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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.)

“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 !!

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.