Fitz!

P*ker-faced Fitz!

Fitz!!

Frist?

Assuming that the POTUS (and GWB) are attached to this trial, I can’t imagine that they want to see a retrial replete with all of the new information that would come out.

Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.

I would just like the court to know that I am available to serve on the jury if necessary, and am even willing to fly in at my own expense.

Thanks so much for the updates and info. When I first heard this my blood pressure started heading for the hills. I can’t imagine what it must be like for those more directly involved. I’m heading out to work in the garden for balance.

EPU’d:

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.

Jane,

I posted this at the end of the last thread, but since it’s direct here, I’ll mention that on fitz’s own desk he says, quote, I’m pissed because I have a full house and Randall is exhausted. unquote.

I guess if I were a defense attorney, I’d always move for a mistrial, on the theory that there’s a nonzero chance that the prosecution will decide not to re-try.

Perhaps they know that’s just not in the cards here, so the usual rule about moving for dismissal may not apply?

I think the only safe conclusion in all this is that the defense believes an acquittal is more likely than non-retrial. (Is non-retrial a word?) I don’t think that necessarily means they think the odds of acquittal are very high.

I’m just catching up, so forgive me if this has been covered.

Why in the hell wasn’t such an important, high-profile trial done with a sequestered jury? When the top executives of the Federal government are being charged with crimes, and the trial is in Washington, D.C., who could reasonably expect the jury to avoid media contact for a number of weeks? And, as we saw with the Toensing piece, the dark GOP orcs were trying all they could to undermine the trial.

Gah!

And to take Pach’s advice, I went to Crook & Liars and took a look at Gore’s little schtick movie before he got his award. We could have had this man!!!! Maybe it’s good we didn’dt, because he’s gone on to do so much more. But if the timing is right, it’s time he stood up and was counted. (again!)

For all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson, see:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”

Jane, hit me on e-mail to coordinate glasses return. I sent an e-mail to your fdl addy.

And now we are going to have to wait on the edges of our seats for another 4 days to see what the jury comes up with. Ah well. . .

Jane Hamsher @
6

Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.

Can somebody in the DC area get this lady a coffee? She deserves it and she’s not dressed for going outside.

Why aren’t they sequestering this jury after this?

Just my two cents, but I’m gonna go with Andy McCarthy’s alternative thought on this.

Occam’s Razor and all that.

puppethead @ 12:

Because it costs more than they have in their budget? (That’s the reason I keep thinking of, in response to a question I’ve had in my mind for the last month.)

On the other hand, this jury will understand about clearances and classification, and why you don’t talk about some things.

hesikastor @ 13

And to take Pach’s advice, I went to Crook & Liars and took a look at Gore’s little schtick movie before he got his award. We could have had this man!!!! Maybe it’s good we didn’dt, because he’s gone on to do so much more. But if the timing is right, it’s time he stood up and was counted. (again!)

Cool. And we can elect him again, too.

Having served as a juror, the person who didn’t wear the valentine shirt into the courtroom was probably stand-offish and not getting to know her fellow jurors. All a juror has to talk about is family, what do you do, past fun things about your life, etc. You can’t talk about anything to do with the trial at all until it is sent to you. This makes for interesting conversations in there all day. You really get to know your fellow jurors before anything about the case is discusses.

From wiki:

A declaration of a mistrial generally means that the court must hold a retrial on the same subject.

An important exception occurs in criminal cases in the United States. If the court erroneously declares a mistrial, or if prosecutorial misconduct goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial, then the US Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy bars any retrial; so the prosecution must be terminated.

My bold. Christy said in the last thread that both the prosecution and the defense like to avoid retrials because they can be expensive. Another commenter said Libby was running out of money. Can anyone confirm this last bit? Libby going broke.

I don’t understand why people are fretting over a mistrial. If they lose another, then Wells would definitely ask for a mistrial, but it seems to me that Walton would instead put BOTH alternates back in (to get to 12) and make them start over. A mistrial would still not be granted. (Yes, they would have to start over (in effect losing the delays in deliberation) but I don’t see them taking that out on the prosecution. In fact, I think Wells would be very unhappy to see the two alternates added into the mix. That would give ZERO margin for more jury losses, natch.

HotFlash @ 17

Jane Hamsher @
6

Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.

Can somebody in the DC area get this lady a coffee? She deserves it and she’s not dressed for going outside.

Not to worry. There’s a coffee kiosk inside the court building. Pretty good quality.

lol first I typed inside the courtroom. That would be excellent.

I can’t imagine how disheartening it would be for all of you who took so much time out of your lives to cover this trial if a mistrial was declared. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed.

RE: Underwear. Get thee to Filene’s Basement on Connecticut Ave. between L & M Streets. Just north of the Farragut North Metro stop on the Red line. They keep the all-cotton (and very inexpensive but well-made) knickers by the cash registers in the basement and the others in the lingerie department. Your welcome.

I’m skeptical that none of the other jurors were tainted. I’d wonder if they were keeping quiet to get the damn case over with and/or because they’re persuaded. I think Fitz and Wells know the real situation (i.e. they have scoped out what the jurors think) but they can’t refer to that in their arguments. So Wells makes lame arguments about Libby running out of money, and Fitz makes lame arguments about losing another juror. So I’d ignore the rationalizations and just pay attention to who looks happy and who doesn’t. Which doesn’t sound good for the prosecution. Bah.

P J Evans @ 20

puppethead @ 12:

Because it costs more than they have in their budget? (That’s the reason I keep thinking of, in response to a question I’ve had in my mind for the last month.)

That is the most ridiculous argument against appropriate justice I can imagine. “It costs too much” is just not a factor I want when it comes to the right to a fair trial. Unfortunately, it’s likely true.

P J Evans @ 20

puppethead @ 12:

Because it costs more than they have in their budget? (That’s the reason I keep thinking of, in response to a question I’ve had in my mind for the last month.)

On the other hand, this jury will understand about clearances and classification, and why you don’t talk about some things.

lhp said this am that she was ‘shocked‘ that they didn’t sequester this jury.

Rest of her post is good, too, re Allen charges — we’re all gonna be blogosphere lawyers by the time this is done.

HotFlash @
17

Jane Hamsher @
6

Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.

Can somebody in the DC area get this lady a coffee? She deserves it and she’s not dressed for going outside.

Knowing what we do, and now your handle … LMAO!! ;-)

I thought they would get to court, make believe they deliberated, had some breakfast and came back with guilty on all counts

I think that Wells would rather not trust the alternates( one of whom is black)and does not want a mistrial here because F would now know that Cheney will not be called and would be much more aggressive in objecting to voir dire that talks about the administration. A mistrial here does not favor Libby. The second trial would be even more focused and Libby’s weak defense would be in even more danger, and I doubt that another almost all white jury would be seated.

Jurors are no longer sequestered in federal trials because they felt that they sometimes rushed to be relieved of the duty.

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

Biodun @
23

From wiki:

A declaration of a mistrial generally means that the court must hold a retrial on the same subject.

An important exception occurs in criminal cases in the United States. If the court erroneously declares a mistrial, or if prosecutorial misconduct goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial, then the US Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy bars any retrial; so the prosecution must be terminated.

My bold. Christy said in the last thread that both the prosecution and the defense like to avoid retrials because they can be expensive. Another commenter said Libby was running out money. Can anyone confirm this last bit? Libby going broke.

Why would Libby be running out of money? Shooter would just have to go hit up his pals for some more dough. It’s worth it to them of there is an acquital. No price is too small.

For Scooter smiling, he’s been smiling non-stop since this whole thing went down. It’s how he copes. I wouldn’t read into it.

from a daily kos diary

I wonder if Reggie Walton is doing a “judge Ito” here and creating a favorable environment for the Defense (Libby and ultimately Cheney & Bush) to ensure an acquital for Libby.

The fact that Fitzgerald was also visibly upset about this may indicate that his case has been gerry rigged away from him.

Anyone have any more insight into this?

Shuster on MSNBC says the tainted juror READ something. Has anyone else said anything definitve and should we believe he meant to specifically say the source was printed matter?

And in that vein, may I make a pre-emptive strike here? If the juror DOES give an interview please please please don’t go on endlessly spekkalatin over what it might mean. Unless you can make some really wild-a**ed outrageous contribution, of course.

Hotflash – your point re: speculation on the last thread was well taken. I stand properly chastised. Still think my point was generally accurate however.

I wouldn’t have wanted to wear a silly Tshirt either, but would have put it on to be one of the group. It shows that the jury is thinking/talking about something other than the trial (who else has time to do stuff like that?)

But it also shows she wasn’t making an effort to understand her fellows and get in the swing of things. I think this is a good sign, actually.

BTW, thanks and apologies to Aldon Hynes of orient-lodge.com who did a bit of live-blogging for us early before Jane arrived. We crashed his server :( but it’s better, now. No, *don’t* go look!

Wells only needs one hold-out, but neither of those looked particularly likely to be one, especially not during closing arguments.

The only way this logic works to explain Wells’ mind-set is if he thought the jury was leaning toward conviction. Considering he’s happy not to have the alternates but to go forward with 11, he must think they are leaning toward acquittal.

And Fitz is pissed.

bmaz @ 39

Hotflash – your point re: speculation on the last thread was well taken. I stand properly chastised. Still think my point was generally accurate however.

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly… ;)

No matter what the jury’s verdict, remember that this trial has served to expose to the whole world how this administration manipulated the media and public and took us into a war based on lies and misinformation.

Terre @ 19

Just my two cents, but I’m gonna go with Andy McCarthy’s alternative thought on this.

Occam’s Razor and all that.

I have been away from the threads so I don’t know if this has been mentioned.

A) I think Andy has a very valid point.
B) David Schuster did a stand up outside the courthouse where he said the alternate juror in the front row had very hostile body language toward the defense during summations. If I’m the defense I don’t want a 50% shot of adding her anti-Scooter opinion to the the deliberations

OTOH, did you notice that Cheney went to Pakistan yesterday, which was not on his original schedule? He does not want to come to DC until Scooter verdict and the accompanying media storm. But he is running out of countries to visit (His Pak visit did not go well. Musharaff read him riot act.).
Two more days of jury deliberations are fine with me (and apparently for Fitz, too).

What you have is a case of the defense phsihing its way into Juror interests so as to cultivate conflicts…

a pretty deseperate move.

Well! I was at TruthOut.org and there was a box sayin’ Liveblogging from the Libby Trial so I clicked and it came *here*!

ccmask @ 34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

I wouldn’t have worn anything that everyone decided to wear, I agree

I Love Jane Hamsher @ 35

Biodun @
23

From wiki:

A declaration of a mistrial generally means that the court must hold a retrial on the same subject.

An important exception occurs in criminal cases in the United States. If the court erroneously declares a mistrial, or if prosecutorial misconduct goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial, then the US Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy bars any retrial; so the prosecution must be terminated.

My bold. Christy said in the last thread that both the prosecution and the defense like to avoid retrials because they can be expensive. Another commenter said Libby was running out money. Can anyone confirm this last bit? Libby going broke.

Why would Libby be running out of money? Shooter would just have to go hit up his pals for some more dough. It’s worth it to them of there is an acquital. No price is too small.

Exactly!

It’s an interesting argument, and a counterintuitive result.
My instinct, for once, is to take Wells at face value. He told the judge that restarting deliberations would be prejudicial to his client. Why would that be? The prosecution has presented a detailed, complex case that seems likely to have persuaded at least some portion of the jury. We know that they bought into the case at least enough to request materials to aid them in breaking down the case in detail, the approach that Fitz would prefer them to take. Now imagine if the judge tells them to throw all of that out, and start again. This jury has been around for a while. They want to go home – who wouldn’t? If there’s a holdout, or several, the pressure on them will instantly ratchet up, while Walton’s clock for an Allen charge or mistrial resets. The more pressure, the more likely they are to cave.

Now flip that around. Fitz likes this jury, and likes the way they’re working. He’s in no rush. But he’s worried that if he has to turn to an alternate, every passing day raises the odds of inadvertant disqualification. Better to put that alternate on the jury now, so that they exercise greater caution. And if that just happens to reset the clock and ratchet up the pressure on the holdouts, he’s not about to shed any tears.

virginia cynic @ 32

I think that Wells would rather not trust the alternates( one of whom is black)and does not want a mistrial here because F would now know that Cheney will not be called and would be much more aggressive in objecting to voir dire that talks about the administration. A mistrial here does not favor Libby. The second trial would be even more focused and Libby’s weak defense would be in even more danger, and I doubt that another almost all white jury would be seated.

You know, that is really insightful. The two parts of this trial that I did not think went as well is I would have liked for the prosecution were the jury selection and the jury instructions.

The jury selction will go completley differntly next time!

Slaps self on forehead

LoudounLib @
3

Fitz!!

I find it hard to believe that after a month’s trial, and probable daily admonishments from the judge, this juror let herself be exposed to media reports. I suspect she was tired of being the outsider in the jury deliberations and intentionally exposed herself to the media reports so she could get out of further deliberations. Also, she would have had to self report the exposure to the Court. I look for a quick verdict after she is gone.

My $0.02….
The only way this jury acquits on all counts is if Fitz didn’t do his job to keep the wingnuts off the panel. Like many of us, I’ve followed the wonderful live blogging here carefully.

While a “reasonable” doubt might exist on some charges, no doubt “based in reason” could exist on the Russert-related perjury charge. If the jury acquits on this charge, Fitz@Co. did not monitor the jury selection process well enough.

Again, just my $0.02

LS @ 44

No matter what the jury’s verdict, remember that this trial has served to expose to the whole world how this administration manipulated the media and public and took us into a war based on lies and misinformation.

I know we are all starting to get a little worried libby might walk

as far as what we’ve found out, here at the lake we’ve always known what was revealed at the trial

for everyone else, they will look at an innocent verdict as vindication for cheney and bush, they will ignore whatever came out in the trial, they will say this was a political prosecution

I am prepared for an innocent verdict but I have to be honest

we need this trial and we need it bad

Are journalists donating to Libby’s fund? Because I think that is inappropriate.

If there is a mistrial I suspect there will be a major outcry from the celebrity press corps to shut down the trial altogether.

I wonder if Bushco is waiting on the results of this trial before going into Iran?

Any word yet on what it was that the juror read? I’m having a hard time figuring out how it wouldn’t have been helpful to the defense. All of the misinformation that’s out there is pro-defense, as far as I know. My best guess is that it’s NOT one of the “she wasn’t covert” articles, but rather one of the “all of the reporters knew” articles.

Why would Fitz want to add an alternate? As it is he has to convince the 11 that are there unanimously, if there were a 12th pure math says the probability of a guilty verdict would be reduced or harder to achieve. So, unless it was put forward as a trap to get the defense to want 11 – just to be contrary – which may have succeeded, it was a fool’s gambit for the prosecution to suggest an additional juror.

I want to make a point;

I heard russert on Imus this morning and you will not believe what he had the nerve to say

he said “all I said at the trial was that I didn’t remember my conversatin with libby”

now we all know that is NOT what he said, his sworn testimony is that he knows with no doubt he did not give the information to libby.

the whurlitzer has already begun it’s sick melody

perris @ 49

ccmask @ 34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

I wouldn’t have worn anything that everyone decided to wear, I agree

Not even the Decider?

95 @
51

He told the judge that restarting deliberations would be prejudicial to his client.

The truth is prejudicial to his client.
_

In defense of both the art curator and Commando Jane, I’d like to go on the record and say that I would not have worn a tacky T-shirt or panties into the courtroom.

LHP@45 – McCarthy has an intersting take, but I’m not so sure the mistrial odds increase that much if we drop to 10 jurors for some reason. There are standing protocols in most districts to try to complete a trial because of Federal docket congestion. Assuming the two alternates have not themselves been corrupted, Walton would simply install them at that point. With a nod to Hotflash, however, that is just speculation.

Rich @ 53

I find it hard to believe that after a month’s trial, and probable daily admonishments from the judge, this juror let herself be exposed to media reports. I suspect she was tired of being the outsider in the jury deliberations and intentionally exposed herself to the media reports so she could get out of further deliberations. Also, she would have had to self report the exposure to the Court. I look for a quick verdict after she is gone.

I had that thought too, though I couldn’t articulate why. Good thinking…

Rich @ 53

LoudounLib @
3

Fitz!!

I find it hard to believe that after a month’s trial, and probable daily admonishments from the judge, this juror let herself be exposed to media reports. I suspect she was tired of being the outsider in the jury deliberations and intentionally exposed herself to the media reports so she could get out of further deliberations. Also, she would have had to self report the exposure to the Court. I look for a quick verdict after she is gone.

Cheers, Rich. I agree 100%.

one good thing is this will eliminate an avenue of appeal for wells

I personally would not mind a retrial, more would come out for sure

itwasntme @
40

I wouldn’t have wanted to wear a silly Tshirt either, but would have put it on to be one of the group. It shows that the jury is thinking/talking about something other than the trial (who else has time to do stuff like that?)

But it also shows she wasn’t making an effort to understand her fellows and get in the swing of things. I think this is a good sign, actually.

I can’t wait to hear this lady’s story. It oughta be good

“Oh, it was just awful! The t-shirt ‘concept’ was not well- executed. But that was only part of it. When the bad stick-figure drawings started in deliberations it was just so aesthetically wrong. We had actual photos! But no, they wanted to draw and draw they did. Horrible little scribbles. And then taunt me with those crude glyphs. It was nauseating.”

I ran into some snotty post-menopausal self-absorbed art lady yesterday at an art opening and video taped her annoying drivel. It’s endemic…

Ha!

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

The press room, is the feed from the courtroom a video feed or just audio?

Any guesses as to what our cranky curator read or saw that she wasn’t supposed to?

- Toensig article?
- FDL blogging when jury was out of courtroom?
- Clarice Feldman?

A question for the lawyers….
If something were to happen to bring us to 10 jurors, must Welton put BOTH alternates on the panel to bring it back up to 12 for new deliberations? Or, can new deliberations in a continuous trial start with only 11 jurors???

b. schaeffer @ 59

Why would Fitz want to add an alternate? As it is he has to convince the 11 that are there unanimously, if there were a 12th pure math says the probability of a guilty verdict would be reduced or harder to achieve. So, unless it was put forward as a trap to get the defense to want 11 – just to be contrary – which may have succeeded, it was a fool’s gambit for the prosecution to suggest an additional juror.

Cause Pat doesn’t want a mis trial. he had a mistrial in a mfa case years ago that he and Comey did together. They were very depressed about it

b. schaeffer @ 58

Why would Fitz want to add an alternate? As it is he has to convince the 11 that are there unanimously, if there were a 12th pure math says the probability of a guilty verdict would be reduced or harder to achieve. So, unless it was put forward as a trap to get the defense to want 11 – just to be contrary – which may have succeeded, it was a fool’s gambit for the prosecution to suggest an additional juror.

I disagree. Fitz likes things to be clean-cut. A jury of 11 is not clean-cut. Furthermore, if Fitz thinks that the information that the outside juror brought in helps the defense, he would want the deliberations to start over, in order to erase this prejudice.

I continue to think that Fitz was/is pissed because some dumbass juror got tainted to begin with. I don’t think he cares what she got tainted with. It’s annoying to spend years building a case against someone and then have it tainted by someone’s idiocy.

puppethead @ 12

I’m just catching up, so forgive me if this has been covered.

Why in the hell wasn’t such an important, high-profile trial done with a sequestered jury? When the top executives of the Federal government are being charged with crimes, and the trial is in Washington, D.C., who could reasonably expect the jury to avoid media contact for a number of weeks? And, as we saw with the Toensing piece, the dark GOP orcs were trying all they could to undermine the trial.

Gah!

Yes–a non-sequestered jury in such a high profile case is like having sex without a condom–asking for trouble.

lol, offtopic. I just heard that the US Attorney who prosecuted Randy Cunningham and indicted “Dusty” Foggo was just fired for inadequate performance.

http://www.commondreams.org/he…..226-05.htm

Wonder if Fitzgerald is performing inadequately according to Mr. Gonzales.

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

ecoast @ 46:

Re: Cheney: See me at 143 in the last thread.

Perris 55

I know, and I totally agree with you. I’m just preparing myself, just in case. I’m trying to trust the system. Is it true that one juror worked for WAPO, played over 40 ball with Libby, and knows Walter Pincus (all of which does not mean he is biased I realize), even so, if it is true, how could that person qualify as a juror in this case? Is that just a spin rumor or what?

ccmask @ 34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

Heehee … This weekend when I made the obligatory social rounds, I did wear a sticker that said I ((heart)) Patrick Fitzgerald Esq. FITZ.

and re #67
“I personally would not mind a retrial, more would come out for sure “

DITTO – esp. since many of Waltons rulings against prosecution evidence was based on the assumption Libby would testify…

bmaz @ 64

LHP@45 – McCarthy has an intersting take, but I’m not so sure the mistrial odds increase that much if we drop to 10 jurors for some reason. There are standing protocols in most districts to try to complete a trial because of Federal docket congestion. Assuming the two alternates have not themselves been corrupted, Walton would simply install them at that point. With a nod to Hotflash, however, that is just speculation.

I realize that, but we don’t know how well they are following instructions not to read about the case. I have had cases where we lost jurors and tried to bring back the alternates. All were tainted.

perris @ 49

ccmask @ 34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

I wouldn’t have worn anything that everyone decided to wear, I agree

putting on a t-shirt would mess up my hairdo — if I had a hairdo.

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

From the article:

According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.

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?

I take it to mean that Libby got to someone on the jury, or they know how that one person will vote, and, all they need is that one person.

Is that WAPO juror still a reporter or is he still a journalist?

looseheadprop @ 52

The jury selction will go completley differntly next time!

Slaps self on forehead

Of course it will. They’ll have a helluva time finding a jury at all when Shooter’s in the dock….

http://www.orient-lodge.com/

Aldon’s going to kill me, but he’s also live blogging the trial over at his site Orient Lodge. His server is getting so many hits that it’s very shaky right now. He can also be read at http://www.greaterdemocracy.org

Cozumel @ 77

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

I’m telling ya, she wanted OUT. She’s that snotty.

Edna Mode in a Warhol wig!

battery dead, will have to catch up in a few hours

/crosses fingers

Frank Pobst. I agree completely. That and it increases the chances of a mist tiral and Our boy does not look forward to do overs.

WaPo (thanks annx!)

In questioning to select a jury, she said she was sympathetic to what would become one of the defense’s central theories of the case: that people can have innocent distortions of their memory. Asked whether two people can disagree about something, both believing that they are correct, she replied: “I witness it in my married friends all the time. There are disputes about what happened.”

good gawd, I go against FDL CW and say this lends credence (if only coincidentally) to that 11-1 split on Guilty crap that appeared on the threads this week end

goes back to kabooming the shower stall

perris @ 67 says:

I personally would not mind a retrial, more would come out for sure

Perhaps this is what Wells is really afraid of. More would come out.

Key graf from WashPost:
“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

I presume that Fitz and Wells were both informed of the nature of the information that was sought. What if she confessed to looking for something prejudicial to Libby? The defense would be delighted to have her off the panel, and might view it as evidence that she needed ammunition to persuade other jurors of his guilt, and thus an indiciation that some are not yet persuaded. In that circumstance, they’d just as soon stick with the jury they’ve got, while Fitz would be looking for any way to start over.

LHP@81 – Agreed. Do you, EW, Jane, Pach or any of the other people on scene know if Fitz, or for that matter Wells, made any formal request for sequestration?

obsessed @ 71

Any guesses as to what our cranky curator read or saw that she wasn’t supposed to?

- Toensig article?
- FDL blogging when jury was out of courtroom?
- Clarice Feldman?

The International Art Curators’ Legal Journal?

Cozumel @ 77

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

Makes Rich @ 53’s suggestion all that much more likely to be accurate …

cbl @ 91

WaPo (thanks annx!)

In questioning to select a jury, she said she was sympathetic to what would become one of the defense’s central theories of the case: that people can have innocent distortions of their memory. Asked whether two people can disagree about something, both believing that they are correct, she replied: “I witness it in my married friends all the time. There are disputes about what happened.”

good gawd, I go against FDL CW and say this lends credence (if only coincidentally) to that 11-1 split on Guilty crap that appeared on the threads this week end

goes back to kabooming the shower stall

Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?

Where is Pach? we need some group dynamics analysis.

Interesting theory.

When I served on a jury, the two alternates sat in the jury box with us and stayed with us in the jury room during the trial. I confess to not knowing the law, but since the alternates are essentially real jurors from the get go, why not let them be in the jury room for deliberations with the provision they just listen and don’t get to speak or vote? That way if an original juror is lost, no deliberative time would be wasted.

bmaz @ 94

LHP@81 – Agreed. Do you, EW, Jane, Pach or any of the other people on scene know if Fitz, or for that matter Wells, made any formal request for sequestration?

Not that I am aware of.

the anti-thesis @ 68

I ran into some snotty post-menopausal self-absorbed art lady yesterday at an art opening and video taped her annoying drivel. It’s endemic…

Ha!

ahem! surely you didn’t mean to cast aspersions on crones, did you?

Interested Observer @ 24

I don’t understand why people are fretting over a mistrial. If they lose another, then Wells would definitely ask for a mistrial, but it seems to me that Walton would instead put BOTH alternates back in (to get to 12) and make them start over. A mistrial would still not be granted. (Yes, they would have to start over (in effect losing the delays in deliberation) but I don’t see them taking that out on the prosecution. In fact, I think Wells would be very unhappy to see the two alternates added into the mix. That would give ZERO margin for more jury losses, natch.

But that would give Wells a grounds for appeal, i.e., that it was too late to add TWO new jurors, Walton should have declared a mistrial, the conviction should be thrown out, blah blah blah.

Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?

I don’t think Walton would not have replaced her if she was the lone juror. That would really be grounds for a mistrial.

derris @ 55

“I am prepared for an innocent verdict but I have to be honest

we need this trial and we need it bad”

I couldn’t agree more. There will be little if any further investigation into Cheney and Rove without a guilty verdict for Libby. I believe that is the hold-up in the sealed indictment Fitzgerald still holds.

Cozumel @ 76

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose. Either way, she’s not someone you want on a jury. I don’t think a simple dismissal was appropriate, though. I think she should have been dismissed, and then Walton should have ordered her to sit in the corner off the courtroom until the rest of the jury came back with a verdict.

phillydem @ 98

When I served on a jury, the two alternates sat in the jury box with us and stayed with us in the jury room during the trial. I confess to not knowing the law, but since the alternates are essentially real jurors from the get go, why not let them be in the jury room for deliberations with the provision they just listen and don’t get to speak or vote? That way if an original juror is lost, no deliberative time would be wasted.

I remember making an almost identical comment in my trial with the tainted alternet jurors. No one had a good answer for me. I think that would be a better system. Or put the alternates in a seperate room with a live feed.

lhp,

no, it was my shorthand that events like this encourage crap like we saw over the week end and all we need is a coupla more Jason Leopolds running around loose

I wonder if the curator was looking up if Plame was covert?

> I couldn’t agree more. There will be little if
> any further investigation into Cheney and Rove
>without a guilty verdict for Libby.

If there is an aquittal I suspect Fitzgerald will also be added to the list of “non-performing” prosecutors and shown out the door.

Cranky

Toesning is cruella.

ccmask @ 102

Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?

I don’t think Walton would not have replaced her if she was the lone juror. That would really be grounds for a mistrial.

Walton has no way of knowing if she is the lone juror. Just as we have no way of knwing.

looseheadprop @ 97

Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?

Where is Pach? we need some group dynamics analysis.

Interesting theory.

does Egyptian cotton breathe? [Edna Mode, recently dismissed juror]

yes!

oh gosh lhp – not that there’s anything wrong with “loose” *g*

ccmask @ 107

I wonder if the curator was looking up if Plame was covert?

That would be exactly my guess. And the bulk of the printed information out there says no, because that is #1 on the wingnut talking points.

Elliott @ 70

The press room, is the feed from the courtroom a video feed or just audio?

Video. At least in the downstairs room. I never did go into the press overflow room next door to the courtroom, so I don’t know what they have there.

From here:

The jurors include a former Washington Post reporter, an MIT-trained economist, a retired math teacher, a former museum curator, a law firm accountant, a Web architect and several retired or current federal workers. There are 10 whites and two blacks — unexpected in a city where blacks outnumber whites more than 2-to-1.

Well, the museum curator is gone. This is a highly educated jury. At the risk of being skewered, I’ll make a gross generalization. A highly educated jury is bad news for Libby. Why?

Because in my experience, the more educated you are, the more you’re likely to be a Democrat. (Yes I know there are more right think tanks than there are leftist ones, but I’m talking about the general population.)

ccmask @ 107

I wonder if the curator was looking up if Plame was covert?

yeah, I wonder what was buggin’ her that she looked for an answer outside the jury room

Lawyers focus on the immediate issue at hand, which in this case would be not whether the dismissed juror acted properly, but whether their client was better off with or without the alternate. The positions of Wells and Fitz only reflect their assessment of both alternates. Two different potential alternates would have had these lawyers taking diametrically opposite positions.

Shuster on MSNBC. Art lady conveyed info she heard to another juror.
-

I trust Fitzgerald implicitly, but I would have requested sequestration, and if not granted for the entire trial (unlikely) at least made a forceful argument for it for the entirety of jury deliberations. Even if denied, you make a record that works in your favor in case there ever is a retrial.

ccmask @ 109

Toesning is cruella.

now you’re giving Cruella a bad name comparing her to Viktoria

cbl @ 112

oh gosh lhp – not that there’s anything wrong with “loose” *g*

That was cute

Cozumel @ 77

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

And yet the story says that Walton determined that she didn’t intentionally violate his rule about avoiding contact with media reports.

It’s possible that she was doing some sort of research on the Google that led her to some sort of archived description of the relevant issues, rather than a current article on the trial.

Still, you gotta wonder why they’re not being sequestered at this point….

In the meantime, this does not strike me as “sympathy” for the defense:

In questioning to select a jury, [the dismissed juror] said she was sympathetic to what would become one of the defense’s central theories of the case: that people can have innocent distortions of their memory. Asked whether two people can disagree about something, both believing that they are correct, she replied: “I witness it in my married friends all the time. There are disputes about what happened.”

This happens to Mr. litigatormom and me all the time, but it rarely occurs when we’ve been discussing the same subject virtually every day for a frakkin’ month.

Reckon she was looking to see if Libby was a contributing patron of the Arts?

looseheadprop @ 97

cbl @ 91

WaPo (thanks annx!)

In questioning to select a jury, she said she was sympathetic to what would become one of the defense’s central theories of the case: that people can have innocent distortions of their memory. Asked whether two people can disagree about something, both believing that they are correct, she replied: “I witness it in my married friends all the time. There are disputes about what happened.”

good gawd, I go against FDL CW and say this lends credence (if only coincidentally) to that 11-1 split on Guilty crap that appeared on the threads this week end

goes back to kabooming the shower stall

Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?

Where is Pach? we need some group dynamics analysis.

Interesting theory.

The vior dire questioning on memory was pretty thin gruel. Given the set up to their questioning, everyone would agree people could remember a past event differently, and in good faith. Her comment about her married friends served more to highlight her own unattachment, and individualism, than anything else.

Now, I admit, it has crossed my mind that she sabotaged her jury membership simply to get the hell out of it all, but I’m not sure her reasons would have anything to do with reasons we can speculate. She definitely marches to the beat of her own drummer, and at her age, cares not a fig about what others think and feels no obligation to justify herself to anyone.

Does that mean she felt she would be stepping out of the way so the other jurors could press ahead, so she would not be a holdout? I suppose that’s possible, but probably way down the list of probable motivations, which in my mind, could more likely include boredom, a gouty leg or dislike for the food at the courthouse.

She’s a wild card, the kind of elder bleach blonde who is so obviously bleached that she cares nothing about the transparency of the effort.

We do know she was a bit of an outlier, but we have no idea if that also meant she saw the case differently than the others did, or if she simply found the whole matter boring and the tee shirt game juvenile.

Just a quick note before I get back to work.

One possibility is that the jury was near unanimity and this woman was one of the last hold-outs or the last hold-out.

She was out-gunned factually and rhetorically by the majority of the jury.

So she went looking for something else that would back up her point of view, something above and beyond the evidence that was presented in court.

She wanted to make her case, and she knew that she needed outside information to do it.

So she went looking and then tried to get the information into the deliberation but in a way that was subtle enough that the rest of the jury wouldn’t catch on to what she was doing. She wasn’t clever enough to do it properly, the jury figured out that she had brought in information from left field. And they brought it to the judge’s attention.

bmaz @ 119

I trust Fitzgerald implicitly, but I would have requested sequestration, and if not granted for the entire trial (unlikely) at least made a forceful argument for it for the entirety of jury deliberations. Even if denied, you make a record that works in your favor in case there ever is a retrial.

Will one of the lawyers on the thread puhleeese explain why this jury is NOT sequestered? During deliberations, I was sequestered in a NYC murder-2 case jury that got no publicity at all. (BTW, I single-handedly hung the jury for acquittal.)

I think the art curator wanted off the jury. It’s easy to accidentally see something about the trial on TV (or at least, it would be if any of the TV media were covering the trial, which they’re not), but it’s a lot harder to accidentally read articles, especially if you’re trying to avoid reading articles.

QuentinCompson @ 118

Shuster on MSNBC. Art lady conveyed info she heard to another juror.
-

if the info she had was favorable to Scoots, and if it has been told to another juror, maybe Wells is hoping that the taint will still work for them, even though she is gone — so why ask for a mistrial?

I’m surprised by Walton’s ruling because I’ve never seen a judge proceed with jury deliberations with less than 12 jurors, unless there aren’t alternates to replace the excused juror. Why choose alternates if you aren’t going to use them? I’ve tried hundreds of felony cases in state and federal courts and I’ve never seen a judge do this. Both sides have a right to have the case decided by twelve jurors. Unless both sides agree to proceed with less than 12, I think the court has to appoint the alternate.

If the court denies the prosecution’s request to proceed with 12 by appointing the alternate, however, I don’t think that the prosecution would prevail on appeal if a jury of 11 returns a not-guilty verdict. Such an appeal would be characterized as sour grapes by Libby and his right-wing spin machine. The appellate court probably would rule that a retrial would be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a practical matter, for example, the alternate would have joined a jury leaning heavily toward acquittal. Assuming that the alternate joined the jury ready to convict, he or she would have to convince the other 11 members of the jury to change their opinion, which isn’t likely to happen.

I’m betting that Judge Walton doesn’t think that replacing the excused juror with an alternate after 2-1/2 days of deliberation, will alter the outcome of deliberations because the 11 remaining jurors will spend their time justifying what they’ve already decided to the alternate, nothwithstanding the instruction to start over again. He’s probably right. He probably thinks that the jury is close to reaching a guilty verdict and wants to get it over.

Fitz being Fitz isn’t so sure.

I’m inclined to go with Walton on this call, unless the jury acquits, and I don’t believe there is much of a chance that it will.

xyz at 125: That’s the only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me.

*xyz @ 125

Just a quick note before I get back to work.

One possibility is that the jury was near unanimity and this woman was one of the last hold-outs or the last hold-out.

She was out-gunned factually and rhetorically by the majority of the jury.

So she went looking for something else that would back up her point of view, something above and beyond the evidence that was presented in court.

She wanted to make her case, and she knew that she needed outside information to do it.

So she went looking and then tried to get the information into the deliberation but in a way that was subtle enough that the rest of the jury wouldn’t catch on to what she was doing. She wasn’t clever enough to do it properly, the jury figured out that she had brought in information from left field. And they brought it to the judge’s attention.

From your fingertips to God’s ears. Wouldn’t that make for a nice, quick verdict?

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

*xyz @ 125

Just a quick note before I get back to work.

One possibility is that the jury was near unanimity and this woman was one of the last hold-outs or the last hold-out.

She was out-gunned factually and rhetorically by the majority of the jury.

So she went looking for something else that would back up her point of view, something above and beyond the evidence that was presented in court.

She wanted to make her case, and she knew that she needed outside information to do it.

So she went looking and then tried to get the information into the deliberation but in a way that was subtle enough that the rest of the jury wouldn’t catch on to what she was doing. She wasn’t clever enough to do it properly, the jury figured out that she had brought in information from left field. And they brought it to the judge’s attention.

It’s not just media coverage that jurors are supposed to avoid. Doing your own legal research is verboten as well. She may also have attempted to compare the evidentiary timeline with other events not in evidence. Who knows. What is worrying me is the conflicting reports about whether other jurors were tainted. Shuster is apparently reporting yes.

Let me ask a question while we’re spekkalatin here.
What would the implications of wanting (and subsequently getting) off the jury be?

*xyz @
125

Just a quick note before I get back to work.

One possibility is that the jury was near unanimity and this woman was one of the last hold-outs or the last hold-out.

She was out-gunned factually and rhetorically by the majority of the jury.

So she went looking for something else that would back up her point of view, something above and beyond the evidence that was presented in court.

She wanted to make her case, and she knew that she needed outside information to do it.

So she went looking and then tried to get the information into the deliberation but in a way that was subtle enough that the rest of the jury wouldn’t catch on to what she was doing. She wasn’t clever enough to do it properly, the jury figured out that she had brought in information from left field. And they brought it to the judge’s attention.

best theory of the day…

Sequestration is really hard on juries, especially jurors with families, and judges are aware of this and try to avoid it unless they absolutely have to. The George Ryan jury was not sequestered. I’d be curious to know just how rare jury sequestration is.

egregious @ 114

Elliott @ 70

The press room, is the feed from the courtroom a video feed or just audio?

Video. At least in the downstairs room. I never did go into the press overflow room next door to the courtroom, so I don’t know what they have there.

Thank you kindly, egregious.

It’s easy to accidentally see something about the trial on TV (or at least, it would be if any of the TV media were covering the trial, which they’re not)

However, madam claims not to view the vast wasteland.
-

Sparkles the Iguana @ 127

I think the art curator wanted off the jury. It’s easy to accidentally see something about the trial on TV (or at least, it would be if any of the TV media were covering the trial, which they’re not), but it’s a lot harder to accidentally read articles, especially if you’re trying to avoid reading articles.

Perhaps she watched some of Judge Larry’s antics during the Anna Nicole Smith burial hearing and thought it was relevant to this case….

Jane – what is the scuttlebutt around the courthouse? Positive, negative, everybody is clueless?

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Ouch, that sucks. Sorry.

Frank Probst @ 104

Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose.

Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Mickey @ 135

*xyz @
125

Just a quick note before I get back to work.

One possibility is that the jury was near unanimity and this woman was one of the last hold-outs or the last hold-out.

She was out-gunned factually and rhetorically by the majority of the jury.

So she went looking for something else that would back up her point of view, something above and beyond the evidence that was presented in court.

She wanted to make her case, and she knew that she needed outside information to do it.

So she went looking and then tried to get the information into the deliberation but in a way that was subtle enough that the rest of the jury wouldn’t catch on to what she was doing. She wasn’t clever enough to do it properly, the jury figured out that she had brought in information from left field. And they brought it to the judge’s attention.

best theory of the day…

Thanks. I owe it all to the knife scene in Twelve Angry Men.

Jane Hamsher @ 131

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Go get some coffee, girl!

Jane, check lost and found. Maybe some Good Samaritan turned in your wallet and phone.

Jane, don’t leave the courthouse. You need ID to get back in.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Check the curator’s handbag!

Biodun @ 115

Because in my experience, the more educated you are, the more you’re likely to be a Democrat. (Yes I know there are more right think tanks than there are leftist ones, but I’m talking about the general population.)

Right wing think tanks are not education.

egregious @ 25

HotFlash @ 17

Jane Hamsher @
6

Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.

Can somebody in the DC area get this lady a coffee? She deserves it and she’s not dressed for going outside.

Not to worry. There’s a coffee kiosk inside the court building. Pretty good quality.

lol first I typed inside the courtroom. That would be excellent.

A very practical response. Nevertheless, I submit that HotFlash exhibits a degree of thoughtfulness and compassion that serves as an inspiration to all in the FDL community. HotFlash’s humor is nowhere near as good as President Gore’s little skit last night, but it does show some promise.

Escort please, for Jane is in need. Why is are you there without someone from Plame house. SOS!

CancerCures @
76

lol, offtopic. I just heard that the US Attorney who prosecuted Randy Cunningham and indicted “Dusty” Foggo was just fired for inadequate performance.

http://www.commondreams.org/he…..226-05.htm

Wonder if Fitzgerald is performing inadequately according to Mr. Gonzales.

Fitz is a regional (Northern Illinois) Federal prosecutor and can be fired from that position at will by Bushie. But that is not his capacity in the Scooter case. Here he is ‘Special Prosecutor’ with full plenary authority which means he cannot be fired.

Have Christy start calling the phone,maybe they didn’t turn it off.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Yikes! Our hero evoking a memory defense? emptywheel, get on that plane, Jane needs a break…

I have been convinced from day one of jury selection that this will end in either a hung jury or a mistrial. Why would ANYONE believe that Cheney could/would not utilize his ’shadow government’ (MSM) to attempt to sway these jurors? Even if he’s not guilty of tampering, there are jurors who seem to be entrenched right-wingers from their profiles. Perhaps I’m just a cynic, but I just don’t have a good feeling about this trial. Perhaps it’s just the same knee-jerk reaction I’ve had after watching BUSHCO lie and destroy all that America holds dear. So many of us are crying “Madness, Madness, Madness”, while the jury is stacked against us.

Or someone who has a distinctive ringtone.

OOPS, moderated.
Or have someone with a distinctive R*ngtone call you.

Elliott @ 128

QuentinCompson @ 118

Shuster on MSNBC. Art lady conveyed info she heard to another juror.
-

if the info she had was favorable to Scoots, and if it has been told to another juror, maybe Wells is hoping that the taint will still work for them, even though she is gone — so why ask for a mistrial?

Does the taint get on the other juror? If she told the other juror something she shouldn’t have, then perhaps the other juror is now also tainted. The other juror evidently reported her misconduct. Seems like the other juror (maybe all of the t-shirt wearers) did not like her and he/she/they wanted to get rid of her. Like most of you, I was flabbergasted by the silly t-shirt stunt AND the non participant angle.

eCAHNomics @ 126

bmaz @ 119

I trust Fitzgerald implicitly, but I would have requested sequestration, and if not granted for the entire trial (unlikely) at least made a forceful argument for it for the entirety of jury deliberations. Even if denied, you make a record that works in your favor in case there ever is a retrial.

Will one of the lawyers on the thread puhleeese explain why this jury is NOT sequestered? During deliberations, I was sequestered in a NYC murder-2 case jury that got no publicity at all. (BTW, I single-handedly hung the jury for acquittal.)

Juries hate to be sequestered because it’s like being in jail. They get really pissed off at the court and counsel for taking them away from their families and censoring everything they read. They resent not being taken at their word for promising not to read newspapers or watch TV, and it looks like the juror who was excused informed the court about the situation in timely fashion, which is what she promised to do.

Sequestered juries are likely to be more concerned about reaching a verdict quickly than taking as long as they need to review all of the evidence and make a reasoned decision.

Alicia @ 141

Frank Probst @ 104

Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose.

Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Again, not someone you want on a jury.

Biodun 114: I just wanted to bust that ‘the more educated you are, the more likely you are a democrat’ because when I was in college, I encountered many many ‘republicans’ or people who didn’t care.

http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539 (take it how you want), but we should really remove this way of thinking that higher education is associated with a higher democratic party affiliation.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Go down to the guards at the door and they will direct you to the security office. Your wallet and phone are peobabaly in one of those little lockers as we speak

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Jane! Oh no! Do you need cash, can you borrow a phone to cancel your credit cards? You know they can fedex a new one and you can have it by tomorrow. If you get a new phone make sure it doesnt have a camera so you can use it in the courthouse.

Let us know how we can help.

Mason @ 129

I’m surprised by Walton’s ruling because I’ve never seen a judge proceed with jury deliberations with less than 12 jurors, unless there aren’t alternates to replace the excused juror. Why choose alternates if you aren’t going to use them? I’ve tried hundreds of felony cases in state and federal courts and I’ve never seen a judge do this. Both sides have a right to have the case decided by twelve jurors. Unless both sides agree to proceed with less than 12, I think the court has to appoint the alternate.

If the court denies the prosecution’s request to proceed with 12 by appointing the alternate, however, I don’t think that the prosecution would prevail on appeal if a jury of 11 returns a not-guilty verdict. Such an appeal would be characterized as sour grapes by Libby and his right-wing spin machine. The appellate court probably would rule that a retrial would be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a practical matter, for example, the alternate would have joined a jury leaning heavily toward acquittal. Assuming that the alternate joined the jury ready to convict, he or she would have to convince the other 11 members of the jury to change their opinion, which isn’t likely to happen.

I’m betting that Judge Walton doesn’t think that replacing the excused juror with an alternate after 2-1/2 days of deliberation, will alter the outcome of deliberations because the 11 remaining jurors will spend their time justifying what they’ve already decided to the alternate, nothwithstanding the instruction to start over again. He’s probably right. He probably thinks that the jury is close to reaching a guilty verdict and wants to get it over.

Fitz being Fitz isn’t so sure.

I’m inclined to go with Walton on this call, unless the jury acquits, and I don’t believe there is much of a chance that it will.

anybody ever hear of Sibel Edmonds? Guess who the judge was in this case???

The comment above about sequestration being tough on jurors is correct and that is why it is not common; however, in high profile cases I have had and seen it done regularly for deliberations. Should have been here it appears.

looseheadprop @ 161

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Go down to the guards at the door and they will direct you to the security office. Your wallet and phone are peobabaly in one of those little lockers as we speak

Wow I never would have thought of that. Glad we have you lhp.

I don’t mean to imply you can’t leave the courthouse, but I’d want you to realize that w/o your wallet / phone, if you forgot your stuff, you’d be in a bit of a pickle.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

I wouldn’t post a message like this and at the same time attempt to discount the ‘memory defense’.

Any possibility that the other 11 jurors have been bought off?

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

If I found your wallet in the bathroom, I wouldn’t leave it there, I’d take it to the Prettyman Lost and Found or where I thought you might go to look. Don’t give up!

Jwoods at 163 — which is why he is being so careful with this case.

OT–but not really.

Interesting speculation from John Heilemann in New York Mag:

(snip)

Until recently, of course, no one sensible would bet on Rice in a death-cage match with Cheney. And yet all around Washington the perception is that the vice-president has lost a fair degree of his mojo. Whether or not Scooter Libby is convicted of perjury, his departure is seen by current and former administration officials as having left Cheney severely depleted in fighting internal foreign-policy skirmishes. So, too, has the culling of many of his most powerful allies, from Donald Rumsfeld to John Bolton.

The best evidence so far of Cheney’s waning sway—and a sign that Rice may be more capable of taking him on than many assume—was the artful way in which she recently circumvented him in securing a deal on North Korean nuclear disarmament.

(snip)

My bold.

Pat_AlexVA @ 166

I don’t mean to imply you can’t leave the courthouse, but I’d want you to realize that w/o your wallet / phone, if you forgot your stuff, you’d be in a bit of a pickle.

Need photo ID to get back into the courthouse.

Maybe they have facilities in the building to do an ID.

Or maybe get a letter from security, before you leave today, in order to get back in?

egregious @ 170

Jwoods at 163 — which is why he is being so careful with this case.

I don’t understand your reply: Who is being careful, Walton? And how so?

PWT @ 167

It doesn’t look like you understand all the surrounding circumstances here, including the fact that the person actually applying the memory defense was responsible for your national security.

Need photo ID to get back into the courthouse.

oh crap ! so sorry Jane, praying you and your belongings are soon reunited

Alicia @
142

Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

**

Constrictions? You mortals have constrictions?

*winks and laughs*

That said – agree that the jury needs to be sequestered – and for GODS’ SAKES – pull their internet connection until this is over!

alicia up there somewhere…. I can’t be bothered looking for the actual number
Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Oh really?

Maybe us “art people” think differently and have expansive capacity for higher concepts than dull, t-shirt donning non-art types.
AND we’re more likely to be DemocratIC.

Rayne @ 173

PWT @ 167

It doesn’t look like you understand all the surrounding circumstances here, including the fact that the person actually applying the memory defense was responsible for your national security.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Victoria Toenail on Faux just now said that, yes, it was legal for the jury to continue with only 11 members, bitterly disappointing her tunees.
-

From E.J. Dionne in the WaPo this morning:

The evidence presented at the Libby trial has demonstrated how worried Cheney was that this scheme could unravel. Thanks to Patrick Fitzgerald, the painstaking prosecutor, we know that Cheney was beside himself over former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed article undercutting the administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear materials in Niger.

Whatever the jury decides, Fitzgerald has amply demonstrated that Cheney directed Libby to destroy Wilson’s credibility, partly by leaking that his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a CIA operative who had suggested Wilson was well qualified to investigate the claims in Niger. For Libby, Fitzgerald said in closing his case, Valerie Wilson “wasn’t a person. She was an argument, a fact to use against Joe Wilson.”

Libby-Cheney apologists have argued over and over that Cheney had a right to be angry because Wilson said that Cheney had sent him to Niger. But Wilson said no such thing. In his New York Times piece, Wilson wrote only that he had been “informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report.” That was true.

Fresh thread, up and running for everyone.

ccmask @
34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

Nor would I and I rather admired the now released juror for not wearing the Valentine t-shirt. The headline for me this morning was learning she was on the curatorial staff at MOMA.

As a curator of fine art myself, albeit in a much smaller museum here on the left coast, I can assure everyone the Libby defense has every reason to be smiling from ear to ear and the only surprise to me is that the defense didn’t make every effort to keep her off the jury in the first place.

FWIW when and if her name is made public it will make it much easier for me to comment more intelligently.

MOMA is NYC and well endowed but all such institutions large and small have felt the shock and destructive politics the Bush/Cheney cartel has wrought on the NEA and NEH.

Jane Hamsher @ 131

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Somebody go rescue Jane.

Frank Probst @ 104

Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose.

Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Maybe “the art curator” stopped looking at the picture (the case) and concerned herself with an academic discussion (hence researching the media) and it prevented her from focusing on what was right in front of her.

After all, it is sort of what she is trained to do (snark).

Edna Warhole Mode, former juror @ 177

alicia up there somewhere…. I can’t be bothered looking for the actual number
Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Oh really?

Maybe us “art people” think differently and have expansive capacity for higher concepts than dull, t-shirt donning non-art types.
AND we’re more likely to be DemocratIC.

I am speaking as an art people myself, and completely concur with you.

Jane — check with the nice security folks at the front desk in the lobby.

Rayne @ 174

PWT @ 167

It doesn’t look like you understand all the surrounding circumstances here, including the fact that the person actually applying the memory defense was responsible for your national security.

Perhaps you could point out some literature indicating that a person’s memory is more reliable when ‘national security’ is involved.

My overall point however, aside from the snarkiness, is that people are all the same. We all have our strengths and limitations regardless of the situation or our position. To hold anyone to a higher standard than you would hold yourself, say because they are government employees or elected officials, is ridiculous.

OK. When this is all over, where do I go to take the test? This is a law school accredited course, isn’t it?

Three semester hours? (Not enough for the time and effort I have put in.)

Just an innocent thought here but it’s kind of interesting that the curator was both: 1) sympathetic to the idea that people can have innocent distortions of their memory, and 2) the person who forgot her duties.

If the intact jury were aware that she made an innocent rule breakage in her very important duties and no replacement is made then the jury may perceive rule breakage as essentially harmless, forgivable. Point for Wells. Had a replacement been made, the jury may have perceived the rule breakage as less than harmless, problematic. Point for Fitz.

Fwiw, the NYT has this:

Judge Walton said the problem juror’s exposure to outside information was the result of a misunderstanding rather than intentional on her part. But he said he had no choice but to dismiss her.

WaPo has this:

He (Walton) did not say what the juror had seen but characterized it as a misunderstanding.

Bloomberg:

The female juror came in contact with information about the case by accident, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said after discussing the situation with her, the jury foreperson and lawyers. The judge ruled that the juror, an art historian, couldn’t remain on the panel.

“She did have contact with information related to this case,” Walton said in court in Washington today. “It wasn’t intentional on her part, it was a misunderstanding of what I had been telling her throughout the trial.”
…
Walton said other jurors weren’t tainted by the information learned by the dismissed juror, which he didn’t describe. To avoid the potential for a mistrial, he has instructed the jury throughout the trial not to view or listen to any news or other reports about the case.

Fox:

After Walton agreed to dismiss the juror and continue with the 11-member jury, he instructed the remaining members to continue to avoid media contact.

“Let me just ask, before you go back, whether any of you have kept yourself isolated from any outside information in this case,” Walton asked.

When Walton asked for a show of hands, all the jurors raised their hands. He then said that he meant they should only raise their hands if they’d been exposed to outside information. The group laughed and they all put their hands down.

The judge then asked them to proceed with their deliberations.

delurking just for a minute :
As someone with a permanent case of brain fog, due to illness, all i can say is i have a special tibet style bag that i literally drape over myself,all my important stuff stays in there.
so if i space out it is not on my shoulder but across my chest. And i lead a seditary life style. Jane is on the go go go ! Where is your buddy Jane, why are you there alone ?

This can happen to anyone. My hope is that the personal materials that belong to Jane are in the lost and found. Lets all keep our fingers crossed for our intrepid reporter who is still recovering from surgery. Hang in there Jane.

We got your back !!! oh the comment on the curator being taunted by glyphs..707 !

now back to permanent lurkitude

Mason @ 158

eCAHNomics @ 126

bmaz @ 119

I trust Fitzgerald implicitly, but I would have requested sequestration, and if not granted for the entire trial (unlikely) at least made a forceful argument for it for the entirety of jury deliberations. Even if denied, you make a record that works in your favor in case there ever is a retrial.

Will one of the lawyers on the thread puhleeese explain why this jury is NOT sequestered? During deliberations, I was sequestered in a NYC murder-2 case jury that got no publicity at all. (BTW, I single-handedly hung the jury for acquittal.)

Juries hate to be sequestered because it’s like being in jail. They get really pissed off at the court and counsel for taking them away from their families and censoring everything they read. They resent not being taken at their word for promising not to read newspapers or watch TV, and it looks like the juror who was excused informed the court about the situation in timely fashion, which is what she promised to do.

Sequestered juries are likely to be more concerned about reaching a verdict quickly than taking as long as they need to review all of the evidence and make a reasoned decision.

In my experience, it never occurred to us to be angry at the system for being sequestered–just thought it was a normal part of the process. But that was 1986 (shuttle exploded while we were deliberating) in NYC. Could be a different time & place. Thanks for the response.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Oh crap! I hope somebody honest finds it and turns it in. Maybe that is what happened. Have you tried to call your cell phone??

Would Walton have ordered the dismissed juror to avoid making statements about the jury deliberation while the jury keeps deliberating?

Rich @ 194

Would Walton have ordered the dismissed juror to avoid making statements about the jury deliberation while the jury keeps deliberating?

Yes, because that is SOP.

perris @
49

ccmask @ 34

I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.

I wouldn’t have worn anything that everyone decided to wear, I agree

And the Right-wingers say that the Left has no consistent agreed upon positions! Ha! This will show them!

Bustednuckles @ 152

Have Christy start calling the phone,maybe they didn’t turn it off.

I’ve been calling.

JoyB @ 193

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Oh crap! I hope somebody honest finds it and turns it in. Maybe that is what happened. Have you tried to call your cell phone??

If someone answers your call, say “Hello,” to Dick Cheney.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Oh my dear Jane,

How awful. Is there a lost and found?

Frank Probst — thank you, I tend to follow TRex’s “Triple A”* approach rather than take crap lying down.

Especially since I’m fully aware of the circumstances and it’s clear somebody else is not.

[*-Attack! ATTACK! AAATTTAAACCCKKKK!!! although I don’t say that as neatly and succinctly as our esteemed therapod.]

Biodun @ 115

From here:

The jurors include a former Washington Post reporter, an MIT-trained economist, a retired math teacher, a former museum curator, a law firm accountant, a Web architect and several retired or current federal workers. There are 10 whites and two blacks — unexpected in a city where blacks outnumber whites more than 2-to-1.

Well, the museum curator is gone. This is a highly educated jury. At the risk of being skewered, I’ll make a gross generalization. A highly educated jury is bad news for Libby. Why?

Because in my experience, the more educated you are, the more you’re likely to be a Democrat. (Yes I know there are more right think tanks than there are leftist ones, but I’m talking about the general population.)

There are more right wing think tanks because right wingers have a greater need for someone to do their thinking for them.

Sorry, but some punchlines write themselves.

Pachacutec @ 124 says:

Does that mean she felt she would be stepping out of the way so the other jurors could press ahead, so she would not be a holdout? I suppose that’s possible, but probably way down the list of probable motivations, which in my mind, could more likely include boredom, a gouty leg or dislike for the food at the courthouse.

Wow, not much sense of civic duty. Too bad she could not have been weeded out. Thanks for the insights.

Can’t they call a cell phone number and use their satellite to trace the location of the phone? Or is that only if the phone is answered?

it’s not polite to put your taint on other jurors. [sorry]

Oh good gravy, Josiah, I’m going to have to keep that punchline handy; somebody is sure to use it as a rationale for not launching a progressive think tank.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Call your phone and ask for it back.

Jane Hamsher @ 132

Blergh, brain dead. Left my wallet (and phone) in the women’s bathroom and now it’s gone.

Good thing others were here to carry me through the trial, the 40% brain voltage I’m running on is low and obviously getting worse.

Contact your Credit Card company or companies ASAP! At 40% you are still head and shoulders above most. Not to worry. But contact the credit card company and get some panties. And in that order. At 40%, and I am confident that I speak for the entire FDL community, we still love you.

Our Jane is *so* teh hot!

lf @ 204

it’s not polite to put your taint on other jurors. [sorry]

it taint necessarily so
it taint necessarily so
De things dat yo’ liable to read in de WaPo
It taint necessarily so

punaise @ 209

lf @ 204

it’s not polite to put your taint on other jurors. [sorry]

it taint necessarily so
it taint necessarily so
De things dat yo’ liable to read in de WaPo
It taint necessarily so

Okay, that’s it, y’all have been deprived of full spectrum light for too long – OUTSIDE! BOTH OF YOU!

Shifting out of mama mode now, I’m okay…

Biodun @
115

From here:

The jurors include a former Washington Post reporter, an MIT-trained economist, a retired math teacher, a former museum curator, a law firm accountant, a Web architect and several retired or current federal workers. There are 10 whites and two blacks — unexpected in a city where blacks outnumber whites more than 2-to-1.

Well, the museum curator is gone. This is a highly educated jury. At the risk of being skewered, I’ll make a gross generalization. A highly educated jury is bad news for Libby. Why?

Because in my experience, the more educated you are, the more you’re likely to be a Democrat. (Yes I know there are more right think tanks than there are leftist ones, but I’m talking about the general population.)

I’m also a retired federal civil servant and I’m pretty sure the retired feds on the jury related very well to Fitzgerald’s argument that Libby was carrying out Cheney’s orders and lying to protect his boss. Even the lowliest civil servants have probably been in a similar position. I doubt any of them would think Cheney writing a note on a news story about Wilson’s trip and Wilson’s wife was something Libby was just going to stick in a drawer and forget about or ignore. That’s laughable.

dharmarific @ 18

Why aren’t they sequestering this jury after this?

That’s my question

The MIT guy speculated to be the jury foreman is “Israeli-born”, according to CNN’s interactive “Meet the Libby trial jurors”. My heart sank when I read that.

KestrelBrighteyes @
210

Shifting out of mama mode now, I’m okay…

“are we there yet?” . :~)

Alicia @ 185

Edna Warhole Mode, former juror @ 177

alicia up there somewhere…. I can’t be bothered looking for the actual number
Art people don’t generally consider themselves bound by the same constrictions as lesser mortals.

Oh really?

Maybe us “art people” think differently and have expansive capacity for higher concepts than dull, t-shirt donning non-art types.
AND we’re more likely to be DemocratIC.

I am speaking as an art people myself, and completely concur with you.

I was kidding of course. I’m an artist, but I don’t take it too seriously.

Jane, good luck on the wallet hunt.

I don’t know if someone else proposed this in the comments so far, but MSNBC was alluding to the fact that one of the alternate jurors’ body language during closing arguments was very symphatheic to Fitz. Could explain a lot.

brendan @ 213

The MIT guy speculated to be the jury foreman is “Israeli-born”, according to CNN’s interactive “Meet the Libby trial jurors”. My heart sank when I read that.

Please let’s not all get on the truck that believes Israel is behind EVERYTHING bad.

Tell me, brendan, was it simple anti-semitism that made your heart sink? Anti-immigrant bias? Disdain for nerds?
It certainly wasn’t anything rational – if there’s a more consistently liberal group in this country than east-coast university educated Jews, I have yet to encounter it.

Fairfax:

Don’t make your kneejerk auto-censorship censorship for the rest of the site’s commenters.

We can speculate on every aspect of the jury’s composition…except that? In the trial of I. Lewis Libby, of all people?

LS @ 79

Perris 55

I know, and I totally agree with you. I’m just preparing myself, just in case. I’m trying to trust the system. Is it true that one juror worked for WAPO, played over 40 ball with Libby, and knows Walter Pincus (all of which does not mean he is biased I realize), even so, if it is true, how could that person qualify as a juror in this case? Is that just a spin rumor or what?

If he knew Libby he would have been disqualified by the judge – I would think. I was called for jury duty once. It was a case involving some form of medical malpractice. My next door neighbor was a lawyer who worked for the insurance company. My doctor was the physician in the case. And there was some vague connection between one of the lawyers on the case and my father-in-law’s law practice. I had to walk down and talk to the judge – and was then dismissed.

I believe no juror who had a former relationship with Libby would have been allowed on the jury.

95 @ 219

Tell me, brendan, was it simple anti-semitism that made your heart sink? Anti-immigrant bias? Disdain for nerds?
It certainly wasn’t anything rational – if there’s a more consistently liberal group in this country than east-coast university educated Jews, I have yet to encounter it.

kool your jets, brendan.

It made me feel ooogie when I read your “heart sank” post, that’s all. I just started imagining some people grabbing their farm implements and torches . . .

What on earth could be taking so long…. It’s not like the defense put anything on save for the crying game.

brendan–

The MIT guy speculated to be the jury foreman is “Israeli-born”, according to CNN’s interactive “Meet the Libby trial jurors”. My heart sank when I read that.

hasn’t been my personal experience, not at all………

95:

My response to “Fairfax” (#219) goes for you, too. Think about it before you sling accusations, and don’t confuse Israelis with Jews.

My gut reacted like Brendan’s heart, and I’m Jewish; maybe it’s irrational, but there it is.

95, eCahnomics:

Being “liberal” or not doesn’t have as much to do with this case as you both seem to wish. The defenders of Libby are not all Republican cultists, and it was ostensibly “liberal” institutions in the press that were instrumental in the plot against Plame, the NYT most notably. Maybe you mean “opponents of the administration”, in which case you should be clearer. The one group that has the greatest stake in defending Libby are “neoconservatives” and their Democratic counterparts, “liberal hawks”.

I made an observation about an evidently important juror’s background. Hopefully it is irrelevant. I’m not naive and knew the comment might be seen as provocative, but, sorry, you’re being dishonest if you don’t recognize that the “I” issue is a facet of our foreign policy, and therefore this case. I used to comment here in 2005 (then as “Aubrey McFate”), at the height of the Miller-Libby drama, and I can tell you that the subject was not taboo.

Tick tock tick tock.
Im going to to the store. You all better be reporting guilty when I get back. Got it?

(And Jane better have recouped her wallet)

To brendan and wrn:

Don’t you think that Mr Fitzgerald is prescient enough jury-wise to know how to select a decent panel? The fact of someone’s country of birth is probably not a red flag. (geez, I’m a Slovak! gulp.)

Fairfax:

My reaction to this datum was emotional. My brain tells me it’s probably irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that the juror is a trained empiricist. It’s idle speculation, will hopefully be proved unfounded soon, and I’ll drop the subject.

I think the juror was surfing for info on Scooter and found his poem Ode to Dick’s Taint and read it.

Reported that there is a power outage at the courthouse.
See
http://www.orient-lodge.com/

Hey folks, this is Cliff Schecter, not Jane. Hangin at the court building here.

So I’m in the press room and the power just crashed. I kid you not. It is comical. It is so Bushian.

So there are 25 or so reporters sitting here typing away with their wifi connections up, holding flashlights and making jokes. It is a bit surreal.

Jane ran out for a second. So you’ll get her back soon.

Hey Cliff – you were fantastic during the run-up to the election. Thanks!

Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute blog of the right

doesn’t completely buy Libby’s “I forgot” story, and believes that it’s possible that the former vice president aide was just trying to keep his boss’ involvement hidden.

“Personally, I think the single most probable scenario is that Libby uhh, shaded his testimony to keep Cheney out of the story,” Maguire says.

This guy thinks there was “no crime” just an accident, and Joe Wilson inflated the importance of his report. Hmmmm….all he did was find out the administration was promoting lies based on forged documents (that they probably had a hand in forging – see Michael Ledeen). Yet at the same time he “doesn’t buy Libby’s story” and that he “uhh, shaded his testimony.” Well I don’t know if you want to call shading or lying, it all sounds like perjury to me and then since it was uttered to impede an investigation into treason, that’s obstruction of justice. So I find it heartening to see Libby supporters basically admitting that he is a treasonous criminal.

Maguire also sez:

A Republican, Magure says, “I’m too old to switch, but let’s say that I suspect [Bush] is creating many life-long Democrats.”

Interested Observer @ 24

I don’t understand why people are fretting over a mistrial. If they lose another, then Wells would definitely ask for a mistrial, but it seems to me that Walton would instead put BOTH alternates back in (to get to 12) and make them start over. A mistrial would still not be granted. (Yes, they would have to start over (in effect losing the delays in deliberation) but I don’t see them taking that out on the prosecution. In fact, I think Wells would be very unhappy to see the two alternates added into the mix. That would give ZERO margin for more jury losses, natch.

And if he tried to appeal if the jury dropped down to eleven again he might not be on very good grounds with an Appellate Court since he had ALREADY WAIVED his right for a full 12-person panel.

I’m not sure that Well’s wants to appeal…he got a lot of stuff allowed in this trial by misleading Walton under the pretense that Libby would testify. I would think that the next judge would demand that Libby testify “front loaded” if he were to allow a Memory Defense.

perris @ 60

I want to make a point;

I heard russert on Imus this morning and you will not believe what he had the nerve to say

he said “all I said at the trial was that I didn’t remember my conversatin with libby”

now we all know that is NOT what he said, his sworn testimony is that he knows with no doubt he did not give the information to libby.

the whurlitzer has already begun it’s sick melody

You are absolutely right~ Russert never said such a thing to either the FBI, before the Grand Jury, or in his testimony before this TRIAL!

It’s amazing that Russert can claim he doesn’t even remember the conversation when he specifically said things about why Libby called him, that Libby started the conversation talking about Andrea Mitchell, and that he never took Libby’s phone call to be as a reporter…and finally, that if Libby had said anything in the course of his rant (which Russert remembered quite well)…that he would have remembered him saying something about Plame SINCE he had NOT heard anything about her to that point! And since he didn’t know who she was, or that Wilson was even married, he could NOT have told Libby.

But it seems as if Russert is playing the old Novak game…as long as your statements aren’t sworn testimony you can lie to the Public all you want!

the anti-thesis @ 88

Cozumel @ 77

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

I’m telling ya, she wanted OUT. She’s that snotty.

Edna Mode in a Warhol wig!

Yikes! If true then she was likely trying to use that to ARGUE with, and coerce other JURY MEMBERS. I think that a Neo-Con mole was just outed!

Miss P. @ 189

Just an innocent thought here but it’s kind of interesting that the curator was both: 1) sympathetic to the idea that people can have innocent distortions of their memory, and 2) the person who forgot her duties.

If the intact jury were aware that she made an innocent rule breakage in her very important duties and no replacement is made then the jury may perceive rule breakage as essentially harmless, forgivable. Point for Wells. Had a replacement been made, the jury may have perceived the rule breakage as less than harmless, problematic. Point for Fitz.

Could it be that she said something like “You know when we were talking about point “X” Friday…well, I went on the Internet and found out something about it…”

To which the other Juror said “WHOA! You did WHAT?” And immediately told the foreperson and the bailiff!

I think the fact that Walton went with Libby’s lawyers and not Fitz on not adding an alternate juror may mean that Walton thinks Libby will be convicted of something. This way, Libby doesn’t have an appealable issue here.

If there’s a mistrial, please, oh please, oh please schedule the next one so that jury selection starts on March 17th, and the trial takes place in Cook County Circuit Court.

I know, I know. It isn’t actually possible. But I have jury duty that day and god it would be fun to be part of.

the other thing that may be more apparent to us Cook County fans of the Fitz (the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois) is something that makes the McCarthy theory seem more likely.

In what I’d call Fitz’ previous most high-profile case, Governor Ryan of Illinois was convicted on several counts by a jury of 10. The alternates had already been used when the jury went into deliberation, and then 2 of the jurors were found to have made serious misrepresentations on their jury questionaires or in jury-qualification testimony.

The defense is appealing for a mistrial because of how it happened.

Fitz may be feeling particularly sensitive to the possibility of a mistrial due to loss of jurors here. He’d rather have a full set against the possibility that someone else is struck after deliberations begin, as in the Illinois case.

stingray @
190

Fwiw, the NYT has this:

Judge Walton said the problem juror’s exposure to outside information was the result of a misunderstanding rather than intentional on her part. But he said he had no choice but to dismiss her.

WaPo has this:

He (Walton) did not say what the juror had seen but characterized it as a misunderstanding.

Bloomberg:

The female juror came in contact with information about the case by accident, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said after discussing the situation with her, the jury foreperson and lawyers. The judge ruled that the juror, an art historian, couldn’t remain on the panel.

“She did have contact with information related to this case,” Walton said in court in Washington today. “It wasn’t intentional on her part, it was a misunderstanding of what I had been telling her throughout the trial.”
…
Walton said other jurors weren’t tainted by the information learned by the dismissed juror, which he didn’t describe. To avoid the potential for a mistrial, he has instructed the jury throughout the trial not to view or listen to any news or other reports about the case.

Fox:

After Walton agreed to dismiss the juror and continue with the 11-member jury, he instructed the remaining members to continue to avoid media contact.

“Let me just ask, before you go back, whether any of you have kept yourself isolated from any outside information in this case,” Walton asked.

When Walton asked for a show of hands, all the jurors raised their hands. He then said that he meant they should only raise their hands if they’d been exposed to outside information. The group laughed and they all put their hands down.

The judge then asked them to proceed with their deliberations.

Is this sorta like instant voir dire?
Helps speed things up, dontcha think?
Bob in HI

The MSM did bring out the big guns over the weekend to taint the jury. Somebody responded last time to my comment saying that if the jurors were tainted, then a mistrial could be declared. Although this is correct, I don’t think a mistrial (in the event of juror misconduct) is something that Fitz and Team would want.

Anyone out there who has tried a case or been a party in a case, can tell you that it is a grueling ordeal, no matter how strong a person you are and no matter what kind of attorney you are. In fact, the better attorneys I know go through a worse ordeal during trial than the ones who simply just slap stuff together and argue from the hip to a jury. There is a very good explanation for this. The better attorneys work harder in prep and during trial and actually care more about the case. I can only imagine what Fitz and team have gone through from the grand jury phase to now.

I am very confident that in the event of retrial, Fitz would put on a great case again. However, a retrial, in my opinion, is like a copy of an original document. It is fuzzier and less clear than the original document. In addition, I would hate to see Fitz have to go through the terrible ordeal of having to pick a jury again, put on the evidence again, and give Wells a chance to correct his mistakes the first time around. I think everyone will agree that Wells, after seeing Fitz hand, can only do better the second time around. Hell, he only has one way to go, up. He will know Fitz’s questions, his arguments, etc.

I hope a retrial does not occur, but if it appears for any reason that the jury will not finish deliberating by this Friday, I would hope that Walton sequesters the jury. This is extreme, but look at what happened already in one weekend. One juror was tainted and got kicked.

C’mon verdict!!!

TotRich @
53

LoudounLib @
3

Fitz!!

I find it hard to believe that after a month’s trial, and probable daily admonishments from the judge, this juror let herself be exposed to media reports. I suspect she was tired of being the outsider in the jury deliberations and intentionally exposed herself to the media reports so she could get out of further deliberations. Also, she would have had to self report the exposure to the Court. I look for a quick verdict after she is gone.

Totally agree. This juror must have wanted to be off the jury. Otherwise why would she report this? I hope somehow, someday, someone can explain how this juror exposed herself to media coverage. How is it possible she misunderstood Walton??? Very strange.

love tFrank Probst @
104

Cozumel @ 76

annx @ 69

WP has a story up ….

linktoWP

“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”

Idiot

Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose. Either way, she’s not someone you want on a jury. I don’t think a simple dismissal was appropriate, though. I think she should have been dismissed, and then Walton should have ordered her to sit in the corner off the courtroom until the rest of the jury came back with a verdict.

love this comment. Sit in the corner facing the wall and with a dunce hat on.

Is it just me or does Fitz look a bit tired. Maybe his conscience is getting to him.

My guess is that it will be a hung jury.

I believe that there is at least one or two jurors who will not be able to get beyond the reasonable doubt planted in their minds by the faulty notes, faulty memories and changed testimonies of multiple prosecution witnesses.

Jeff @
250

My guess is that it will be a hung jury.

I believe that there is at least one or two jurors who will not be able to get beyond the reasonable doubt planted in their minds by the faulty notes, faulty memories and changed testimonies of multiple prosecution witnesses.

Yeah, these two:

This juror worked as an administrative assistant at the White House during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. She holds two master’s degrees, and said she has friends who work at the U.S. Park Police, the Secret Service and the CIA.

This juror worked at The Washington Post, and said he has a friend who played over-40 football with Libby. He knows Walter Pincus, the national security reporter for the Post.