hung – oy!

Fitz wanted a “clean” verdict – and no matter what happens, that is impossible now. So he’s pissed – and I can’t blame him.

emptywheel @ 89

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant.

Start talking about his wife, see how he likes it…

> We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a
> reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be
> pissed. Period.

And the evidence you have for that is…? Going on the facial expressions of two experienced applied game theory practictioners is self-defeating IMHO.

Cranky

Frank Probst @ 63

Fairfax @ 56

I thought that the judge dismissed the alternates once the jury went into deliberations.

I doubt it. They usually sit in an empty room all by themselves while the “real” jury deliberates.

Yup. Like being an understudy, only worse. Boringest thing on earth. Waiting for some jury member do develop acute appendicitis or something.

very interesting I have to say

if this were the beginning of the trial I would have been upset, thinking most artists have a liberal inclination

then when she refused to wear what the others were wearing I sensed she was going to dissent from the majority and it seems to me the majority would want a conviction and innocent would have to be the dissenting votes

when I found out she is the one dismissed I was sort of happy

then when I heard fitz wans’t thrilled I figure he has a better pulse on the juror then I do and now I don’t know what to think

Albatross @ 61

Wait, lemme understand…

…if there’s a mistrial, does that mean that all the facts that have emerged about the Vice President deliberately revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political vengeance suddenly become moot? Just checking, because last time I checked Cheney was a lying treasonous sack of crap and I’d hate to see that go back into question…

Nope. If there was a mistrial and a new trial had to be started, the evidence is still the evidence.

Jane, if YOU were Libby (sorry, sorry), and you had the opportunity to get yourself another attorney for a new trial, would you?

Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed

some of us non lawyers have thought all along that Mrs. Scooter wanted him to make a deal

Harriet Grant is an American lawyer. Her husband is I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, with whom she has two children. [1] Grant was admitted to the District of Columbia bar on June 3, 1988.

Grant was one of the senior Democratic lawyers to interview Anita Hill during the Senate hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Grant

Jane Hamsher @ 82

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Mrs. Libby, who circles Scooter like a protective hawk and glares at anyone in the courtroom who laughs.

Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed.

Good-looking lady, in a `50s film noir-ish kind of way.

Scooter’s gonna really hate jail….

EllenG @ 91

We could speculate all day about why (or if) Wells is happy (or not).

But I have no doubts that Fitz is pissed. Hell, I’m pissed. No matter what happens, this jury result will have an asterisk next to it. If they convict, the talking points will be endless. If they acquit, it will be harder to accept. And if they are hung – oy!

Fitz wanted a “clean” verdict – and no matter what happens, that is impossible now. So he’s pissed – and I can’t blame him.

If Judge Reggie says it’s cool, it probably is. He has said on at least one occassion that he is taking great pains to avoid being overturned. The wingnuts will put an asterisk against it in any case. Who is afraid of an asterisk?

We just have to wait and see. This jury has a mathemitician and a PhD aboard. I heard that the jury requested an easel and a big piece of paper to help them in their deliberations. Maybe the art curator did not want to hang out with the geek squad.

I enjoy lurking here, and I thank you all for your comments.

gwb:drf

I wouldn’t be surprised if after Libby is convicted that everyone points fingers at Cheney (already lots of that) and the Bush supporters (media included) just say Dubya is an idiot who didn’t even know what a NeoCon was until recently.

I heard someone on the radio this morning spouting that line, with an ‘anecdote’ about bush I and II walkin’ and talkin’ together when the younger asks, “Daddy, what’s a NeoCon”? And the father says, “Do you want names or a description?” Dubya says “Description.” and Bush I says, “I’ll put it in one word — Israel.”

So, if Dubya benefits from the idiot defense, then all the CEOs and anyone with a decent lawyer in America are not guilty of anything either.

conniptionfit @ 73

Well may not want a mistrial because he is now intimately familiar with how hard it is to defend a lying sack of shit…

That sounds accurate…

Cranky Observer @
34

> IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby
> seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset?

Everyone is speculating on thin air, including Wells and Fitzgerald. And Fitzgerald in particular might be playing a tactical game vs. Wells with his “p*ker face”.

Cranky

Ooooh, I like your blind analysis better than the others flying by. Fitzie you crafty fella. You pretending to be p.o’d???
If he’s trying to avoid giving them grounds for appeal, the absolute LAST thing Fitz would want to do is look delighted at getting rid of a juror. eh? Pach? Christy?
…sorry…got a little light-headed in the ethers here… back to lurking ;->

Jane Hamsher @ 82

DairyMaid @ 75

Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?

Mrs. Libby, who circles Scooter like a protective hawk and glares at anyone in the courtroom who laughs.

Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed.

I was wondering why you would put a picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones up there?

Or maybe Libby doesn’t have the money for a mistrial? Nah….

I think Wells & defense being happy is a sign that Libby does not a mistrial. Another trial means fresh press about Cheney, Bush, Rove and everyone elses behavior in the WH.

I think Libby is more worried about the Civil case than the criminal. I have always thought he knew he is getting a pardon.

I know this may be a rhetorical question considering the source, but cnn.com has a link to an interative “Who are the Libby jurors?”

With silhouettes and descriptions like

“Juror

Age: 30s
Gender: Female
Occupation: Comptroller

This juror studied law in graduate school, and has a classified government clearance pending. She formerly worked for the secretary of Health and Human Services. She told the court she doesn’t watch TV, but relies on radio and newspapers for her information.”

Is this not a bit irresponsible or is this commonly done?

I was wondering why you would put a picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones up there?

no, I think we know who’ll play Mrs. Scooter in the film

I think Wells was pleased by the ruling, not the dismissal of the juror. And I think he was pleased with the ruling because he would rather have deliberations continue with the tainted info fresh in their minds and WITHOUT a new, 12th juror who will not have been exposed to the tainted info. This suggests to me that the tainted info was Libby favorable.

Biodun @ 85

We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be pissed. Period.

You’re right. Might as well just close down the live-blogging, or close down FDL completely. Hey – what the heck, let’s just dump this blogging business altogether. [/snark]

perris @ 95

very interesting I have to say

if this were the beginning of the trial I would have been upset, thinking most artists have a liberal inclination

then when she refused to wear what the others were wearing I sensed she was going to dissent from the majority and it seems to me the majority would want a conviction and innocent would have to be the dissenting votes

when I found out she is the one dismissed I was sort of happy

then when I heard fitz wans’t thrilled I figure he has a better pulse on the juror then I do and now I don’t know what to think

Perris, judging from what Jane and the attorneys such as Attaturk have said so far, Fitz is unhappy at losing a juror period, not at losing that particular juror.

Adie @ 104

Cranky Observer @
34

> IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby
> seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset?

Everyone is speculating on thin air, including Wells and Fitzgerald. And Fitzgerald in particular might be playing a tactical game vs. Wells with his “p*ker face”.

Cranky

Ooooh, I like your blind analysis better than the others flying by. Fitzie you crafty fella. You pretending to be p.o’d???
If he’s trying to avoid giving them grounds for appeal, the absolute LAST thing Fitz would want to do is look delighted at getting rid of a juror. eh? Pach? Christy?
…sorry…got a little light-headed in the ethers here… back to lurking ;->

Let’s chill. Fitz often betrays annoyance and we can’t draw any more conclusion than what we’ve already got and speculated.

I know people want to believe we can glean more information from all this, but we can’t. We’re still waiting.

But, if I’m not mistaken, defense has forfeited its right to appeal if it has been supportive of continued deliberations with a jury of eleven

Pach is exactly right. Libby has waived any error regarding number of jurors by requesting the jury continue to deliberate.

Arabella Trefoil @
101

We just have to wait and see. This jury has a mathemitician and a PhD aboard. I heard that the jury requested an easel and a big piece of paper to help them in their deliberations. Maybe the art curator did not want to hang out with the geek squad.

I enjoy lurking here, and I thank you all for your comments.

gwb:drf

Maybe she wanted cartridge paper and conte?

Fitzgerald would want the full 12 for the reasons he stated, the problem down the road if lost another juror. He’s a chessplayer who sees beyond the immediate move.

So chill already.

60th Street @ 108

I know this may be a rhetorical question considering the source, but cnn.com has a link to an interative “Who are the Libby jurors?”

With silhouettes and descriptions like

“Juror

Age: 30s
Gender: Female
Occupation: Comptroller

This juror studied law in graduate school, and has a classified government clearance pending. She formerly worked for the secretary of Health and Human Services. She told the court she doesn’t watch TV, but relies on radio and newspapers for her information.”

Is this not a bit irresponsible or is this commonly done?

DANG! I wish blitzen would just go back to sleep & leave this trial alone. Sometimes I think he’s left his brain at the drycleaners.

portia.vz says:

February 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am

“. . .Unless, as ornary as she appeared to be, the art curator was actually sympathetic to Fitz. The jury consultant would have known who his allies were and Fitz might have just lost one. That doesn’t mean the others aren’t good. It just introduces a level of uncertainty that Fitz is uncomfortable with.

i think it significant that at least one of
the two the alternates is very likely pro-
prosecution. thus, fitz wants a shot at the
african american woman alternate being added;
wells has to gamble with the 11 he’s already
facing.

and, the waiting has to be killing scooter.

your mileage may — in fact, probably does — vary.

let’s all breathe a little, and
stay focused on the end-goal, eh?

Thomas C @ 108

I think Wells was pleased by the ruling, not the dismissal of the juror. And I think he was pleased with the ruling because he would rather have deliberations continue with the tainted info fresh in their minds and WITHOUT a new, 12th juror who will not have been exposed to the tainted info. This suggests to me that the tainted info was Libby favorable.

This can’t be – the other jurors were not exposed to the tainted info. That’s why they could continue with 11. If they had been exposed, Walton would have had to declare a mistrial.

Sometimes I think he’s left his brain at the drycleaners.

sadly no, that eight pound wonder is safely locked away in a vault somewhere in Tel Aviv;)

Some of you are forgetting: Fitz and Wells know exactly what media the juror was exposed to. With Fitz being pissed and Wells looking pleased, it probably means the juror was arguing, based on some very recent media,(EJ Dionne?) a pro-prosecution line.

Having questioned the jurors in chambers, Fitz could be pissed about the direction in which the jury is leaning.

Pach @ 113

THANKS! We needed that. ;->

I’m a performance analyst at an investment management firm. Every time I’ve been in a jury pool, I get bounced during voir dire. As soon as the lawyers ask what I do, that’s it. Don’t know why they do. There are no pluses or minuses in having analytical jurors, I don’t think.

gwb:drf

I think everyone needs to stand up, pretend to do the chicken dance, and sit back down again.

Get out of your anxious brain, move your body, be silly, get perspective and go back to waiting.

That’s my professional advice.

I suspect that Fitz was pissed for the simple reason that a dumbass juror tried to inject outside evidence into the jury’s deliberations. That’s a big no-no, especially for a by-the-book person like Fitz.

Pachacutec @ 124

I think everyone needs to stand up, pretend to do the chicken dance, and sit back down again.

Get out of your anxious brain, move your body, be silly, get perspective and go back to waiting.

That’s my professional advice.

Good advice. A good time to shower, I think, and then make some phone calls. But if *anything happens*, if you know what I mean, tap hard on the screen, OK?

I just want to say I have never met a group of people who can so analyze all aspects of a situation in at least 16 different ways. I am honored to lurk here.Jane etal, you are making history on this trial. Thank you for all your efforts.

Atrios has this snark on the jury exposure:

Apparently a juror got some exposure to the media and used the information in deliberations. No word yet on whether what the juror was exposed to was one of the 5000 “Free Scooter!” billboard ads placed by the Washington Post Co.

BTW, Arabella Trefoil, I think you are de-lurking and welcome. You say sensible things. Spiffy name, too. I love Trollope.

Cranky Observer @ 93

> We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a
> reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be
> pissed. Period.

And the evidence you have for that is…? Going on the facial expressions of two experienced applied game theory practictioners is self-defeating IMHO.

Cranky

I know it’s futile to keep speculating but I can’t help it! If Fitz’s anger was a “game face” who was it for? Did the jury see this exchange?

Cranky Observer @ 93

> We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a
> reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be
> pissed. Period.

And the evidence you have for that is…? Going on the facial expressions of two experienced applied game theory practictioners is self-defeating IMHO.

Cranky

One would think the obvious evidence is that Wells got what he was asking for, and that Fitz didn’t.

That said, I think Jane and whoever said to take Fitz at face value are correct — that Fitz wanted to seat a replacement juror immediately, rather than seating two new jurors later if another juror has to be dismissed.

Given the potential for juror tainting in the interim, combined with the avenues for appeal that would be opened if Wells objects to the seating of two new jurors in that event, it seems reasonable for Fitz to want a replacement seated sooner rather than later.

.

And one last thing, — if you’re lurking, Steeelthing, thanks!

Pachacutec @ 8:57 – just finished swiffering the kitchen floor ! of course, I kept my magic dragon blogging light in my robe pocket, but hey great advice as always !

Maybe Fitz is annoyed because the Geek Squad presented the judge with flow charts and magic markered easle boards. What next? Will they ask for felt boards? Colorforms?

I’d be annoyed too if I thought the deliberation was turning into a doctoral thesie. Long wait.

gwb:drf

Since everyone is weighing in I think Fitz wants 12 jurors and Wells was happy to let it drop to 11. It seems defense would always prefer 11 and prosecution would always prefer 12. Wells won and Fitz lost. No more complicated then that.

toolpusher @ 130

Cranky Observer @ 93

> We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a
> reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be
> pissed. Period.

And the evidence you have for that is…? Going on the facial expressions of two experienced applied game theory practictioners is self-defeating IMHO.

Cranky

I know it’s futile to keep speculating but I can’t help it! If Fitz’s anger was a “game face” who was it for? Did the jury see this exchange?

Never grin & giggle when you’re holding 3 aces?

This can’t be – the other jurors were not exposed to the tainted info. That’s why they could continue with 11. If they had been exposed, Walton would have had to declare a mistrial.

EllenG may be right in saying that the other jurors were not exposed, but Walton would NOT have been compelled to declare a mistrial if other jurors had been exposed. He could merely conclude, based on interviews with the remaining jurors, that THEY had not been tainted, and that their understanding of the evidence and their obligation to limit their deliberations to the evidence had not been affected by the tainted information.

It is likely that neither Fitz nor Wells can be very sure what was actually disseminated to the jury by the dismissed juror. But I think that Wells would prefer to proceed in the hope that the dismissed juror had, either intentionally or unintentionally, influenced the other jurors.

I think Fitz was worried because the art curator had a 2-way radio transmitter in one of her fillings, allowing him to hear the deliberations and then send her back clever things to say.

(If we’re speculating, let’s at least have some fun with this…)

Pach@113 is right again, there is absolutely no basis for almost all of the speculation. The one thing I can relate is that I don’t think simply losing one juror out of twelve is what is making Fitz happy or sad. I have lost a juror and been forced to continue deliberations with less than the presumed number of jurors more than once and it was never the fact that you had one less that really concerned me, it was always the REASON that they were removed that was of concern. The reason is something we are not likely to learn the full parameters of until this is over. So everybody should relax a wee bit.

FWIW, if Judge Reggie thinks that it’s OK to go with 11 jurors it may mean that he thinks it won’t be long to the verdict, therefore the risk of losing one is slim.

Commando Hamsher soldiers on upstairs

HotFlash – You’re the first person ever to recognize the source of my name.

I agree that Fitz is ticked off because he likes things to be straight edge. Madness!

gwb:drf

While we wait, Cheney continues to run amok overseas. He’s stopping everywhere he can abroad, anything to delay his return to the States. I wonder what he’s afraid of back home.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda.

(snip)

Re: 104 above.

I’ll agree with Cranky, and also suggest that Wells might be looking happy to try to counter the appearance the Defense gave on the last day of Summation.

I strongly suspect that both Fitz and Wells fully know the effects of their acts.

Y.G. Brown @ 138

I think Fitz was worried because the art curator had a 2-way radio transmitter in one of her fillings, allowing him to hear the deliberations and then send her back clever things to say.

(If we’re speculating, let’s at least have some fun with this…)

there y’go! heh.

Arabella — do you always tag your comments like that?

One other consideration: if the tainted info had been prosecution favorable it would have been very difficult for Walton to continue with the trial. But if the info was Libby favorable then Walton has no concern that a guilty verdict would be challenged by Libby on the basis of the tainted deliberation process.

bmaz @ 139

Pach@113 is right again, there is absolutely no basis for almost all of the speculation. The one I can relate is that I don’t think simply losing one juror out of twelve is what is making Fitz happy or sad. I have lost a juror and been forced to continue deliberations with less than the presumed number of jurors more than once and it was never the fact that you had one less that really concerned me, it was always the REASON that they were removed that was of concern. The reason is something we are not likely to learn the full parameters of until this is over. So everybody shouyld relax a wee bit.

bmaz, for heaven’s sake! If there were any basis it wouldn’t be speculation!

sunny @ 121

Some of you are forgetting: Fitz and Wells know exactly what media the juror was exposed to. With Fitz being pissed and Wells looking pleased, it probably means the juror was arguing, based on some very recent media,(EJ Dionne?) a pro-prosecution line.

Having questioned the jurors in chambers, Fitz could be pissed about the direction in which the jury is leaning.

How do you get “accidentally” exposed to the editorial page of WAPO? Changing kitty litter?

Biodun @ 143

While we wait, Cheney continues to run amok overseas. He’s stopping everywhere he can abroad, anything to delay his return to the States. I wonder what he’s afraid of back home.

is he wearing underwear?

A fellow engineer friend of mine (good friend)was once not selected for jury duty because of the defense counsel.

He looks clean cut, very uptight and no nonsense. You could picture him being president of the Young Republicans in his youth…and you’d be wrong.

He wanted desparateley to be on the jury to nullify it. It was a 3 strikes case involving possesion of marijuana…that he thought was absolute B.S.

The prosecutor would have thought he was on his side, and the defense was convinced he was scary. Neither side had a clue, it’s all just guesswork, albeit educated guesswork.

I think Fitz doesn’t want to take any risks with this jury and I think Wells would be more than happy to have things go to the dogs.

Rayne _ do mean

gwb:drf

George W. Bush: done, ruined and f*cked

Yes I use this all the time. It comes from a quoted from somebody who knew Fitz’s prosecutorial style – “Libby will be drf after Fitz gets don with him.”

gwb:drf

Oh Adie, I hope you brought some mind bleach for that spill you just made!! yuck!!

Well, there’s informed speculation and anxiety based, whole cloth, I want to feel soothed by more understanding speculation.

Marcy has done a lot of informed speculation on this case for a long time, based on her review of actual documents. She notes when she’s speculating and asks for peer review.

But a lot of what we’re doing here today is looking for a Rosetta Stone in a few wet tea leaves because we’re anxious about the case and because waiting, in the dark, is nerve wracking.

That said, speculate away! Just keep your perspective.

While we’re waiting, let me mention this for what it is worth:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc…..-000-.html

18 USC 1504. Influencing juror by writing

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

EllenG @ 119

Thomas C @ 108

I think Wells was pleased by the ruling, not the dismissal of the juror. And I think he was pleased with the ruling because he would rather have deliberations continue with the tainted info fresh in their minds and WITHOUT a new, 12th juror who will not have been exposed to the tainted info. This suggests to me that the tainted info was Libby favorable.

This can’t be – the other jurors were not exposed to the tainted info. That’s why they could continue with 11. If they had been exposed, Walton would have had to declare a mistrial.

No. I’ve tried a criminal case in which this precise scenario happened. Jurors are routinely told that they can’t consider information to which they have been exposed and do a good job of following that instruction.

during 1 of several of my professional life incarnations, i worked for 2 famous art galleries in nyc, (one on 57th – one on mad ave), in their financial depts for about 10 yrs.

based on my observations of the art world – i can state w/ confidence these are not stupid people. sometimes naive/ignorant of politics &/or culture beyond their own (art) world – yes. but stupid – no. the dismissed juror knew exactly what she was doing when she let it be known she had contact w/ a media story. she knew it would get her off the jury & thats exactly what she wanted. why she wanted this – we cannot know unless we have walked a mile in her mocassians.

I see it’s a helpful tool as well. Might have to do something similar, although I wouldn’t use your tag since it would defeat the purpose. ;-)

Rayne @ 154

Oh Adie, I hope you brought some mind bleach for that spill you just made!! yuck!!

yeahwell… as you noticed, it was so mind-altering, I couldn’t even post it right(!)
(apologies Biodun)

I’m gonna go take MY shower now.
more than you wanted to know….
carry on gang. can’t think of any folk I’d rather spend this wait with. you are all golden.

HEY! Speaking of GOLDEN!
Congrats! AL GORE! YeeHaw!

MariaSquared @ 149

sunny @ 121

Some of you are forgetting: Fitz and Wells know exactly what media the juror was exposed to. With Fitz being pissed and Wells looking pleased, it probably means the juror was arguing, based on some very recent media,(EJ Dionne?) a pro-prosecution line.

Having questioned the jurors in chambers, Fitz could be pissed about the direction in which the jury is leaning.

How do you get “accidentally” exposed to the editorial page of WAPO? Changing kitty litter?

That’s the only way I would be exposed to it?

That’s the only way I would be exposed to it?

know thine enemy…

Biodun @ 143

While we wait, Cheney continues to run amok overseas. He’s stopping everywhere he can abroad, anything to delay his return to the States. I wonder what he’s afraid of back home.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda.

(snip)

Not afraid, but trip may have been ‘planned’ to stage ‘Cheney is protecting the country’ while the charges come out. Notice the steady trick of news coming from that part of the world.

Rufus Thomas “The Funky Chicken” (I’m dancin’ now Pach)

It’s easy for me to imagine Jane and Pachacutec typing on a laptop while riding in bumper cars…)

thanks to both of ya

HotFlash @ 129

I love Trollope.

Me too. Something you can sink your teeth into, and his later stuff sounds exactly like politics today…

A thought on group dynamics: If the art curator was getting on well with the other jurors, and seemed to be in line with where they were going, do you believe they would’ve reported her to the judge for commenting on outside information?

Eureka Springs, AR @
164

Rufus Thomas “The Funky Chicken” (I’m dancin’ now Pach)

It’s easy for me to imagine Jane and Pachacutec typing on a laptop while riding in bumper cars…)

thanks to both of ya

Jane and I could totally do that. I could also see us having a pillow fight.

FWIW: visiting my faux xtian fundie relatives in CO. guess what: they have stopped watching fox!!! disgusted they are!!!!

huh?? they have never heard of scootie?? or reverEND haggard?? or bob ney?? or jack abramoff (sp)?? or dusty foggo?? or duke c.?? or any of the other gop scum they used to blindly support . . . go figure.

ignorance is bliss!!!

of course i enjoy keeping them humble about the their past voting record . . . and they made great show of tossing out the gop fundraising letter they got last week . . .

here is hoping scotter goes down!!!!!

taylormattd @ 114

But, if I’m not mistaken, defense has forfeited its right to appeal if it has been supportive of continued deliberations with a jury of eleven

Pach is exactly right. Libby has waived any error regarding number of jurors by requesting the jury continue to deliberate.

But what if Scooter and Wells “forget” that they wanted to continue deliberating with 11 jurors? After all, they are very busy, very important men who are very focused right now on more important things, like protecting Shooter.

I suggest not putting any weight on observations that “the defense seemed more upbeat”. First, I’ve seen defense teams practically high-fiving a day before getting a devastating verdict against them — defense teams are as capable of misreading a jury as anyone else. In one example the defense team was happy because the juror they counted on the most was elected foreman. Afterwards, they learned that that particular juror was the most adamant about throwing the book at the defense.

Second, if the defense in fact are acting more upbeat there could be several other causes. One is that after a weekend break they’ve processed the bad news of the previous week and are just in better spirits — that is, some grieving is over.

Finally, regarding the defense’s decision to not ask for a mistrial, one reason not mentioned before is that the defense may feel that a re-trial would favor the prosecution. (And there can be no doubt that the prosecution would opt for a second trial.) Certainly in a second trial the prosecution would go in with more knowledge regarding the potential defense tactics than they did in the first trial.

AnnieW@151

“He wanted desparateley to be on the jury to nullify it. It was a 3 strikes case involving possesion of marijuana…that he thought was absolute B.S.

The prosecutor would have thought he was on his side, and the defense was convinced he was scary.”

Now(he said showing his age) that reminds me of that Freak Brothers story where Fat Freddie is called for jury service,and in order to get on the jury(for the $$$) decks himself out in a suit and tie,and is then objected to by the defence counsel,in a case which may be similar(i.e the defendant is just some hippie) for looking too straight.

Sorry,I know this is a serious matter,but I have a “talent” for finding the absurd in the most unexpected of places.

Aside of this,I agree with those who say “let’s wait and see what this is all about”.

This case has us all on tenterhooks,but which ever way it will end up going,speculation,as educated as we may like to think it is,remains just that.Here’s Hoping though,eh ?

Keep up the good work,gang,catch ya later.

“These are the horns of the dilemma
What truth is proof against all lies
When sacred fails before profane
The wisest man is deemed insane
Even the purest of romantics compromise”

Lyrics quoted from “Victim Or The Crime” by The Good Old Grateful Dead,hope nobody minds !!

Just my wildarsed speculation, but I think the juror got wind of the Toensing article or perhaps found herself confronted by it (or by someone sporting similar ‘facts’). This juror was scrupulous enough to say that she had a conversation — she knew it could be cause for a mistrial if it came to light later.

And that sort of circumstance would certainly piss Fitzgerald off — mark my words, he’s not angry about her ‘holdout voice’, he’s angry about the circumstances that removed her from the jury deliberations. And it would also be the reason (and probably the only reason) why Wells wouldn’t risk demanding a mistrial over it. It would be terrible PR for Team Libby, and also expose the Washington Post to additional scrutiny for the role, in fact, it played.

Frankly, if something like this scenario did happen, I’d love to hear the juror speak out. (I sense she’s articulate, this one. And she wasn’t on Wells’ side.)

Mark @ 78

I’m sure this has been asked and answered but,if found guilty and an appeal is granted,the previous trial and sentence no longer exists,right?If so,can a pardon be given while a matter is under appeal?Something tells me I’m not going to like the answer.

An appeal is based upon possible errors in the trial. The assumption is now that the Defendant is guilty unless an egregious error that affected the outcome of the trial occurred.

The Appelate Court can throw out any or all of the charges for retrial. Or it can retain the charges. An appeal GRANTED doesn’t rescind the verdicts until the Court rules on it.

If a pardon occurred during an Appeal the defendant would still be guilty and THAT would be the the terms that the pardon would be based upon. One cannot pardon someone for a “non-conviction”.

Yes, Ford’s pardon of Nixon was of this manner…but no one challenged it. Neither Congress nor the DOJ was willing to take it to Court and test the Pardons Constitutionality.

I think that Fitz is likely wrong for opposing going with 11. But maybe it’s my guess about what has happened in the deliberations that influences me.

I suspect that the fact that the jurors quickly asked for the large flip pad, post-its and tape indicates that they quite rapidly went through the “Memory Defense” issues. If they had reached consensus of those issues it would have two options…

a) if a single juror decided that Libby “forgot, then remembered” there would have been an immediate end to the trial since further deliberations would have been fruitless. So the “memory” issues have been overcome…and were quite rapidly.

b) they are now into deliberations on each individual charge. The are weighing credilibility of the witnesses and taking seriously Fitz’s ionconnected web of support for each and every “element”. Thgis is why they needed the flip-board.

That means that they didn’t swallow the “Russert-is-everything” argument, either. If one juror had held THAT view then this would have also quickly led to an impasse. Clearly that hasn’t happened, either.

So IMHO it seems as if everything is going well for the Prosecution. Each charge and element is being assessed. Even worse for the defense is if a single charge obtains a unanimous assessment that Libby lied or deceived then the jurors have reason to believe that Libby’s trustworthiness is impugned for subsequent charges. Would you trust someone you have just determined to be a a liar over a witness that you really have no reason to believe would have a motive for lying?

So if the jurors have already determined guilt on some charges, or have already eliminated much of the Defenses arguments, I would think that Fitz would not want the jury to have to reinitiate deliberations with a new member.

BTW I wonder if Fitz can ask that any charges where the jurors have already reached a verdict be sealed, and that any new deliberations on outstanding charges with a new juror(s) [very likely Walton will add both if there is another problem] be only on those?

One more point…the possibility of a mistrial.

It may be that Wells thinks that he got his absolute best shot in this case with Walton. The jurors were exposed to the Defense Memory argument and a number of other Defesne arguments and evidentiary materials that Walton later told them to cease using, or had to ask the jury to ignore.

In a re-trial, Wells would definitely not be allowed to use the “Memory Defense” witnesses or evidence without Libby testifying. The jury wouldn’t be exposed to Hadley’s little speeches about how importnat Libby’s work was, as well as his surrepticious efforts to imply that Plame was merely an analyst.

Indeed, the CIA might even finally declassify her position…or more evidence of Libby’s culpability may arise.

But I can’t see, from my perspective how Well’s can get anything better than a mistrial anyways, with one or two holding out for Libby.

conniptionfit @ 73

Well may not want a mistrial because he is now intimately familiar with how hard it is to defend a lying sack of shit…

Wells is not defending Russert

educatedplaintiff @
158

during 1 of several of my professional life incarnations, i worked for 2 famous art galleries in nyc, (one on 57th – one on mad ave), in their financial depts for about 10 yrs.

based on my observations of the art world – i can state w/ confidence these are not stupid people. sometimes naive/ignorant of politics &/or culture beyond their own (art) world – yes. but stupid – no. the dismissed juror knew exactly what she was doing when she let it be known she had contact w/ a media story. she knew it would get her off the jury & thats exactly what she wanted. why she wanted this – we cannot know unless we have walked a mile in her mocassians.

Perhaps, though it is possible that she reported the event out of a sense of obligation to the rules of the court and to the truth, holding her status as a juror in lower regard than her responsibility to be an honest citizen. I’m only sayin’

OTOH, she may have been driven crazy by the valentine’s day fashion show and found herself utterly at the end of her rope after several 8 hour days in the company of dittoheads to the Hallmark corporation.

Perhaps she did not want to be associated with this kangaroo trial. Who can blame her.

This is a little off topic, but last year there was a lot of talk about the famous “sealed vs. sealed” case (06 cr 128 on the docket of the US District Court). Haven’t heard much about that case lately. Any chance that the defendent is Shooter?