This just in:
The Libby jury delivered two notes containing questions when they were excused today. Both notes will be available on the public docket later today. Court will convene at 9 a.m. on Monday March 5 to address the notes. Thank you.
Nothing is showing up as yet on PACER, at least not that I am seeing. That's two notes. From the Libby jury.
And we'll be back with live coverage on Monday. You know what I know at the moment.
UPDATE: The text of the two notes is as follows. The first note:
As count I statement 3 (pages 63 & 64) do not contain quotes, are we supposed to evaluate the entire Libby transcripts (testimony) or would the court direct us to specific pages/lines.
Thank you.
And note 2:
We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jeralyn has the notes up at TalkLeft, so you can see them in their handwritten glory, and says she'll have some thoughts on them shortly.
Here's my quick take: You almost always get to a point where the jury has a question about reasonable doubt. This is because most jurors get to a point in their deliberations where their mind goes "holy crap! I may be putting another human being in jail. What if I'm wrong to do so? What if I let this guy go and he commits some other crime — how will I live with myself? Arrrgg, the pressure…I just want to do the right thing." Or, at least, I presume that is what jurors are thinking, because that's what I was thinking sometimes as a prosecutor. Even when you have a defendant that you are positive is guilty as sin — not just in this particular case but in a bunch of other cases, you still have that twinge of "is putting this person in a hole in prison appropriate." It's called having a conscience, and that makes lowering the hammer difficult.
So you almost always reach a point, right before the jury makes it's decisions, where they have questions about reasonable doubt.
Here's the thing about it, though: this isn't the sort of thing where, like when you were a kid, you can sit around and say to yourself "well, if Superman were to fly over the building, save Lois Lane and fight off Lavaman with one hand, would it be possible for him to strangle Lex Luthor with the other if Lois were holding onto his neck?" Reasonable doubt is just what it says — REASONABLE. Not beyond all doubt. Not beyond any doubt you could possibly conjure up in your brain that would never happen in a billion years. It has to be reasonable.
Judge Walton probably has some standard way that he deals with this particular question — because, as I said, most criminal juries get to it eventually — and we'll learn what that is on Monday.
The question regarding whether a certain thing was within quotes or outside of quotes? I'm going to hazard a guess that one of the Ph.D.'s on the jury has headed into the weeds. (Not to say that lawyers aren't perfectly capable of weediness, too, mind you, but that seems like such an academia construct, doesn't it? Maybe it's just me, on a Friday afternoon with a tired mind…) And that, come Monday, their heads will have cleared and they will all realize that they are thinking to much about minutiae. And I'm wondering if Judge Walton's response might be to sequester them come Monday, to speed that along a bit.
Those are my thoughts. What do you guys think?
Related posts:
- BREAKING: Cheney FBI Interview Notes Released
- Torture: How a Review Gets to Grand Jury in Five Days or Less
- CIA Responds To David Obey: ‘These Are Notes, Memos, And Recollections, Not Transcripts And Recordings’
- Some Notes from the Job Front of the War on Prosperity
- Mikva Spins Fitzgerald’s Spinning Lincoln Right Back
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Hello?
I will not say “FITZ!” because I feel that should be reserved for regulars, but . . .
Oh, my. This makes me a little nervous about the jury.
Ratz!!!
A zed? Or Fitz?
Definitely ReddHedd.
And I still say Kim Basinger as Valerie Plame.
note 1: We need more cookies!
note 2: …milk too.
Those rat bastards. They teese us with two notes and then make us wait to see them.
Pondering these two notes will certainly seem like Monday morning will never come. *g*
It is my secret hope that the Jury has already made up their minds, and they are deliberately waiting til Monday to present the verdict in order to prevent the MSM from burying Libby’s conviction in the Friday file dump…
That’s it! I’m off for a long hot bath- with bubbles. And no, you can’t come!
Talk about a cliffhanger! It’s gonna be a looooong weekend.
They are about the definition of “reasonable doubt” and something undefined as yet about count 1. See Court TV’s 3:07 update.
Just when I thought it was safe to go out!
I’m back at chez egr. All is well.
Albatross @ 8
Yeah, they’re telling the judge they’re close to wrapping up and will be done on Monday.
And they want chocolate chip cookies.
That’s what I think.
First note: the jury has reached a verdict.
Second note: please call Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller so they won’t miss the story.
Christy,
Let’s not be sticking those pencils in the ceiling please.
Charlese Theron as Valerie. But who for Joe? Clooney is the only one that comes to mind.
The jury notes: http://blog.courttv.com/inside/files/notes.pdf
EPU’d from annx
Note 1: What’s the definition of “treason”?
Note 2: Can we say “really, really” before guilty?
I really don’t think the jury gives a rats ass about any “news dumps”, but what do I know.
This is so weird. I had to go out of town Tuesday, just got back last night, had to rely on newspapers and the occasional CNN hit in airports. I thought for sure I’d miss the big announcement and have to rely on MSM instead of my friends here at FDL. I just hope the jury HAS been sucked into the case and IS working it through bit by bit like Jane suggests.
NOTE #2: We would like clarification of the term “reasonable doubt”. Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They need more PostIt Notes and masking tape, and instructions on how to dress to tell someone he’s GuiltyGuiltyGuiltyGuilty?
(Actually, I think they want some words defined, but that isn’t funny.)
They are asking about “reasonable doubt” now – after 7 days of deliberating??
It’s the only question they have left.
ptrig @ 16
Quick, is there a lawyer in the house!
Note 1 looks encouraging. Note 2 much less so.
What does this mean? *tearing hair out*
NOTE #1: As count 1 statement 3 (pages 63 & 64) do not contain quotes, are we supposed to evaluate the Libbry transcripts (testimony) or would the court direct us to specific pages/lines.
ptrig @
18
:blink:
Wasn’t reasonable doubt explained to them?
Actually, I’d rather do anything than contemplate the notes at this point. I’m afraid I’m starting to panic. The jury is not even allowed to reflect on whether Valerie was covert, and the only charges being considered are whether Libby lied, so why would they be wondering around in the deep weeds? I don’t get what’s taking so long, and I don’t think it’s a good sign. I’ve always heard that the longer the jury takes, the better it is for the accused. But we can’t even say that’s so in this case. WTF! I guess the right philosophy is, “It is what it is. Can’t change it or do anything about it, but wait.”
note 2:
“We would like clarification of the term ‘reasonable doubt’. Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Re: notes
Oh, shit.
Fitz! Egads! Two Notes!
obsessed @ 21
Um, no. IANAL, but it sounds like there’s a holdout on the jury.
Hickory Dickory Docket
The jury: “It’s in the pocket.”
The clock struck one,
The jury’s soon done
Hickory Dickory Docket.
Great sign for Team Fitz in jury note #2. It appears as if they are looking to get out from under someone’s mistaken belief that “beyond a reasonable doubt” has the same reading as “beyond all doubt”. (Common juror error in my experience.)
Also, Marcy or Christy– Due to slightly careless redaction it appears from the jury note as if the foreperson of the jury signs their first name with a capital “B”. Any clue as to who he/she might now be?
EPU’d from music thread:
Dictionary? Definition of reasonable doubt? These jurors are supposed to be well-educated!
bdu @ 29
Ok, so I bet I’m the only one that this makes no damn sense to, right?
bdu @ 30
(Rhetorical question here)
Are you kidding me!?!?!?
Jane gets the weekend to coordinate verdict outfits for the week,. Woohoo.
Also, I just wanted to say I got away from the computer today and I went outside. I saw birds, people not screen names, and real traffic, not server kind.
It was quite refreshing.
I can’t take it anymore. Back to casting the movie.
kml @ 28
I think that “reasonable doubt” has to be the most difficult concept to understand in American law. There’s no way to explain it: you know it when you see it.
On note 2: I hope the judge tells them ‘no’. Because requiring that would seem to me to be ‘beyond all doubt’ rather than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. IANAL, though.
*Sigh*.
Argh. Just when I was about to get useful things done, the refresh tango resumes.
Squonk @ 35
Yes, probably the reason for the dictionary request yesterday. But your guess is to my eye the most likely.
— Having CATHIE MARTIN, in her testimony, say the news dump on Friday was the best dodge. Monday being a late pick up — I believe the JURY understands that. To put salt on it — they will hand their verdicts in on MONDAY. // Good for them. //
Does anyone have a quick link to pages 63 and 64 that are referred to in the first note?
And I still say Kim Basinger is too old for Valerie.
Squonk @ 34
Shush up now.
““We would like clarification of the term ‘reasonable doubt’. Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Pat’s instruction:
No. The standard you’ve brought up is the not humanly possible standard. Which is much higher than the reasonable standard.
(I feel I must add, IANAL, and me no sleepy at Holiday Inn either)
raven @ 36
IANAL, but my read is that they’re asking if, in order to meet the standard of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution had to prove that there’s no conceivable way Libby would forget these events.
Pat_AlexVA @ 37
See! I said it is a problem that we demand that the least informed of citizens sit on juries and decide these things. SOMEBODY is both stoopid and stubborn.
The problem is the Judge will almost certainly say you “MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS”, meaning the confusion will probably not be resolved by the judge.
Arrgghh. Waiting for Christy’s quick take ….
Breathe. In. Out. In. Out.
Biodun @ 47
Valerie’s not even gay
There’s books out there for genealogists that discusses things like evidence and doubt, for when your documentation or your evidence is a little thin. (The courthouse burned down; the family left town between censuses and you can’t find the deed to the land when they sold it; the minister took the church records with him when he retired ….) Hobbies can be very useful.
Richard S. Lackey, Cite Your Sources (University Press of Mississippi, 1980)
Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence: Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing. Co., 1997)
I still maintain Russerts testimony nailed Scooter to the wall wrt at least one guilty verdict.
Note #2 indicates to me that someone on the jury is sticking to a “not guilty” verdict right now based on an unreasonable reading of “reasonable doubt” — hence the rest of the jurors, who disagree, are hoping to clear it up once and for all.
alton @
4
valerie is definitely cooler than kim bassinger. maybe virginia madsen could play her though ……
Gary Spence on Larry King live stated a few weeks ago that a “reasonable doubt” was the doubt that would cause one to get up to make sure that an alarm clock was set correctely.
He was challenged by a younger memeber of the panel who quickly volunteered this was “old age”.
But I like Spence’s formulation as an item of homespun wisdom. If one is going to loose sleep over it, there may be a “reasonable doubt”.
How about Cate Blanchett as Valerie?
Christy–everyone loves you but this is cruel, to leave that cliff hanger. Jeralyn has done the same.
My wild ass guess. There is one hold out who does not understand reasonable doubt. That’s why they wanted the dictionary.
And I’m betting the holdout said, if the judge says “x” than OK?
The first note, though, is intrigueing.
Remember PatFitz’s rebuttal, he said don’t rely on just one statement, look at all the cumulative statements and documents.
If it were me, I would fight till my last breath to get the re-instruction that I wanted.
Marlowe @ 55
That is my non-lawyer take too. And the judge’s instructions back will have to be clear. He should point to when he said the prosecution does not have to prove ‘beyond a scientific certainty’. That should clear it up.
You know, the casting thread is still live, way into EPU. I think someone (Celtic Music?) is aiming for 500.
Marlowe @ 55
Not a bad reading especially with the superlative “not humanly possible,” as if someone is exasperated with someone.
But WTF do I know.
Jane S. @ 59
I’m sorry. I should be patient.
attaturk @ 51
No, he will repeat his prior instruction and will probably add to it. I had a case once where the jury asked for clarification on the meaning of reasonable doubt and the instruction doubled in length and specificity
Has anyone posted the jury instructions anywhere online?
It would be interesting to read the instruction they are talking about in note 1.
sdf (Stu) @ 64
I took a lot of comfort from that phrasing as well.
looseheadprop @ 65
What do you think this means about where the jury is at or do you prefer not to speculate?
annx @ 61
What the defense will argue, and the most likely result in my experience will be the Judge responds with nothing more than YOU MUST RELY ON THE INSTRUCTIONS.
So they will have to haggle out the meaning amongst themselves over a topic that already has a definition in front of them.
looseheadprop ,
If you don’t mind,as a lawyer, what are your guts telling you ?
Send them more masking tape: they need to tie up the holdout. Or explain to them with the tape as an emphatic device (Bang! Bang!) on the table. Preferably on the table. The juror’s head might do, though.
Marlowe @ 55
That’s my take, too.
Rich @ 67
Don’t know, but there is that Plame resources sight (soory can’t find the link) and Crooks and liars had a lot of stuff
lhp @ 68, I just took comfort from you taking comfort from that analysis.
The first note seems to indicate that they haven’t been working their way methodically count by count, as some have speculated — that is to say, if Count 1 is still not resolved. Or am I misreading it?
Jane S. @ 69
I already speculated at 61
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!
Notice the time change on the PDFs….they didn’t want an answer today, interesting.
Updated above all, with my thoughts. Refresh your page and you’ll see the update.
Bustednuckles @ 71
See 61
If you reload this post, you’ll find the quick take already here.
looseheadprop @ 65
We’ll see, we’re both trial lawyers obviously, but I’d be surprised if there’s any clarification intially. If so, it will be a victory for Fitz. More often than not in my experience they get told to rely on just the instructions.
Here is the section that Walton should re-read to them on reasonable doubt. It is very clear and should clear up the confusion …
“The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”
In a word … the answer to #2 is “NO”.
That double ‘not’ in the second jury note is hurting my head.
bdu @ 30
Wow. I’d love to see Pach’s take on the wording here, but it looks to me like the foreman is really frustrated with one or two people who are either not terribly bright but who make up for it by being stubborn (and didn’t listen to the judge’s instructions or multiple explanations from other jurors) or who are closet wingnuts and are pretending to be dumb in order to explain why they’re holding out.
I wonder if it’s a Pelican Brief but in reverse?
Thanks LHP, I skimmed the thread and missed it.
(munching on cheeseburger)
I just got back with lunch.
I hope the judge writes out his expanded “reasonable doubt” instruction on a large flip chart for them on Monday. With plenty of post-its attached.
Worth the wait Christy. I didn’t want to read Jeralyn (even though I respect her thinking) b/c of her defense bias!
Ugh, I hate dealing with people who are so rigid in their thinking that it flies against common sense. I feel sorry for the jury if indeed there is one holdout who is at the “humanly possible” level of intransigence.
Commenter over at TalkLeft suggests that defense will argue vigorously against the judge giving clarification for precisely that reason.
AAARGH.
Marlowe @ 55
Thank you for such a common sense reading of the note. You and lhp have talked me back off the ledge. *g*
I was hoping for some distraction this weekend while waiting for results from medical tests, and I seem to have gotten my wish.
Woodhall Hollow @ 77
This statement reminds me of the scene in The Magic Christian where the two boxers drop their gloves and begin to kiss. The announcer says “The crowd was sickened by the site of no blood!”
sdf (Stu) @ 90
Looking again at the question, there is though a good argument that can be made for Looseheaddrops position though.
Reasonable Doubt is certainly NOT equivalent to absolute certainty which seems to be what this question is asking.
Has anyone else seen anything about the Judge not being happy about the defense making certain claims in their opening (such as Irving taking the stand) and not following through with it?
I thought I saw an article stating he was putting in words for “historical” purposes…
Raced over here when I heard of the notes, and now I cant remember where I saw it..
Fairfax @ 41
Interesting. It seems like a simple concept to me.
well, I think Scooter better have jam in his pockets Monday, because he’s toast.
Christy,
Love the Superman, lavaman, lois lane anaolgy. Priceless!
I think if I’m Pat, I really want to stuggle to get the judge to remind them that it’s not one quote, it’s the cummulative effect of a bunch of quotes, and documents, and the timeline, and, and,and…
The good news here folks, is in both instances, the likely instruction really favors Team Fitz.
And smebody upthread mentioned this, I DO THINK they picked up on the Cathy Martin Friday afternoon news dump business. I think they are showing off how sophisticated they have become about these things.
Methinks our jurors have a wee bit of a sense of humor.
As of five minutes ago, Jeralyn still hadn’t posted her take on this. The comments are looking like these, though.
Jane S. @ 59
And Marcy, with her Fitz conversation.
What if we all donate funds with a .comeonalready! at the end of it?
annx @ 50
On the plus side, I remembered to breathe today!
Jerry Spence even. Sorry Jerry.
raven @ 93
707!Christy:
Reasonable, not beyond all doubt. Not beyond any doubt you can conjure up in your brain.
That’s clear as crystal. Yes, possibly one (or more) holdout(s) in the jury. They asked for the dictionary because they wanted to look up resonable perhaps?
Interesting. Some case, this.
…one of the Ph.D.’s on the jury has headed into the weeds. (Not to say that lawyers aren’t perfectly capable of weediness, too, mind you,…
someone’s gonna get his/her picture on the Weedies box.
sdf (Stu) @ 90
Commener is right. If I were Wells that is exactly what I would do. Hopefully PJF will argue even harder for an expaned explaination
holy heck. we are still debating count I??
I think I’m not cut out for this.
I also think that the perfect person for Valerie is Cybil Shepard, circa 1977.
P J Evans @ 99
Jeralyn is up now. She thinks there is a hold out on the jury (the mathemetician) who thinks prosec. hasn’t proved beyond “reasonable doubt” as someone above suggested.
JoyB @ 100
That was a painful wait and it probably wasn’t more than 4 minutes.
looseheadprop @ 98
Maybe they are so sophisticated and pissed at the media/OVP that they are making sure the verdict is delivered on a Monday.
:)
-Safi
Christy, thanks so much for the lucid analysis.
Therese Flanagan @ 84
If I’m reading it correctly, it means that one of the jurors is trying to hold out for “not guilty” because they think there’s at least a microscopic chance Libby could have forgotten talking to everyone and their brother about Plame, and claiming that .0000000001% chance that it could have happened means they can’t find him guilty.
I have faith that Judge Walton will gently and tactfully but thoroughly explain things to them.
punaise @ 105
hahahahahahahaha
Oh well, Monday will get here soon enough I suppose.
As much as I want to see Scooter get what I think he so justly deserves, I can wait.
I am still greatly disappointed that KKKarl hasn’t got his tit in a wringer.I was so primed for that,even though this whole thing has a long way to go I’m thinking.
And I am really,really hoping that after the Scooter phase of this gets some sort of ending that there will be more and more perps get sucked into the defense side of some serious legal charges for this disgraceful train wreck of events.
Jeralyn’s take is up, and echoes what is being suggested here:
Safi @ 110
I wonder if this means cheney has to keep flying around the world till then?
He’s become like the Flying Dutchman!
They should have chosen an English major over a mathematician.
grumble, grumble, grumble…
Extraordinary question. Especially at this point in the deliberation. The question and answer would apply to all charges. One would think that having seen a single episode of Perry Mason or Law & Order, the jury would be 90% there, even had they been asleep during Walton’s instructions.
This jury, with its laywer, PhD, etc., knows that it need not unanimously find that there be “no doubt”, which is how I read their question. I suspect that their question is designed to isolate a hold out; someone, in fact, arguing there be “no” rather than “no reasonable” doubt.
I think it clear that the government failed to prove that it was not humanly possible for Mr. Libby to have forgotten. That was not their task.
I think it did present overwhelming evidence that it was extraordinarily unlikely that someone with Mr. Libby’s accomplishments, relationships, authority, drive and motivation would have forgotten. From which anyone could conclude without reasonable doubt that he did not forget. To the contrary, they could conclude – again, without reasonable doubt – that it would have been to Mr. Libby’s extraordinary peril for him to have remembered. Erego, he lied, and is guilty as charged.
How could anyone believe it is reasonable for a lawyer to know something for a month, to act on that information for a month, but to forget it all completely for two days and hear it as if it was new information just two days after he last told someone else that information? How would a person with that poor a memory get a law degree or be given a job as an assistant to the VP?
In the world of mathematics, reasonable doubt = an absence of a certain proof. Or any doubt = reasonable doubt. A thing which can not exist when attempting to determine the state of another’s state of mind.
Okay, if anyone is holding out on the jury because they have a “humanly possible” understanding of reasonable doubt, then that means they are inches from a conviction on at least one count.
Either the Jury wants to be certain about the reasonable doubt standard before they issue the verdict, or they have one or more holdouts who don’t understand reasonable doubt.
The fact that they are asking this question means that their consensus is that Libby most likely lied. Only a “humanly possible” standard could save him. And the judge will not endorse this standard. At worst, he will tell them to continue to deliberate based on the instructions. At best, he will offer further clarifications. Either way, the “humanly possible” standard will not be endorsed. Which makes me hopeful.
Raw Story has a “developing” headline that suggest the judge has made some sort of statement,,,,,Gary @ 95
I’m encouraged by the ‘not humanly possible’ language in the note. They’re not finessing about 55% likely v 42% likely. They’re positioning it as impossible v all other situations.
So can we speculate that they want to look up the word “reasonable” in the dictionary? Or was that something else?
Reasonable doubt = commonsensical dubiousness.
Hope that clears it up.
OT – Gates presser on CNN re: Walter Reed. Warning: do not check CSPAN, you will be confronted with Coultergeist if you do. U have been warned.
greetings from rotovirus land…where the toilet is your best friend! Had to check in to see if there was any news, and to collect some love from the Firedogs. No martinis for me!
George Smiley @ 122
I thought it was in CNN international…..
Tucker giving jury tampering his best shot now on his program – Scooter Libby trial “op-ed”
All I know is that this is one hell of a way to start the weekend.
Marlowe @
55
I was thinking the same thing. I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like someone is saying, what if he couldn’t remember? And they want a more complete understanding of reasonable. Prosecution can’t prove a negative.
On the other hand, they may have entered the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” hall of mirrors with the all the details of evidence. Yikes.
Cheney’s been back in DC since Wednesday and has been giving speeches since then about Iraq, terrorists, and congressional Democrats.
There will be a meeting of MROSS Group tomorrow at noon. Please bring pens, typing paper, post-its, colored pencils, yellow pads, construction paper, paper clips, a stapler, and extra scotch tape. You can just never have enough.
Marcy-Rayne Office Supplies Support Group
And it really does seem that at very worst there are one or two holdouts, not more.
George Smiley @
124
Thanks, here is the story:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0302.html
Lets hope the jury does not see that….
egregious @ 101
You’re doing better than I!!! I just did the hard refresh and saw Christy’s take. Whew!
*xyz @ 121
This is the best I have felt since the first day of deliberations! I felt really good that day and got progresivley grumpier as deliberations dragged on. I feel very hopeful right now!
(((((((TwistedMartini)))))))
We love ya honey.
Get well soon.
xoxoxoxo
It looks to me like the potential for a hung jury is readily apparent. If one juror is holding out & playing semantics with “reasonable doubt,” the odds of persuading that juror to convict might be remote. Right now, I’d put the odds on a conviction at no better than 50/50.
Tucker is a snooty twerp. He annoys me to no end.
Biodun @ 132
Sorry, I have been working monster hours again and have not seen the TeeVee news in a couple days
poor Twisted Martini– feel better soon.
Biodun @ 140
Fact: Tucker’s dad is a head honcho on Libby’s defense fund.
Pass it on.
It is beginning to look like a runaway jury to me. They are finding ways to set Scooter free. Argh….
angie @ 118
or a history major.
Fitzgerald stressed that using Plame to discredit Wilson was important, that’s why Libby was angry and you don’t forget something that causes you anger.
obsessed @
22
I’m really impressed with the phrasing of these notes. It’s so well-considered… to my mind, another sign that the jury is concerned with fine detail, even nuance.
Jane S. @ 124
That’s what I was thinking it was.
mbbsdphil @ 119
This could be their “Perry Mason Moment”
It’s not whether anyone could have forgotten, but rather whether the evidence showed that Libby could not have reasonably forgotten when he testified to the grand jury and the FBI.
I’m picturing them drawing logic equations. The defense has got them wandering around in the trees ignoring the forest.
Therese Flanagan @
86
Me too. Why do people construct double negative sentences? Clearly, none of these highly educated jurors are English majors.
egregious @ 135
Don’t forget the highlighters. As many colors as you can find. I like the ‘OXO Data Checkers’ (labelled as being by Pentel): they’re non-fading and the colors are bright.
OK, who’s being cast as Lavaman and Lois Lane?
No, strike that. I’ll leave the casting for the other threads.
I throw my trial lawyer thoughts in with LHP and Attaturk: somewhere in between. I think Walton refers back to the instructions but tells them where to look. This jury will do what they did earlier this week. They will read them over, say thanks but no thanks, and we know what we have to do.
Jury will come in dressed on Monday morning. Watch it. They are keenly aware of their role in the bigger picture and what this could lead to. The fact that they’re not looking at Scooter still is strong evidence that they’re going to convict. Just a question on which counts.
It’s a little nerve-wracking that the jury goes out into the big world again for the weekend when you consider what happened last weekend. They’re a little squirrly judging from some of their other actions as described by our live bloggers. What are those cookies they’re feeding them, Alice B. Toklas brownies?
If the doubt ain’t reasonable, the dude is treasonable!
*xyz @ 145:
Thanks. But I knew that already: Richard Carlson.
egregious @
13
‘Grege, thank you for your service! And when I thought of you typing away in your black cashmere, emeralds and mid-height Louboutins with the little green stripe what I’d see in my mind’s eye was that old Disney cartoon of the professor’s secretary typing away. That’s the one where she gets abducted by Martians and eventually saves the Earth by giving the aliens exploding cigars. She is back at her typewriter by the time her boss concludes, “There is no life on Mars.”
Haha! That is assuming that Cheney would’ve been willing to get up there and lie through his teeth under oath!
I think the art person extrapolated the way the logic was going, was horrified at the length of the deliberations to come, and bailed on purpose, but in a way that looked ‘innocent’. I have no information, this is totally a guess.
Did the jury get the boilerplate federal “reasonable doubt” instruction? If so, here it is:
3.11 REASONABLE DOUBT
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not the mere possibility of innocence. A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.
Casting thread watch:
Now into the low 400s. They might make 500 yet. At least before Monday AM.
egregious @ 159
I agree, and said so in an earlier comment. She was like, I am so not into spending several more weeks of my life with this bunch!
Marlowe @
55
I’m not so sure. Although it’s possible that some jurors have a death grip on a “not guilty” verdict for this charge, it’s equally likely that they’re mired in the fog between Guilty and Not Guilty. If they’re
anal-retentiverather process-oriented, they may not feel they’ve “proven” a guilty verdict yet. Given the nature of question one, I think that’s a definite possibility. It could be that sleeping on it over the weekend will clear a few heads.Anyone wonder if that “we know what we have to do” was the jury resigning itself to reviewing most if not all of the GJ testimony?
I need a drink.
When I served on a jury, we asked a similar reasonable doubt question, hoping the judge would refresh the memory (and the intelligence) of a holdout who kept repeating, “there’s always doubt” when pressed on why he was holding out for acquittal. Sorry to say, the judge only repeated his previous instruction. Our holdout, who was richly enjoying the focused attention of the eleven jurors, would not give in. We hung.
dang. this is what happens when you have to work for a living. you miss all the good stuff that happens here at the lake!
Thanks, Christy!
But, you have summoned the evil that is Lavaman by evoking his name. Be afraid. Be very afraid!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-…..i?i=430519
Pat_AlexVA @ 166
Me too and I quit 13 years ago!
Interested Observer @ 151
If you go look at the pdf itself linkied to above, you can see that they actually forgot one of the nots and had to insert it after the fact.
I put a lot of stock in how “loose” and convivial the jury was reported to be on Thursday. My guess is they already have agreed to convicting on three or four counts. It’s possible the majority does not want to compromise and find Scooter “not-guilty” on even the “Cooper” count.
OT, Fitz’s read was that he wanted to add a twelfth juror when the art museum curator dropped out. That would have meant the jury would have had to restart their deliberations. That speaks volumes to me that Fitz feels that the more they deliberate, the stronger his case gets.
I would be absolutely shocked by a mistrial or not guilty on all counts.
Question 2 just illustrates how ignorant the average citizen/juror is. Given all the reports of trials in the media & treatments of the law in TV dramatizations, why isn’t intuitive or axiomatic that “preponderance of evidence” means that the evidence suffices to make the “deciders” more than 50% certain and “beyond a reasonable doubt” means the evidence supports a decision at the 90-95% confidence level?
Don’t most people make important discretionary decisions (ie., the important ones made not in crisis but with deliberation) in their lives–career choices, real estate purchases, medical care decisions–just above the threshold of “reasonable doubt” or when they just pass “beyond a reasonable doubt” ??
What is the problem here? I thought this jury was purported to be better than average in education!
PS–have made contribution to support FDL as this website is a great example of de Tocqueville’s remark that strength of American society is its volunteer associations
I’m sick of Tucket Carlson acting like he’s at arm’s length here.
Here’s a link to his dad’s role at team Libby.
http://www.scooterlibby.com/committee/?id=5
Here’s dan abrams email at msnbc.
dan.abrams@msnbc.com
For him to pontificate endlessly about scooters innocence without disclosing his familial ties is shameful.
Help put on some pressure, please.
What is crossed out in note #2, “Per couple”?
naschkatze @ 154
Just imagine what WaPo must have planned for this Saturday and Sunday editorials and op-eds!
HotFlash @ 159
LOL! I’m big on saving the planet hence the catchy work overseas. This trial, and the things that result from it, are in the same category.
Several people, including utter strangers, came up and said how great my shoes were.
Also several people came up and said, “You’re with…[whispering] THAT BLOG? I just wanted to you know that there are so many people who read you very carefully and support what you are doing. I am in profession X.” It got so that I could distinguish the shoe strangers from the Yay FDL people.
Interested Observer @ 152
If you look at the image of the actual note, one of the “not”s was an afterthought, they mis-wrote the sentence initially and realized that the extra “not” needed to be there to have the meaning they intended, and as such “arrowed” it into the document. This sort of thing appears to have happened several times in the note.
Note to self: If ever on a jury of this magnitude, create a rough draft of any notes being sent out before writing it on the official form.
naschkatze @ 154
I fully expect the
hatetalk radio merchants to say exactly that, for many long months to come.obsessed @
27
Betcha one juror has taken in into his/her head that something really absurd has to be considered. Perhaps going through the entire transcript for every count or something. The others are doing this because s/he has dug her heels in and won’t listen to them.
Jane S. @ 173
“For example”
Obviously, someone (the foremen?) clarified the jurrors question before it went to the judge.
TiredFed @ 168
TiredFed, your moonlighting at that other job is interfering with your work here. But we forgive you :)
I am a fan of hope…We as a people have suffered so much at the hands of these treasonous bastards that we need hope…as a nation we need hope.And justice
Jane S. @ 173
“For example.” They originally wrote “for example,” and then decided that “specifically” made better sense.
annx @
63
Marlowe @ 55
Actually, that is a very poor sentence: If the prosecution “does not have to prove beyond a scientific certainty”, it would appear that they do have to prove it to a scientific certainty. And that isn’t right either.
I hope he has a better way of putting it than that.
TeddySanFran @ 176
The two times written on Note #2 suggest the jury argued the definition of reasonable doubt for over 90 minutes. Would we still be here had they asked this question yesterday rather than requesting a dictionary?
Agreed. They should have been sequestered.
Urban Pirate @174: Just where, precisely, are you suggesting that Carlson “Tucket”?
Pat_AlexVA @ 165
I’ll drink to that! Quite literally, I’m going to dinner, and since there will be a designated driver, I just may drink liberally. You all carry on, and good luck. Personally, I can’t take anymore presently.
raven @ 168
Me too Raven — 5-27-83. Doobie?
twolf1 @ 128
Too bad I didn’t see this before I went over to C-SPAN to see if there was anything I wanted to stream. Got out of there really, really fast.
I would say there’s a reasonable chance and certainly humanly possible chance I’ll get off my tail and head to the courthouse Monday. Gettin the feelin there’s pressure on the dam scheduled to be released bright and early come Monday.
*xyz @
123
Inches. Or miles. Depending on whether the hold out(s) is open to instruction from the judge (and he gives it) or whether the holdout(s) have dug in and decided for good.
I too am hopeful – but I can see how the defense would be very happy at this turn. It’s solid evidence that there IS a holdout, which has always been their one best shot.
When I said man last time I left a comment here successfully, I meant woman.
Right, over at TalkLeft the speculation went on as it did here about what the juror’s were chewing over when they found it necessary to pass more notes to the judge. A more interesting question to me is what Judge Walton is likely to say to them, especially regarding the note about what is reasonable doubt. So, he may have a standard boilerplate prepared for such eventualities, but what might that be as a general rule? Can you provide a specific example or two of such a response?
What was averred over at TalkLeft was rather compelling, btw; a minority is casting doubt on the prosecution’s case wrt to some one or more counts. That suggests the possibility still exists for a mistrial.
It might also be interesting to explore what effect a typical response from a judge might have on the outcome of a trial.
sdf (Stu) @ 182
So putting on my tea leaves hat, they pinned the “hold out/(s)” down in how they defined reasonable doubt after failing to be able to look up the word “reasonable” in the dictionary to persuade them that it did not mean “not humanly possible”.
Jane S. @ 174
“For example.” later replaced by “Specifically,”.
My niece came home from junior high school yesterday with a homework assignment. Write a two page essay comparing an contrasting George Bush and Eminem. Anybody want to have a go?
Eminem “Without Me”
LINKBush “Worst Ever?”
LINKReasonable doubt is not readily susceptible to further definition other than to say that it is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly, and carefully considering all of the evidence, or lack of evidence. Of course, one person’s conclusion as to whether a doubt is reasonable may not necessarily be shared by other members of the jury. Jurors who favor a guilty verdict will urge jurors who disagree to use their common sense. The predictable response is, “But the prosecution has the burden of proving that Libby didn’t forget and how the hell do I know that he didn’t?”
This is where circumstantial evidence often wins the day for the prosecution (i.e., how can 9 people be wrong about the same thing?).
I hate to say it, but this question at this point suggests a disagreement regarding at least one of the counts. Could we be in for a sleepless weekend?
Should be quick on Mon. Walton: “Your second question…the answer is, no.” Guilty verdicts by noon.
Question 2 concerns me less that 1.
One often gets a request for greater clarification of reasonable doubt and the rhetorical nature of the question suggests that the foreman simply wants Judge Walton to reaffirm that it must be a doubt that would arise from reason, not speculation. Once that juror hears the judge (the nearest thing to God in any courtroom) reaffirm what the other jurors are saying, he or she will go along with a conviction.
Question 1 suggests that the jury is hopping around on the verdict form. Without looking at the indictment, I remember that count I is the obstruction charge. There, since the statement to the FBI wasn’t recorded, the obstructive language would be paraphrased, not quoted. If the obstruction count also alleges obstructive behavior before the GJ, the jury’s confusion is explicable. While one needn’t quote language from the GJ to prove obstruction, it would have been preferable. I believe perjury must be quoted in the indictment, although I’ve never had to research that point.
As I said in a much earlier comment, the only good thing about a bright jury for the defense is that they take reasonable doubt more seriously. Someone raised in an intellectual tradition will have an easier time saying: “On the other hand.”
Damn! I’ve invested all this time and now I’ll probably miss the verdict on Monday. I’ll have extremely limited time online,as we have a retreat Monday and Tuesday from work. May be able to check in at lunchtime or at the end of the day, but that’s it. I’ll be enroute to Ohio all morning in the car!
urban pirate @ 188
Um yeah, I’d say so.
It makes no sense to me why they weren’t in the first place. I get that jurors don’t like being on lockdown, but this is a fairly significant case.
TeddySanFran @ 167
That could be the case here, but consider that “personality” of this specific jury.
Is it likely that someone is holding out against the majority for attention?
I would say not, based on the “T-Shirt Incident”.
Remember, every single juror was susceptible enough to peer pressure to wear that dumb Valentines T-shirt.
My suspicion is that this susceptibility to peer pressure will prevent the jury from hanging.
I am, of course, an optimist, so take this with a grain of salt.
raven @
37
I’m guessing someone is saying, “Well, it’s *possible* he can’t remember those conversations. I could forget a lot of stuff if I were that busy.”
But isn’t this what the whole memory defense kerfuffle was about? Libby can’t really rely on a faulty memory if he doesn’t take the stand and explain himself. So, if *I* were foreman, I would say that Libby did not adequately defend himself to show that such a thing was possible. The prosecution introduced sufficient reasonable doubt but Libby didn’t vigorously refute that.
I don’t like it. Not all all.
WASHINGTON – Jurors asked for the definition of “reasonable doubt” Friday after completing a shortened, eighth day of deliberations Friday in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We would like clarification of the term ‘reasonable doubt,’” jurors wrote. “Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The note offered the first real glimpse into the deliberations and suggested jurors were discussing Libby’s memory. Prosecutors say he lied about conversations he had with reporters regarding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..leak_trial
Marlowe @ 57
IANAL, nor do I stay at Holiday Inn Express, but I have been on a long-deliberating jury.
If it’s a single juror, it’s unlikely that they will be able to hold out against the pressure of the remaining jurors and the judge’s reiteration of reasonable doubt. The pressure to come to a decision is incredible.
However, if there are two or three, they will reinforce each other. In that case, things are more iffy.
That said, I don’t think the note is the sort of note that you send when you have a significant minority holding out for acquital.
BC
Ann in AZ @ 119
Granted. But a jury is ‘12 good men and true’, doesn’t say anything about smart.
SharonRB @ 191
I love a community that views CSPAN. All my friends think I’m a nut when I tell them about the exciting subcommittee hearings that I’ve seen in the past week.
gotta say the notes are a bit unsettling. i thought they’d have resolved all those issues by now.
I see two possibilities:
A: One, maybe two of the jurors have trouble with understanding the instruction in that reasonable doubt does not mean “I can imagine a doubt”.
B: All of them are ready to convict and just need the judge to say: “It’s OK to feel bad about sending someone to jail, it is normal, you are not bad people if you do what the Law and Justice demand.”
retirin’ in five @ 191
Me too — 9-1-04. My drug of choice is a trip to the gym.
Jane S. @
175
Looks to me like “For example,”
I just read on Raw Story that CNN reported that Judge Walton made a comment that if Cheney had testified, Libby’s chances for acquittal would have been better. You have to take CNN with a big grain of salt, but can a judge make a comment about the outcome of a trial before a verdict has come in? Maybe it’s alright as long as the jury hasn’t heard it, or could it be grounds for a mistrial? Help me, you lawyers out there.
A.J. Greif @ 198
My husband is an attorney who teaches law now. And I always say to him–you are always playing devil’s advocate with me even when we are in complete agreement. I find it “madness” as Fitz would say. Sometimes I just want him to listen and agree.
naschkatze @ 214
We’ve been liveblogging this since Minute One. Was this anywhere in our reports? No? Well that’s enough for me. Anyone can spread rumors. Resist.
Remember: We’ve got Marcyvision, better than television.
lemmee see now … what have we consulted so far….
chicken entrails, tea leaves, magic 8 ball, handwriting, crossed numbers,
cookie preferences, attire … what does that leave us with which to conjecture?
There’s about a million ways to look at it, and the wonderful, insightful, creative things I’ve read here are very interesting. Yes, all of them are interesting. Yet the jury is not ready to reveal anything just yet.
So what to do? Chill. That’s all. So many have said, they’ll be done when they’re done. I’ve sat through a lot of long winded (church) sermons in my life, and if nothing else, It has brought me to an understanding (if not a tenuous grasp) of both patience and
eternity. But I know they will do the very best they can, and as far as the ourcome,
I’m onside with the common wishes expressed. In the meantime, chill and ..
” I’ve gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith
I gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith.”
—G. Michael
A huge TY to the entire FDL team; writers, techies, spouses, youngsters, pooches.
An absolutely tour-de-force of effort, commitment and more than a modicum of talent.
TYVM.
(now if I can give up some more coins for FDL for lent)
Tucker Carlson’s intro just now (1pm PST-MSNBC) laid out the “does nailing poor Scooter make you safer, and why isn’t the outing charge the issue, and why aren’t we prosecuting the real leaker?” rationale for nullification that the MSM is pushing. Why pick on Scooter? as if he has nothing to do with the Bush administration.
No GOP consistency in POV on the rule of law as during the Clinton wars, not yet. The culture of corruption, faced with the potential of real enforcement, could be on the brink of really freaking out.
Lots of things are piling up at once, the US attorneys, Plamegate, Griles will be indicted soon they say, Abramoff is still talking, Ney is in jail already. Wilson and Domenici just got busted for rules violations, at least in the court of public opinion. How much panic will accumulate in DC if Libby gets convicted?
naschkatze at 212 — I’ll have a lot more on Judge Walton’s opinion tomorrow. I’m hoping to have a big analytical piece on it for everyone — but I’m too tired today to do the parsing that I need to do because it is a long opinion. Look for it tomorrow afternoon, though.
Jane S. @ 213
Socratic! Socratic! Socratic!
George Smiley @ 124
could be in reference to a 48 page Walton decision that was just put up on PACER. I’m sure CHristy and Co. will have something on it once it’s digested (and we all get over these 2 frikkin notes!).
Mason @ 197
The problem with your explanation is that most reasonable people could still have doubts.
The key is that it’s the DOUBT that should be “reasonable” not the person. Therefore, a well-proven case would leave no doubts that are reasonable (possible, but not reasonable).
Oh, and fresh thready goodness, up and running.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 217
OT — Christy, I broke down after all these years and bought Coltrane “A Love Supreme” based on a couple comments you’ve made. Prepared that it won’t be an easy listen but worth the effort in the end.
Mojotroll #217–One shouldn’t socratic their wife; not a recipe for a healthy marriage!
Looks like this thing will be wrapped up early next week from the jury notes and Judge Walton’s memo.
It appears Walton thinks the case will be appealed which would mean that we have a guilty verdict on some counts.
Also for Walton to say Cheney could have helped Libby’s prospects for acquittal by taking the stand is a sly way of putting the onus on Cheney to come clean and say he ordered Libby to lie.
To me, note 2 is yer foreman trying to set a particular juror at ease on ‘reasonable doubt’ as opposed to ‘the vague possibility of doubt’. I don’t know whether Walton’s boilerplate will provide the focused answer that Juror X is after, but he’s come across as a good judge who knows how to nudge when appropriate.
Note 1 is ‘ohmygod, we’re all turning into Plameologists’.
But yeah, sequester them already.
Jane S. — Just do what I do to Mr. ReddHedd: “Stop cross-examining me and talk to me like I’m your client.” That seems to shift the perspective pretty quickly.
soyinkafan @ 218
I’m sure he mentioned that his Daddy is atop the defence fund. No?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 225
I love that one. I’ll give it a try! :)
Q: the answer to the question is so freakin obvious; why even ask it? A: because the holdout agreed to abide by the judges ruling.
the verdict: happy days are here again!
My favorite version of “A Love Supreme” is the guitar duet with Mahavishnu John McLaughlin and Carlos Santana on Love Devotion and Surrender.
The holdout(s) must be a hardcore repug and with them no such word (reasonable) exists. If verdicts have to be decided on absolute certainty, half the jails could be emptied. I just can’t imagine not understanding reasonable doubt.
Jane S. @ 110
Oh, Gawd. It’s not axiomatic proof, mate.
More thots on the judge’s memo [I didn’t realize at first we were talking about a memo, rather about something said in the courtroom.]
Two and a half months were taken up with CIPA hearings. These involved numerous and painstaking rewrites and redactions of classified information. The level of disclosure was predicated on the assumption, presented by defense, that Libby would testify.
Suddenly, woops, he changed his mind which is totally his legal right to do so. But that 2.5 months of work…now wasted effort.
egregious @ 182
there’s always lunch ;)
Jane S. @ 225
Perhaps. But my litigator wife of 11 years and I used to play a game called twenty deposition questions. Answers were yes/no or some long-winded speaking objection intended to shake the train of thought of the questioner. Yeah, it was probably as lame as it sounds. But, we were young and in law.
chady @ 233
Oh, I think that’s a bit harsh. There’s understanding it, and understanding it in a jury room — in this jury room, with this amount of public interest. It’s like knowing the answers-as-questions when watching Jeopardy isn’t the same as being Ken Jennings.
I do wonder if Mr Mathmo is busily assembling confidence intervals in his head.
egregious @ 161
That’s what I thought too. I feel she had to get out of that situation one way or another preferbly in a way that would save face. Too restrictive of an environment for most people blessed as artists. The mathematician and analyticals on the jury were probably making her crazy!
The jury’s question makes me worry for the entire set of counts alleged against Libby.
Plenty of us here dreaded hearing that the jury needed a dictionary (especially if it was to look up the words “reasonable” and “doubt”). Correct me if I am wrong but the Enron jury did not ask their respective judge for a definition of reasonable doubt. I don’t think many will disagree that logistically, that was a much more complex case.
This is ridiculous. I respectfully disagree that the reason that the jury is asking these questions because they are feeling the weight of their verdict on Libby’s life. My take on it is that Wells actually got to at least one juror.
The reason I say that is because the jury did not just ask to hear a definition of reasonable doubt. Rather, they also asked whether Fitz needed to prove that it was impossible for Libby to not recollect something in order to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is troublesome because it is my understanding that Libby is alleging misrecollection as to ALL counts, not just one or two.
I think that the jury is definitely ready to give a ruling next week, but it is starting to feel like it may not be what we are hoping for.
“Reasonable doubt” (as someone said earlier, does not mean “beyond all doubt.” There CAN be some doubt, but it has to be based on the facts of the case (not just a gut feeling – that kind of doubt, to me, is not “reasonable”)
In any event, I think that Judge Walton should have sequestered the jury because now, they are all going to go home and try to find a definition of reasonable doubt. AND YOU CAN BET ALL THE TALKING HEAD SHOWS (Toensing) WILL BE GIVING THEIR SPIN ON THE MEANING OF “REASONABLE DOUBT”
There is so much danger that this case could unravel in my opinion. Hope I am wrong
Jeralyn’s right, I think, re: note 2 — the tone is borderline exasperated, as if dealing with someone who won’t accept the answer ‘until I hear it from the judge’.
Word. And the WaPo’s op-ed page for Sunday has been cleared for Byron York on ‘what’s reasonable’, and Vickie T on ‘doubt in a nutshell’. Look for those words in the Sunday papers.
Let’s sequester the WH while we’re at it.
Thanks, Christy, I’ll be looking for it.
It’s not one event, but nine, that Libby supposedly forgot. The jury note referred to one event having been forgotten.
How much do you want to bet that this Sunday’s “Outlook” section in the WaPo will feature another piece by Victoria Toensing—one that COMPLETELY COINCIDENTALLY addresses the question of reasonable doubt and explains that it refers to any hairlike filament of uncertainty that could conceivably exonerate a defendant.
chady @
233
Still. it’s encouraging that they wore the shirts together, were all fun and games yesterday in the courtroom, didn’t look at Scoots, and have given no indication that there’s going be a showdown. There’s likely a person or two that are a little slower on the uptake, and the rest of the jury is being patient with them, since they’re getting along so well (we think!). Once there’s clarification that Fitz did NOT have to prove with absolute, scientific, cut in stone certainty that Scoots lied, just beyond a resonable doubt, the holdout(s) will be at ease then. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
I don’t really have any experience here but I would think that the fact that to this point we have not heard anything from the jury about not being able to reach agreement is a good thing. The has not yet been any call for Walton to read the “try really hard, especially if your in the minority” instructions so it seems premature to be wringing hands. It seems very clear this is an extremely careful and detailed oriented jury and they have to clear one more thing off their list before wrapping up.
Nes @ 226
Your last statement is an oxymoron in Cheney’s mind. If Cheney says it, then it CAN’T be a lie. He speaks truth, then the rest of the world revolves around that truth. Doesn’t matter if the facts support the statements being uttered…
attaturk @
52
totally agree. I don’t think a judge is allowed to start going into his own take of the meaning of the term. they have to follow the instruction given regarding “reasonable doubt” and go from there. If they don’t figure it out and the jury can’t make up their minds, then we got a hung jury and Libby skates.
Wells is going to have a nice weekend.
Judge Walton should not have released the questions til the jury got back on Monday. Now the MSM will be spinning them all weekend on every channel.
urban pirate @ 174
And Carlson Sr. is Vice Chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies for which Andrew McCarthy is a senior fellow.
Have I read one too many fictional trial books …or is there a chance that a juror was ‘gotten to”?
This is, after all, a VERY big case for Bush & Company.
And all it would take would be one juror.
Naschkatze, comment 214, the alleged observation by Judge Walton is so incendiary that it is almost certainly RWM mischief. If it could be proven that it was constructed and published by a lawyer, that lawyer would not long keep his or her license to practice.
I seriously doubt that Judge Walton made the alleged comment. If he did, we might have to start over, and “Mr.” Walton would probably be taking a long vacation from the judiciary.
mc @ 40
or starting the screenplay
Oh boy, 245 comments to read, and I can’t wait. And that’s not sarcastic humour either.
I’m gonna dig in right now.
pseudonymous in nc @
229
No, I don’t believe he did. How odd.
none @ 250
Remember this is the same judge that shut down Sibel Edmonds’ case to protect the sanctity of secret information. That same year (or near it I believe) he redacted his entire financial disclosure form as if it was a big secret (the need for the form implies the need for disclosure).
Now he releases notes from a high profile jury in the midst of their deliberations. Sounds somewhat duplicitous.
If I was Libby, I’d be mighty concerned about the jury’s question concerning “reasonable doubt.” Sounds to me like the jury is thinking that Libby has indeed committed some of the crimes of which he is accused, but they aren’t sure that the government has proved the case “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Jwoods @ 248
it can’t be a lie because all truth has been declassified retroactively.
global yokel @ 258
I agree with you. However, if you consider the prosecution’s premise that you must look at the evidence in its entirety, rather than as discret disparate events, then I think you have to conclude that it is beyond reason that a guy charged with selling a war would forget details surrounding his most inflamatory critic of that moment.
Jwoods @ 257
There’s nothing in the notes that’s either classified or personal. Relax.
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 259
Exactly!
I’m not a lawyer, but to me the second note seems potentially positive for the prosecution, because clearly the answer is “no”. “absolute certainty” is not the threshhold of reasonable doubt. I would think it’s ” could he reasonably have forgotten nine converstaions with eight people, given the evidence presented. This seems that there might be one or two holdouts who are insisting on beyond any possible doubt, not resonable doubt. It seems that they’re having trouble with the third charge, but if they convict on the other four that’s a-okay with me. Let’s hope that those insisting on any possible doubt versus resonable doubt are comforted by the judge’s instructions and that they come back with a guilty verdict on Monday.
P J Evans @ 261
But the note itself provides ample ammunition for folks to attempt to spin opinion in a certain manner. Libby supporters will take this note, create a seriese of talking points, and send the talking heads to the Sunday morning shows to influence public opinion as best they can.
What exactly is this trial about anyway?
To Tucker Carlson, YES. We will be safer if Mr. Libby’s conviction reins in Mr. Cheney’s arrogant abuse of power.
We will not be safer if Mr. Cheney views an acquittal as a license to continue abusing that power and our civil rights. We will not be safer if he views it as a license to punish other govt whistleblowers, and to out or demean into powerlessness anyone in the intelligence community whose analysis proves him wrong, or proves that he lied us into war.
Sorry to have left you all hanging…I’ve put up my thoughts on both notes as well as uploaded the other documents: pages 63-64, the reasonable doubt instruction and Libby’s grand jury testimony about his call with Cooper.
One thing to keep in mind: Their first note relates only to the third statement of the obstruction count which is Libby’s g.j. testimony about his call with Matthew Cooper.
They have the grand jury testimony in paper form, not on computer like we do, so they can’t just search for Cooper like we can.
Question: Do you think both notes pertain to the obstruction count? It sounds to me like it does. The first note seems to be about Cooper while the reasonable doubt note seems to be about Russert — and whether Libby could have believed when talking to him that it was as if he were hearing this for the first time. Both the Russert and Cooper statements are in the obstruction count.
raven @
36
Confusing, it needs an editor. It works better if you put it this way:
Judge Walton, will you please tell this stupid, stubborn freaking idiot that Fitz did *not* have to prove that it is humanly impossible for someone to forget an event.
My e-mail to Tucker:
Hey Tucker?
Since your father is the head Scooter Libby’s defense fund, I would suggest you refrain from criticizing the prosecution on your t.v. show. Or, at the very least, disclose this fact to your listeners every time you feel the need to comment on the case.
If your father’s position has nothing to do with your widely disseminated opinions of Fitzgerald’s case, then you should have no problem telling your audience.
Thank you,
The humble thoughts of a former prosecutor/defense attorney in John McKays’ jurisdiction (I worked under one of his brothers) (and it’s good to see Mr. John’s goin to Congress…go get em John)
It seems to me that there’s one… or two hold outs. Perhaps the rest are ready to convict and they’re sending this out to pacify the oddball. There’s a mathematics PHd on the panel? so anything’s possible with the hyper-technical analysis.
I can’t recall what Fitz said in closing on the reasonable doubt instruction. I hope he said a lot cause it’s the most important instruction. As a prosecutor, I usually spent the most time on it to the jury. I usually joked “leave it to lawyers, they define the term “reasonable doubt” by repeating the word reasonable 7 times. Lawyeres like to talk don’t they? But that’s the point really, are we being reasonable?. You see in civil cases, on a preponderance burden of proof standard, it’s easy to convert it to math…just 50 percent right? But you can’t compare this burden to numbers. You certainly can’t compare it to 100 percent. You can compare it to some things but there’s one thing you can’t compare it to. It’s NOT about proof beyond all POSSIBLE doubt. Cause it’s not about the number 100. Hell, anything’s possible. I can come up with any argument or scenario to move this case below all humanly possible doubt. Only that’s not the rule. It’s impossible to meet that burden, so the folks that made up the rules made darn sure to define the burden of proof lower than that…or should I say more “reasonable” than that. So use your common sense, your instincts, and your understanding of human psychology. You don’t have to check yor common sense at the door when you put on the juror badge. That’s why we made up the jury system in the first place. We want the common sense of common folks to make the call. Yes, as the instruction says, it’s your duty to acquit if you have a reasonable doubt, but guess what it’s just as much your duty to convict, if the evidence overrides that. Now let apply some common sense to what we heard in this trial…….
mc @
40
Don’t forget to call my agent. It’ll give her an excuse to call me.
Dave at 267 — I did the same thing. *g*
I wonder to what extent the jury questions about reasonable doubt reveal an attempt by the jury, perhaps moreso unconsciously on their part, to read Walton. They are clearly feeling the pressure of the importance of their verdict and probably are looking for ‘tells’ by the judge as much as we look for tells in them.
Jeralyn,
Thanks for the link to the reasonable doubt instruction. To me, it seems like the question of resonable doubt is more general, but you’re the lawter, not me. Here’s a question for you: Will the lawyers have the opportunity to give input as to what the judge advises the jury “reasonable doubt” is, or does the judge decide on his own? If they get input I hope Fitz fights like Hell to get a good clarification.
Additionally, I imagine that the jury probably has a good idea of what they think, and short of something coming from Walton that suggests they are way off the compass, it won’t alter what they think. That said, Walton remaining neutral or keeping a distance in clarifying the meaning of ‘reasonable doubt’ would be fine by me.
So someone on the jury thinks that Fitz has to prove that it is humanly impossible for Libby to forget an event. This means that someone on the jury believes that 1) Russert is lying and that 2) Libby learned about Plame from Russert “as if it were knew.” Or at least someone on the jury is prepared to give that scenario the benefit of the doubt, as it were. Lord help us from stupid ass O’Reilly/Hannity/Rush dittoheads and their refusal to accept that God created corrupt Republicans.
Dave Mason @269: that would have worked well on THIS common citizen.
La Urracca @ 250
If it happens, you can bet it will be found out. Fitz is taking no prisoners.
FWIW, I don’t think it’s the mathemetician. They are painfully aware of the inelegant messiness of the real world.
Christy @ 219
Look forward to reading your analysis tomorrow.
Get some rest – you all are doing a fantastic job.
Keep it up!!!
Tim17 @
141
Ok, follow my logic here….it appears this jury gets along well, according to all reports and that they have the “team” mentality, now that curator-fashionista is off so…..it would be highly unlikely for one juror to stick to “not guilty” in the face of 10 other jurors firm in their belief of conviction. More likely the holdout is just trying to make absolutely sure in his/her “gut” and conscience that they understand the concept from the judge. Or so I hope!
I admit when I heard this come across the wire I was in the shower and nearly had a heart attack! As someone else said, isn’t reasonable doubt a concept that’s just second nature to an American (with a TV of course!)
I think people are focusing too much on “what is reasonable doubt” and not enough on “Specifically, did the government have to argue one particular point” – that it would have been humanly impossible to forget something.
They don’t seem to be caught up on “does it have to be beyond any doubt”. They’re asking something pretty narrow about whether the government had to make a specific argument.
Hardball,
Craig Crawford Rock
Jeesus, they’re great
urban pirate @
174
Just sent Abrams an email.
A minor question, if I may: if the jury is unable to return a unanimous decision, can the judge direct that he’ll accept a majority verdict?
the “not humanely possible” phrase sounds like it was written by someone who is a little annoyed with a person/people who are nervous about convicting because there might be a shadow of a chance Libby forgot. It sounds to me like one (or at most two people) are just a little gunshy – they believe he’s very likely guilty of multiple counts, but they want their conscience clear. I think the judge will, at minimum, have them re-read the definition of reasonable doubt, and the person/people who are handwringing will realize their hesitation is not reasonable.
To me, this strongly suggests that everyone is ready to convict, but one person is hemming & hawing just a little. I predict guilty verdicts on Monday afternoon, after they receive instructions from the judge.
(Kudos to whomever posted the exact worded legal definition of “reasonable doubt”. Reasonable does not equal “shadow of a doubt”).
My Mom got upset about the jury notes, so I swiftly hit the link to Firedoglake and read your commentary on “reasonable doubt” to her. My Mom is calm now.
valletta @280:
In their ordinary lives, these people know exactly what “reasonable doubt” means. But they’ve spent the last several weeks in Bizarro World, doing anything but leading their ordinary lives, so perhaps it’s not too surprising that someone needs to recalibrate their compass. It could be that all someone needs is some reassurance that they don’t have to rule out every possible contingency.
Porsupah @ 284
No.
I love it when folks we’ve never seen before “drive by” to tell us there is definitely a hung jury.
Remember folks, when you read posts like that, consider the source before you panic. It’s a bit like Ms. Toensing writing an article with a particular slant but not providing context for us.
Now, if Christy, lhp or other of our regular lawyers were certain this was bad news for Fitz, then I would sit up and take notice.
jury member: ‘oh okay I get it now. Now I have no reasonable doubt whatsover the fastidious little eel-clot is lying through his teeth.’
LandOfTheFree @ 283
What you said! I’m thinking that they’re planning on Walton clearing up reasonable doubt once and for all – and once they know the legal definition has nothing to do with “humanly possible” the verdict’s a done deal. Fingers crossed…
pwrlght @ 283
I just received an email saying that Abrams email address is no longer working.
OMG Chris with Bob Baer (sp) …devestating
If someone on the jury wants to know what ‘reasonable doubt’ means then it probably means they’ve seen the evidence and know it points to guilt, but they are also wondering whether he really truly could’ve forgotten. It’s reasonable to wonder about that and in the end the amount of evidence pointing one way or the other will NOT decide their verdict.
Scientists in Iowa have researched decision-making and determined it’s primarily an EMOTIONAL thing, not some mathematical summing up of evidence like “1 plus 2″. Evidence merely provides the basis for us to emotionally judge a situation. Yes, all our education taught us “1 plus 2 = 3″ and yes this is “1 plus 2″, so aha, I feel the answer should be “3″. We get an emotional release from connecting the dots of evidence –> result.
However, if some on the jury are using logic to point out pretty much incontrovertible sequences of action, then those who are holding out would have to be basing their position on strong opposing emotions.
It’s not easy to change one’s ‘mind’ when you’ve made it up at some point in the past. That’s one reason we tend to vote for the same political candidate (say, senator or rep.) over and over. Unless they do something smarmy which shows our earlier evaluation was wrong, then we see little reason to change our vote. If there’s a holdout who has warm feelings to the Bush admin., then they would have to be presented with pretty strong evidence that their original opinion was wrong or that they had not been able to base their original opinion on valid information since someone lied to them. If the fault were someone else’s they’d feel less bound to that earlier opinion.
I’d say it’s best for the jury members who want to find ‘guilty’ to point out to the holdout(s) that finding this ONE person ‘guilty’ is not finding the entire Bush admin. guilty of anything. It’s one person whom they have very likely never met before and of whom they have no knowledge.
I know there’s been a lot of talk about how the evidence will naturally lead to an indictment of V.P. Cheney, but that’s sheer speculation. The facts of this case and this one defendant are all that’s in play for this particular jury — and they should abide by the instructions Judge Walton gave them.
retirin’ in five @ 224
Coltrane was an improvisational genius, but (to my ear)his sound is exactly whatwhat a tenor saxophonist should not sound like. For that, try Lew Tabackin, or among the older set, Ben Webster and Coleman Hawkins.
Damiana @
87
Not waiting to hear Pach’s take, I’ll volunteer that there’s a third possibility: a person of any political affiliation who happens to be a literalist, or who has a penchant for being very precise (like a mathematician, as suggested over at Jeralyn’s blog). But I agree that the wording suggests that the Foreperson is TO’d at a holdout who is being stubborn.
Bob in HI
I think Dan Abrams’ e-mail is:
dabrams@msnbc.com
they’re stuck on count three? maybe guilty unanimity on the others?
Billionaire George Soros has quietly invested $62 million in the purchase of more than 2 million shares of Halliburton, the major government contractor criticized by his own Open Society Institute and the activist group he funds, MoveOn.org. The holdings were disclosed in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by Soros Fund Management LLC. Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton.
Jurors to juror(s):
Do you think he forgot? No.
Is it necessary to prove that it is not humanly possible for him not to recall in order to convict him? No.
So, do you think he forgot? No.
Guilty.
Two mantras:
Per @266, IF both notes are directed to the stance of the holdout or holdouts, THEN the issue is the most difficult count — indicating, I think, that the easier counts are not controversial. This is good.
Per about a dozen other posts, the second note on its own sounds exactly like it is built around an actual answer to the question “can you articulate why you are having trouble voting for a guilty verdict?” The foreperson gets to the bottom of the answer and says — “if the judge says that is not what ‘reasonable’ means, will that take care of your objection?” That’s not sure, but it does fit. This is also good.
Have a great weekend! (A snowy one if you’re in Madison.)
Tucker is on now and he did not open the second show with his Scooter comment.
Complaints to Abrams work?
Mabel’s Wig Shack @ 290
“Eel-clot” ……love it. Okay if I use that one?
My turn? I don’t think the mathematician is the doubter. Math/Science people can easily sort out that kind of stuff (myself being one of those). There is some wingnut holdout who is stuck on that. Others tried to reason with him/her, but doubter wouldn’t listen. They said – okay, one last time, let us go to the judge. The winger wanted “humanly possible” test. But the judge already said “no” in his first set of instructions, by saying “not mathematical or scientific certainty”. The other jurors probably showed that to the wingnut and the fact that juror still has that doubt bothers me. The judge understands all this better than us, and will gently nudge
that juror (without knowing who that is) into action and pry out a verdict.
Wells will say – you already gave them the instruction. Let them use the same and Fitz will argue for some clarification. Having read judge’s pronouncements on this blog, I tend to think he will definitely give some more guidance, rephrasing his original instruction. So fitz will win this round.
But there is a slight chance that he winger will not change mind. That’s where we are for the weekend. Yes, all the talking heads will use this to educate the jury and aim for nullification.
Weekend is going to be bad.
urban pirate @
109
If we’re going that route, I’ll nominate Jessica Lange, circa 1982
Bob in HI
Interested Observer @
153
…none of these highly educated jurors is an English major-s-.
So, we go back and read the instruction on “reasonable doubt”, then re-read the issue of memory (below), the jury goes back to deliberate for 10 minutes, and comes back with its guilty verdit.
——————————–
In considering Mr. Libby’s position and the testimony of any other witness whose memory is at issue, it is appropriate for you to take into account the following:
(1.) Your assessment, based on your life experiences, of the capacity of human beings to remember things they said and were told when asked to recall those matters at a later point in time;
(2.) The amount of time between when a person said or heard something and the impact the passage of time had on the person’s memory to accurately recall those
events;
(3.,) The circumstances that existed when the person was exposed to the events he or she is asked to recall;
(4.) The nature of the information or the event the person is called upon to remember;
(5.) The circumstances that existed when the person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(6.) The circumstances that existed
during the time between when the person was exposed to an event he or she is asked to recall and when that person was asked to recall the earlier event;
(7.) Your assessment of the memory capacity of the person whose memory is in question; and
(8.) Any evidence that was presented during this trial that shed light on any issues related to memory of the individuals you have to assess in this trial.
While I’m a little nervous about note #2, I think it’s hard to know just how resolute the apparent holdout(s) is (or are). Will a further instruction move him/her/them? It depends on whether they’re teetering, or dug in deep, and there’s not much way of knowing that. So, we just continue to wait.
But I am a little encouraged by note #1. This means that they are now dealing with the obstruction of justice count. Even though it is first in number it is the one count that relies on all of the false statements in the other four counts, so it probably was the one that they left until last to deal with — taking each of the other counts first to decide on the specific false statements. And, if they’d decided to acquit on all of them… there wouldn’t be much discussion about the obstruction of justice count, it seems to me. I think this suggests that they have already decided he’s guilty of at least one, probably several, quite possibly all four of the other counts and are now wrestling with the “big one.”
Bargain Countertenor @
295
I am a huge fan of Pharoah Sanders’s “The Creator Has a Master Plan”. It takes Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” and pushes it even further out there. Great groove.
Jwoods @
248
The Republicans took office back in 2000 so enchanted by the success of their own spin that they started to believe that they could create their own reality by fiat and clever marketing techniques. Sounds very Humpty-Dumpty-ish. Lewis Carroll has ably covered this ground before, and George Orwell more recently. I’m on my lunch hour (here in Hawaii) so I don’t have time to look up the sources. The Republicans are now finding out that history has a way of deflating the balloons of pretense.
Bob in HI
The is it humanly possible deal kind of sounds like DNA.
Is it possible that the DNA of a criminal whose DNA is matched to a crime scene via DNA isn’t actually that person. Sure, it could be 1 in 6 billion.
Do they convict on 1 in 6 billion odds every day of the week, they sure do.
For every conversation that Libby says he forgot, the odds of his lying go up.
To where forgetting 9 conversations may get down to that 1 in 6 billion chance that it’s possible.
I’ve been on two juries. Both times, the “reasonable doubt” definition came into question, and both times idiots on the jury believed it meant “beyond all doubt.”
I hate to say it, but what I took away from my experiences is that juries have a few smart people on ‘em if you’re lucky, but mostly they are made up of idiots.
Personally, I sense that the Judge’s response to this latest note (re the definition of “reasonable doubt”) is going to result in the judge giving them something similar to an Allen charge.
It’s obvious the question is meant to settle a dispute with recalcitrant jurors (whether in the minority or majority) regarding just what the government was required to prove.
I know that the jury hasn’t officially stated they can’t come to a conclusion, but I think that’s because a couple wise jurors know that the Judge giving them an Allen charge will set them straight.
Wonder how Libby will sleep this weekend?
Unclosed bold tag in #306 has been fixed. Reload if you are seeing all bold- it will be gone.
I’m surprised by the double negative in the second question. Double negatives always mess up my head. Rephrasing the question without those pesky dudes produces: To prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must the government present evidence that it is impossible for someone to forget an event?
The answer to my rephrased question is an obvious “No.”
The pertinent portion of the reasonable doubt instruction provides: “The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”
This question reminds me of the question earlier in the week regarding Count 3 that the jury withdrew with a never-mind note. I believe that there is a reasonable probability that we’ll see another never-mind note from the jury regarding this second question first thing Monday morning. I doubt that more than one or two jurors are responsible for this question.
Okay, now I can relax.
Gary @
97
Gary, there is a link to it on The Raw Story
http://www.therawstory.com/
I still think people are missing the point. It’s not about the definition of reasonable doubt. The important part starts, “Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence…”
No one is discussing what the importance might be of the prosecution not addressing this issue of how memory functions.
HotFlash @ 278
if the mathematician has a phD a class or two in probability was required… nine misrecollections
Is a Treason conviction of Dick too much to ask for?
I don’t think that the jury questions are “certainly” bad news….that being said, I still think it is not a good sign. Even if its just one juror who is holding the jury back from bringing in a guilty verdict, unfortunately, one juror is all Wells and Libby need.
OT a wee bit
Okay, the definitive actor to play Darth Cheney is Brian Cox from L.I.E. and Nuremberg — he nailed Reich Marshal Hermann Goering!!!!!
Bob Schacht @
305
I can top that: Lauren Bacall, circa 1946
njr @ 319
It’s not the mathematician. Beyond a reasonable doubt would translate into p
My paraphrase of the second note: “Mr Libby, are you absolutely certain that you don’t want to take a plea bargain here? The case against you is so strong that we’re now considering if it’s even humanly possible that you’re NOT guilty. Really? You’re SURE you don’t want to plead out? Tell you what, why don’t you sleep on it. Hell, take the whole weekend to think it over. We’ll get back to you on Monday.”
Hmm. My comment at 324 got eaten. Ah, well. Looks like I’m the only one still on this thread anyway.
Ditto on the idiot jurors statement from Lisa @ 312.
I had the same experience twice also. Most of the jurors had great common sense but there were a couple of holdouts that kept saying “but it could have happened that way”. These were very nice people but way too stooopid to be on a jury. ( or be allowed to vote for that matter).
FrankP—that’s interesting, since I see comments 323-326 are all from you.
Refresh your browser, not just comments, and see if it appears.
Thanks again, from the right, for your coverage of the trial. I enjoy reading it from both sides of the political spectrum.
I am going to bookmark your home page and start checking in regularly. Don’t know if I will be participating in the comment section, after reading them a few times, but I will be reading the articles. If the regular articles are as good as the Libby trial coverage, I will definitely be back often.
Still a Republican, but a regular. If I remember correctly, I originally found you from a link on a conservative blog that recommended the coverage of the trial. The fact that this blog has taken an incredible amount of time and effort to cover this issue and present it in a thoughtful manner says a lot. Good work deserves good traffic. People should be rewarded for their good work. That’s the republican in me.
I hope that others here will take a look around at some of the more reasonable blogs from the other side as well. There are some really great blogs out there that don’t get the attention they deserve because they don’t shout from the rooftops at every opportunity. It never hurts to hear the other side of the story.
Thanks again for your coverage of the trial.
Mimir @ 19
With you and several other FDL members ( we all know who they are ) we could put together a show that could give Comedy Central a run for the money. And I’m talking a really really really big pile of money.
I am worried. I think some people are putting too positive a spin on this. It sounds as though at least one of the jurors has bought the memory defence (implausible as it is: he forgot nine conversations in which Plame was mentioned, and remembered one in which Russert said it wasn’t, but Russert is lying). And that juror is saying “but the gov’t didn’t prove he couldn’t have forgotten”. This doesn’t sound like someone is saying “but they have to prove it beyond all doubt”. This sounds like someone is saying “the memory thing creates a doubt for me” and the others are saying, no, the gov’t proved that it shouldn’t be.
LBrowne, I admire your restraint. :)
I don’t understand how you as a prosecutor could prosecute someone who you had a reasonable doubt committed a crime. As a prosecutor myself for many years, I did not prosecute anyone until I was absolutely satisfied the person committed the crime beyond all doubt. Not that I was always able to convince a jury of that fact but personally I never had a doubt for I believed if I had a doubt in the persons guilt I should not hver been prosecuting him. (or her).
The hold-out(s) could be:
1) an honest juror merely desiring a clear conscience (as mentioned in so many comments), or
2) dim-witted, slow to get it, without the authority of the judge explaining it, or
3) passive-aggressive and simply enjoying all the attention (but will eventually come around), or
4) authoritarian follower(s) a la Altemeyer and imagining him/herself the noble hero alone against the rabble, or
5) a vicious wingnut relishing a historical role (which would be the worst case scenario)
And I agree that Question #2 reads like its writer is annoyed; it even has a hint of sarcasm as if to say, “look how stupid this is!”
Having served on maybe a dozen juries over the last 30 years, my 2c is that Note #2 could simply be one or two jurors who are almost there, but need to be “courted” just a little more…by insisting on the court machinery to cater to them just a little. “I’m inclined to vote your way, but first I need my ‘humanly possible’ objection dealt with by His Honor Himself.”
I’ve seen it. I could be wrong here, of course, but sometimes in deliberations the notion of “face” (as in, “saving face”) takes a little more prominence than it maybe ought to.
It’s easily dealt with, however, and I’m hoping this is just a trivial little exercise for a couple of holdouts that will speed a verdict ultimately.
JRFord, at 329, any suggestions of blogs worth checking out?
This jury is on Count I and arguing about the reasonable doubt instruction? The operative words of the reasonable doubt instruction are “[if] you are not firmly convinced, you have a reasonable doubt. . . ” One or more jurors are not “firmly convinced”. The foreman may be setting up a straw question for the judge to knock down by trying to define the word reasonable (hence the request for a dictionary), which someone aptly pointed out appears seven times in the instruction. “Firmly convinced” means what your gut tells you.
The time to put Post It notes on the easel board is passed. If they are arguing about reasonable doubt on Count I, this jury will hang or acquit.
I have read that in this trial the instruction to the jury from the judge is very long, over 100 pages. I have served on two juries (not in Federal Court) where the judges’ instructions to the juries were much briefer. In the first case the instruction was three pages long, each page consisting of one sentence which the jury was to find true or false; in the second case the instruction was one page with one sentence which the jury was to find true or false. Is the length of the jury instructions for this trial unusual, and could its length and complication be partly responsible for the extended deliberation?
Bob Schacht @ 310
very well put Bob. Fortunately in this country at least, truth as a way of prevailing…
…let’s hope our society can retain this characteristic.
pai @
273
Pai, the Judge will give both sides a chance to say how they think he should respond. Then he will make up his own mind.
“It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt, for it is rarely possible to prove anything to an absolute certainty. Rather, the test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be proof of such a convincing character that, after consideration, you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in your important affairs. A defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture.”
The foregoing is from the Alaska pattern jury instruction and it is typical of the many state pattern jury instructions that address the meaning of reasonable doubt. The Federal Pattern Jury Instructions, at least in the 9th circuit do not address the meaning of reasonable doubt.
Visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far …
“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”
Maggie @
332
Why, thank you. I bought this strait jacket just for the trial and let me tell you, it was hell finding one in pink.
I doubt it’s a math/hard science PhD who’s the hold-out. I don’t think it would be anyone in the social sciences or liberal arts either. We too deal with lots of conflicting data. And literary critics are very good at parsing out the spoken and written word — it’s called deconstruction.
My guess is, the bloodyminded juror is in business, maybe has an MBA, or possibly a statistician or an engineer.
Frank Probst @
323
Frank Probst @
323
Yes!!! A brilliant suggestion. Lauren Bacall is perfect!
TimTheEnglishMajor @ 306
I think the wingnut holdout didn’t approve of the first draft and made the author of the note include the double “not” and the word “specifically” before she/he approved the note to be sent to the judge.
rxbus @ 317
Judge Waltons 48 page “Memorandum Opinion” filed with the court and dated March 2, 2007 is here in pdf format.
http://www.rawstory.com/images…..randum.pdf
Bush took office by a count of what, 6 to 3 or 5 to 4.
They passed some rather amazing legislation on the back of 9/11, an event carried out by 19 individuals.
Now, they can hold that power with a minority in the Senate which can filibuster, despite their effort to break filibusters when they were in the majority.
Now, we wonder if a minority of 1 sole juror will hold the vast majority at bay to maintain the Bush dictatorship.
Makes ya wonder how this could play in a movie, eh?
Here is a link to the definition of “reasonable doubt” reportedly given to the jury.
http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyT…..edoubt.pdf
I suspect that Walton will review this statement with the jury on Monday … and not add much more.
In other words, the Prosecution has proven that only a person with a currently undiagnosed form of selective amnesia that allows thyem to recall trivial details of conversations but not the most important bits, and to retain that for a month, only to forget about it just before speaking to a reporter, then recalling it abnd attributing it falsely to that reporter (Russert).
Well, there might be such an undiagnosed form of amnesia out there…and the Prosecution has not proved beyond all doubt that there isn’t such a disease, nor that Libby might have it.
But that’s not REASONABLE…it’s speculative and not based on any evidence that the Defense brought forward.
Basically they have to assess whether it’s REASONABLE to think that Libby forgot, given the facts presented in the case.
Bargain Countertenor @
207
In addition, once Judge Walton at least clarifies the second part of the question….it will likely compel the holdout to swing over. If THAT was thie argument, and it was answered in the negative, then they have no rationale.
The second half of the query can only be answered in the negative…the Prosecution need not show that something “was not humanly possible” (and that’s likely an impossibility in any case). How can they demonstrate that Libby “didn’t forget”…all they can do is ask the jury to look at the evidence and consider if a “person acting reasonably” would forget. That means would a reasonable (or normal) person forget given the evidence that he repeatedly used the information.
Of course, Libby might be pathological…but the jury can’t consider that as it wasn’t placed inevidence by the Defense. In fact, if anything, it appears that, from the evidence, that he is a pathological liar.
soyinkafan @
218
I’m sure that nailing Libby makes covert intelligence agents feel safer…given that Carlson, Toensing and other myrmidons of the right seem to thing that one actually has to reveal the covert operations and endanger all of those involved in them in order to prosecute someone who leaks out someone involved in them.
Libby lied…that blocked and obscured Fitz’s investigation as to who was ultimately responsible. Fitz may very well have indictments ready for Armitage (who appears to have at least lied to him about Woodward, which would be a violation of any immunity agreement if he did). But he may have obtained from Armitage the SOURCE of Armitage’s info about Plame, but is keeping it under wraps. The fact that he went after Libby indicates that the source was either Libby, or ultimately, Cheney…although it could be Bolton.
And
Tucker should be aware that Fitz has requested that the CIPA wavers on access to classified information continue after this trial so that he may use it for further Grand Juries and trials.Neo-Cons should continue to quaver in their well-filled “Adult Pampers”.
Hmmmm, I wonder if the juror holding out is a creationist or evolutionist?
“The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”
If a creationist, the juror was probably thinking, “Hah, Fitz really lost me there with that mathematical and scientific certainty crap. Everyone knows God created everything in seven days 6,500 years ago, and that all science and math are just theories espoused by unbelievers who are not privy to the innermost secrets of God as I and the members of my orthodox religion are.”
I disagree with the comment that it’s a “great sign” for Fitz. BUt you never know. First, I don’t really understand the note. I imagine it’s hard if you have 11 people and several of them have a question to get it worded in a way that satisfies all of them. there’s give and take on the wording and tne result is — tis kind of crap. What I find alarming, though, is that for all we FDLers have been praising these folks for being so methodical and a great bunch, this is not a good question. I know, I know, “reasonable doubt” is dificult to define and understand. But Walton almost certainly answered this in his charge. He almost certainly said not only what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, nut what it is not – and absolute certainty is not required. Should he just re-read that portion of the charge and tweak it a little to fit the question.
The other (first) note I don’t get, but I’m not happy. Jesus, I’m not happy about anything anymore. #!!!@@@@@!!!@ If they’re taking these in order and after more than a week they’re up to Count I, we got a long way to go, no ? Did I say I’m not pleased?
I just read my post. Damn, I gotta use that spell check.
Jack Black playing Matthew Cooper is like Picasso rendering Ronald Reagan’s cocktail-napkin doodlings.
But boy! whadda sensa humour that Cooper’s got! See, Jack Black would play him–in a movie!
He could go on Letterman–when–as reported here & in WashPost–he’s not following Karl Rove’s instructions, refusing Fitz’s call to duty, withholding stories or reporting them falsely, and following precisely the same pattern as Judith Iscariot Miller.
But hey, bonding with Matt Cooper the way Scooter Libby bonded with Judith Miller, it makes him a good guy. It’s ok–because that’s the model all the kewl kidz use.
And censorship? It’s your friend, as long as it eliminates uncomfortable facts and voices.
obsessed @ 22
Since the answer from Walton on Monday will be NO, it does appear that they will find him guilty.
Frank Probst @
325
Fascinating interpretation. Here’s what the NYTime said about the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt:
So, they had the instruction they needed. The note does seem gratuitous, i.e., for the benefit of the defense team.
Although Kim Bassinger has plenty of the quirky blonde quality to pull off Valerie, I do think younger is better for this. I’m thinking Courtney Love. She has that “unknowable” quality, the tragic cliff-dwelling hip-hop of a Beltway Diva.
I think I’ve got a winner recommendation for an actor to play George Walker Bush.
RON JEREMY!!!!!!!
I’m serious. Think about it.
Looks like I’m the only one still going on this thread.
How about Julianne Moore for our very own Christy Hardin Smith?
Some former actors who would have been great.
Valerie Plame: I agree, Lauren Bacall
Fitz: Gregory Peck (e.g,. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’)
Cheney: Lon Chaney? (j/k); but maybe Broderick Crawford.
Libby: has to be Burgess Meredith
Suggestions for movie titles, anyone? For startersm how about: “Yellowcake — The Movie”