Walton back in.
Asked a question of someone–perhaps to clsoe the door.
Three people for a different case. Walton putting off the start of his next case. Looks like he's rescheduling his next court case until June. Now they're talking about June/July time frame for next trial. Okay, they've got it rescheduled. Walton: I apologize.
Walton: Um, I will read what counsel has given me regarding the second question. In reference to first question, I understand govt has issue with last sentence I proposed, I have changed one word. "If you can rephrase the question considering the language I gave you in instruction, I will assess whether I can provide further guidance to you." If they can rephrase considering reasonable doubt.
Jeffress: with the change your honor has made, that's acceptable.
Bonamici: It's just not clear to us how jury will rephrase the question. We don't have a problem with asking them to rephrase after considering language in instruction.
Walton The reason I did that is bc I won't deviate the reasonable doubt instruction. I'm not prepared to do that. I'm on reversible error grounds if I go beyond that.
Bonamici: We don't have your Honor's lanaguage.
Walton I'll have it typed up–he's working for free.
Fitz: If we don't tell them where the ambiguity is, Your honor has the whole sentence. If they're told if they can clarify "not humanly possible." Absent that, they may be in the dark considering what your honor is concerned about.
Walton I'll give it as I indicated.
10:30
I think we're waiting for Walton to have his former clerk–working pro bono today–to get his instruction typed up so everyone can fight it once more or not.
Jeffress chatting up Libby, Libby covering his mouth with his hand intently. Wells reading his blackberry and chewing gum.
Prosecution huddling over something.
Status still the same–Wells blackberrying, Prosecution huddling, Zeidenberg has joined in.
10:38
Libby and Jeffress still chatting. Libby shifting uncomfortably. Jeffess looks calming.
Now Libby's laughing with one of the Associates.
I can see David Corn gesticulating wildly holding forth with other journalists in the court room.
Now Jeffress has joined the laughing Libby. Wells still blackberrying (hey Ted! You reading along??–waves). And the prosecution is still huddling.
We just got the language in. Jeffress reviews, Now Fitz reviews. We're going to have a little chat. (Walton is not in the courtroom–it is just Team Libby and Team Fitz discussing at this point.) One of the Defense associates ran over to join the huddle, and Libby tried to walk over there, but got headed off. someone stopped him to occupy him with a chat.
10:49
Well, Defense must have been happy. Wells is back to his blackberry. Prosecution seems to be out of their huddle. We seem to bewaiting for Walton.
Walton in.
Fitz: Thank you for your indulgence. Where it now says, I do not understand what you're asking me, we'd change it to "I do not understand what you mean by humanly possible." If they said not to a scientific certainly. If we don't tell the jury what's unclear, we have little chance to have them clarify such that we ca understand. We should clue the jury into where the ambiguity is.
Jeffress: I think this is going to be absolutely clear to the jury. You've said I don't understand what you mean. In a way it's nitpicking for the govt to want to clarify this. We think this is perfectly clear to the jury and good to go as it is.
Walton: I'll make the suggested change.
We still haven't adjourned. Don't know whether we're going to send this to the jury or whether we're waiting for their answer. Fitz is now discussing something with the Defense.
10:55
Okay, we got new language back. Debra did a quck review. Jeffress up. Wells reviewing it.
I think we've sent it to the jury now, the media just got up and left.
We're going to put up Christy's long awaited Walton post. See you shortly.
To clarify: We'll do an update post either before or after lunch, but for now, nothing to see here–go read CHristy's post.
Related posts:
- Christie’s “Ongoing Financial Relationship” with Michele Brown Raises Questions… and Eyebrows
- New York Times Collects Silly Questions to Ask Sotomayor
- Torture’s Very Answerable Questions
- Investigating an Embarrassment: More Questions on Al-Libi’s Torture, Death
- Joe Courtney Blows Off Questions About Where He Stands on Public Option
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
FITZ!
MArcy!
Comments?
Buy Marcy’s book!
justice!
Sounds like Walton has a law school intern working as his temporary law clerk since his last clerk left on Friday.
Randall Samborn!
bet he’s lurking? *waves hi*
RATZ!
I thik Walton is being WAY too conservative here. Which means, I think, that he is totally focussed on an appeal.
Only the defense gets to appeal, so…..
I got the zero. Here’s the real reason for my post. If you’re loving the liveblogging from FDL, please buy Marcy’s book. Please hit the “PayPal” button. Every little bit helps.
Thank you,
-S
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear – I’m getting worried.
OK
I wonder if this back & forth about these questions will go on for most of the day. My hope is that the jury, who formed the question at 10:30 am Friday, will have thought it over during the weekend, and have reviewed Walton’s “reasonable doubt” instructions. Perhaps they will have solved their own question again, and we can get a verdict today.
(It’s hard to type when your fingers are crossed)
hello & good morning from Toronto, FDLers~
de-lurking here after breathlessly reading this mornings’ events so far~
loosheadprop @ 12
Just, “OK”–Just like that?
We’re still waiting for Walton to come back. Unclear whether he’s going to pull in teh jury for instruction, or whether we’re just waiting on his specific language on the “humanly possible” question.
Oops, I think Fitz overreached a little bit. He was trying too hard to highlight “humanely possible.” But I don’t think it’s that big of a problem. I think the jury knows they wrote something contentious.
From RBG and Peterr:
Merry Fitzmas
Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.
1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the topic of the current live blogging.
2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum — especially during live blogging.
3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that comment to get caught in moderation.
4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3 quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for the people behind the scenes.
5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to keep things from getting caught in moderation.
6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.
Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.
Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?
Thanks.
Also, from Peterr’s rules — “The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”
LHP, I just don’t understand why he can’t just answer the question. “No”. It seems like that would not be tinkering too much and it would follow the way the question is led. I mean the jury likely asked the question in that way for a reason…don’t they need to take the juries request and wording into consideration and not tinker with that?? They seem to want a very narrow anser. “No you don’t have to prove that it’s not humanely possible in order to convict.” Period. What is the concern for Walton in appeal if he were to simply answer the question in that way??
Instruction 2.08
BURDEN OF PROOF — PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Every defendant in a criminal case is
presumed to be innocent. This presumption
of innocence remains with the defendant
throughout the trial unless and until he is
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden is on the government to prove
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. This burden of proof never shifts
throughout the trial. The law does not
require a defendant to prove his innocence
or to produce any evidence. If you find
that the government has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt every element of an
offense with which the defendant is
charged, it is your duty to find him guilty
of that offense. On the other hand, if you
find the government has failed to prove any
element of an offense beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant not
guilty of that offense.
GOOD FAITH DEFENSE
A person who makes a statement based on
a belief or opinion which. he honestly held
when the statement was made has not
violated the statutes the defendant is
charged with violating in this case merely
because the statement turns out to be
inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. Making an
honest statement that turns out to be
inaccurate, incorrect or wrong because of
mistake, confusion, or faulty memory, or
Ill
even carelessness in one’s recollection,
does not rise to the level of criminal
conduct. An honest belief or “good faith”
belief is a complete defense to all of the
charges in the indictment because such an
honest or “good faith” belief is
inconsistent with the intent to commit the
alleged offenses.
In determining whether or not the
government has proven that Mr. Libby acted
with the required intent to commit the
offenses alleged in the indictment or
whether Mr. Libby acted in good faith, you
must consider all of the evidence received
in this case bearing on his state of mind.
The burden of proving good faith does
not rest with Mr. Libby, because he does
not have any obligation to prove anything
in this case. It is the government’s
burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Mr. Libby acted with the required
intent to commit the offenses charged in
this case. If the evidence in this case
leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to
whether Mr. Libby acted with the criminal
intent necessary to commit the offenses
with which he is charged, you must find Mr.
Libby not guilty.”
katie jensen @ 20…
My sentiments exactly!
Re: the definition of “humanly possible”
Perhaps this is what is troubling them. It is not humanely possible for:
a man to become President of the United States having lost the popular vote, and having won an electoral victory only because the Supreme Court stopped a recount in a disputed state;
to then have that President, who campaigned as a uniter not a divider, proceed to govern as if he’s won a popular and electoral landslide;
to then have that President’s national security advisor ignore warnings from the CIA of an imminent terrorist attack against US interests at home or abroad;
to then have that President tell a CIA briefer “okay, you’ve covered your ass, now” when read a daily brief indicating that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States;
to then have that Presidet react to news of the terrorist attack by first continuing to read “The Pet Goat” and then fly all over the country looking for an undisclosed location safe enough to hide in;
to then address the nation looking like a small frightened mammal;
to then launch an invasion of the country that gave bin Laden safe haven only to pull out our troops prematurely so that he could pursue a war against a country that did not give bin Laden safe haven;
to mislead the nation into believing that the nation we were about to invade had WMD and imminent nuclear capability, ignoring intelligence that contradicting or undermined these claims;
to then ignore the advice of military commanders about troop levels, and the advice of his Secretary of State, about building a true international consensus;
to then fail to plan for the post-invasion occupation of Iraq, allowing chaos to ensue;
to pretend that an growing insurgency was just a bunch of dead-enders;
to permit an incompetent Secretary of Defense to continue perpetrating his incompetence as to the war for more than three years before finally firing him;
to refuse to engage Iran and Syria on Middle East peace, and to instead enter into a game of chicken with Iran;
to win a second-term by vilifying a decorated war hero, deflecting inquiries into his spotty military service as an AWOL National Guardsman;
to refuse the lifeline offered to him by the Iraq Study Group;
to react to a stinging mid-term electoral debacle reflecting enormous anti-war sentiment by increasing our military commitment in Iraq; and
generate the most virulent, widespread anti-Americanism even within our traditional allies.
None of that is “humanely possible.” But it happened.
Attorney’s can use Blackberries, but not observers?
Walton I’ll have it typed up–he’s working for free.
Re his new intern. Quite the sense of humor under pressure!
My work thingie is resolved for now so I’m back watching.
mack @ 22
I *think* observers might be able to also.
REASONABLE DOUBT
The government has the burden of
proving the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is
only necessary to prove that a fact is
more likely true than not, or, in some
cases, that its truth is highly
probable. In criminal cases such as this
one, the government’s proof must be more
powerful than that. It must be beyond a
reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, as
the name implies, is a doubt based on
reason — a doubt for which you have a
reason based upon the evidence or lack
of evidence in the case. If, after
careful, honest, and impartial
consideration of all the evidence, you
cannot say that you are firmly convinced
of the defendant’s guilt, then you have
a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt
that would cause a reasonable person,
after careful and thoughtful reflection,
to hesitate to act in the graver or more
important matters in life. However, it
is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt
based on speculation or guesswork; it is
a doubt based on reason. The government
is not required to prove guilt beyond
all doubt, or to a mathematical or
scientific certainty. Its burden is to
prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instruction 2.11
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
In determining whether the government
has established the charges against the
defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you
must consider and weigh the testimony of
all the witnesses who have appeared before
you.
You are the sole judge of the
credibility of the witnesses. In other
words, you alone are to determine whether
to believe any witness and the extent to
which any witness should be believed.
In reaching a conclusion as to the
credibility of any witness, you may
consider any matter that may have a bearing
on the subject. You may consider the
demeanor and the behavior of the witness on
the witness stand; the witness’s manner of
testifying; whether the witness impresses
you as a truthful person; whether the
witness impresses you as having an accurate
memory and recollection; whether the
witness has any motive for not telling the
truth; whether the witness had a full
opportunity to observe the matters about
which he or she has testified; whether the
witness has any interest in the outcome of
this case, or friendship or hostility
toward other people concerned with this
case.
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the
testimony of a witness, or between the
testimony of different witnesses, may or
may not cause you to discredit such
testimony. Two or more persons witnessing
an incident or transaction may see or hear
it differently; an innocent
misrecollection, like a failure of
recollection, is not an uncommon
experience. In weighing the effect of the
inconsistency or discrepancy, always
consider whether it pertains to a matter of
important or unimportant detail, and
whether the inconsistency or discrepancy
results from innocent error or intentional
falsehood.
You may consider the reasonableness or
unreasonableness, the probability or
improbability, of the testimony of a
witness in determining whether to accept it
as true and accurate. You may consider
whether the witness has been contradicted
or corroborated by other credible evidence.
If you believe that any witness has
shown him or herself to be biased or
prejudiced, for or against either side in
this trial, you may consider and determine
whether such bias or prejudice has colored
the testimony of the witness so as to
affect the desire and capability of that
witness to tell the truth.
You should give the testimony of each
witness such weight as in your judgment it
is fairly entitled to receive.
Memory Instruction
As you have heard, the defense contends
that Mr. Libby confused, forgot, or
misremembered all or parts of some of the
conversations that you have heard about
during the trial that form the basis for
the charges that have been filed against
Mr. Libby. You are also being asked to
evaluate the accuracy of the memory of
other witnesses who testified in this
trial. In considering Mr. Libby’s position
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
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
Instruction 1.10
EVALUATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
STATEMENT OF A WITNESS
You have heard evidence that witnesses
made statements on an earlier occasion
when the witnesses were not under oath
and that the earlier statements may be
inconsistent with their testimony here
at trial. The earlier statements were
brought to your attention to help you in
evaluating the witness’ believability
here in court. In other words, if on an
earlier occasion a witness made a
statement while not under oath that is
inconsistent with his or her testimony
in court, you may consider the
inconsistency in judging the credibility
of the witness. You may not consider
this earlier statement that was not
under oath as proof that what was said
in the earlier statement was true.
It is for you to decide whether a
witness made a statement on an earlier
occasion and whether it was in fact
inconsistent with the witness’ testimony
here in court.
You have also heard evidence that
various witnesses made earlier
statements under oath, subject to the
penalty of perjury, at a prior
deposition or grand jury proceeding and
that. the earlier statements may be
inconsistent with his or her testimony
here at trial. These earlier statements
were brought to your attention both to
help you in evaluating the believability
of the witness and as evidence in this
case. In other words, if you find that
an earlier statement that was made under
oath is inconsistent with a witnesses’
present testimony in court, you may
consider this inconsistency in judging
the credibility of the witness. In
addition, you may consider this earlier
statement under oath as proof that what
was said in the earlier statement was
true.
twolf1 @ 17
Size Matters should be Number 1.
;-)
Lit mom @19: None of that is “humanely possible.” But it happened.
But, they aren’t human.
deleted by author
Marcy’s coverage of the questions on the question this morning was nothing short of stunning.
Upcoming Marcy Wheeler event in NYC!
http://www.yearlykosconvention.org/node/62
YEARLYKOS CONVENTION FUNDRAISER
Saturday, March 10th – 6-9pm
The Tank @ C:U – 279 Church Street
Register here!
Join activists, organizers and on-lookers, as we drink, laugh and carouse liberally to celebrate the DailyKos community and prepare for the 2007 YearlyKos Convention.
With special guests Marcy Wheeler (”Emptywheel”), author of “Anatomy of Deceit” and Libby Trial blogger, the comedians of Laughing Liberally, the sweet eats of Eating Liberally, fellow Kossacks, bloggers & rabble-rousers.
Hosted by Living Liberally with Vaster Books, Young People For The American Way, The Albany Project & the Kossack community of New York City.
Free food, cheap drinks, great gifts, lively conversation & progressive camaraderie!
Saturday, March 10th – 6-9pm
The Tank @ C:U – 279 Church Street
btw Franklin & White, just below Canal
A,C,E,J,M,N,Q,R,W,Z,6 to Canal; 1 to Franklin
$50 – YearlyKos Suggested Donation
$100 – YearlyKos Fundraiser Host
Register here.
All guests will receive gift bags. Hosts will receive recognition in invitations and complimentary copies of “Anatomy of Deceit”.
http://www.yearlykosconvention.org/node/62
litigatormom, that is classic.
*xyz @ 24
Depends on the courtroom. In the Southern District of New (federal courts in Manhattan, the Bronx and Westchester) you can’t bring cell phones or Blackberries into the courthouse — you have to check them at the door with the security guards. In the Bankruptcy Court, you have to check cell phones but can bring in Blackberries. In the state courts, you can bring in both cell phones and Blackberries.
Will,
Linkies work better
lit mom, that was brilliant~
Will — Those really long cut and pastes eat up a lot of bandwidth. Could you please do links instead? Thanks.
litigatormom @ 22
Heh. Nicely done. Now RUN–those moderators are gonna get you!!
My Recollection was that liveblogging from a blackberry was prohibitted.
Not that *my* thumbs would be up to the task anyways…
*xyz @ 31
I’m not sure, but I THINK we’ll do a dedicated signing starting at 5.
litigatormom @ 32
Thanks for the clarification.
Also, thanks for all your commentary and hope we have a chance to meet at the Plame interview coming up on the 17th.
Although I have no idea how we would identify one another…
This jury does have at least 2 people who have spent a lifetime in academia where it’s normal to discuss something like “resonable doubt” vs “beyond all humanly possible doubt”. Can’t you just hear that being argued in a classroom? Maybe the more academically inclined jurors need to come back to reality-based decision-making.
litigatormom @ 23
touche!
litigator mom – just brilliant.
But you forgot the one thing that would have once seemed “not humanly possible” – to do all that and then get re-elected.
It seems to me that they have been working on this a long time, and if they could have found it they would have. Am I understanding this right? Fitz wants to point and say “It’s right there (and there, and there)! and Wells wants to say “If you can’t find it, maybe it’s not in there, and Fitz is trying to jerk you around!”. And Walton wants to say nothing at all because he’s afraid that whatever he else he does, he’ll get reversed?
“Now Jeffress has joined the laughing Libby. Wells still blackberrying (hey Ted! You reading along??–waves). And the prosecution is still huddling.”
You kill me Marcy….
Lets all say Hi Ted!
FWIW.
From wiki:
OT– Just found out today that Tim Russert will be giving the commencement address at my school. I’m not graduating, but some of my friends are, maybe I’ll get up early to see what lil’ Russ has to say. Probably it’ll be his old homage to Big Russ, but maybe he’ll actually say something about the role of media in leak cases….
On second thought, nah, that’s not humanly possible
Careful. Randall is getting a swelled head from all this attention, especially since he heard Gene “Terry” Bollea aka Hulk Hogan has been cast to play him in the movie.
“No comment, Fitzomaniacs!”
oxide @ 7
And rumor has it Bob Woodward is pleased with the choice of Carrot Top to portray him.
I’m not sure, but I THINK we’ll do a dedicated signing starting at 5.
Great – looking forward to it!
I really hope that FDL readers in the NYC area are aware of the event.
It might make sense to promote the event on the front page so it doesn’t get overlooked down here in the comments. Thanks and hope all is well at the courthouse.
3 cheers for walton’s prior clerk for going pro-bono to assure a certain continuity in this historic case!!!
(hands un-nammed clerk a check to cover this weeks salary – plus 1 week bonus salary :)
Given the stakes, Walton is right to be conservative and not giving an instruction that goes into uncharted territory. If the case ends in a conviction and this leads Fitz to go higher, who knows what could happen? And, there will be a lot of pressure to maintain the status quo (by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals) even without a pardon.
You think Judge Sirica knew at the time of the early plumber proceedings that he would become one of the most famous District Court judges? Can you name another District Court judge from the past? Or even on the bench right now (for non-litigators)? My favorite would be Kennesaw Mountain Landis, mostly for what he did, but at least partially for his name.
The Laughing Libby-sounds like something out of surreal fairy tale.
in re @43
I say “touche” for litigatormom’s post @23
sorry for the misleading post
*preview is my friend*
viget @ 46
If you get a chance, think of some tough questions for Russert and ask him in front of the media covering the graduation…
“Walton: I’ll make the suggested change.”
Good.
So Walton is now agreeing to Fitz’s desire to highlight the “not humanely possible” language.
Is it my imagining, or does Walton bounce back and forth a lot, depending on who spoke last, because based on the prior bench arguments, it seemed like Walton wasn’t going to mention “humanely possible.”
Let’s hope he goes with this formulation, and doesn’t give Jeffress another opportunity to change his mind.
Millineryman @ 51
I wonder what he is laughing about. Did someone tell a funny prison joke?
*xyz @
30
I’ll be there. In fact, one of the Crashing The Gate camera people (Raginggurrl) will be there too, so we’ll able to get Marcy’s remarks out on YouTube.
I was talking to one of the people at the event in the same venue on saturday, which I am sorry I missed.
litigatormom @ 56
I think he has sent it to the jury. So we’re good, not humanly possible is in there.
xyz–
Oh, trust me, I would love to, but I don’t think there will be a Q&A. Of course, the question I’m dying to ask would be “Mr. Russert, what do you think about the fact that the administration likes to come on your show because the perceive you as a friendly questioner?”
And then there’s, “Do you ever have any regrets about speaking to the FBI?”
Oh, and “During the trial, what was the nature of your ‘accident’ such that you had to be on crutches?”
I’m pretty sure security would throw me out for asking any of these.
I’m seeing humanely possible and humanly possible. I’m thinking that it must be humanly possible and not humanely. Am I wrong?
Mojotroll @ circa 50:
Can you name another District Court judge from the past? Or even on the bench right now (for non-litigators)?
I’ll take the challenge. How about Allen Sharp of the 7th circuit, appointed by Nixon. (He seemed to want to test everybody’s urine for drugs.)
Has jury been deliberating all this time?
emptywheel @ not 48
Can you drop me an email with your plans when they’re firm? I was planning to arrive at 5 myself to figure out where to put the camera and set up possible interview space. I’m coordinating with Justin K as well.
jay AT ackroyd DOT org
[Mod Note; Email address format edited by mod.]
The Walter Reed Hearings are being televised on CSPAN and will stream live on CSPAN.org
There’s also a disscussion thread at KOS in case anyone wants to multitask.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/5/95059/08842
hackworth — it is “humanly”
Hey, when did “humanly possible” become “humanely possible”? I’m not pointing out anyone specifically, because there are multiple posts. I’m an engineer, so forgive me if I’m wrong.
It wasn’t humane at all what Libby did to the Wilsons, that’s easy.
Hey xyz – just signed up. I’m assuming you will be there, as well. Can’t wait to meet Marcy. (I’ll bring my dog earred copy of her book along for an autograph)
Marcy: Bought your book yesterday off the shelf yesterday at the Borders in Madison WI…if you ever get “west”, we’d love to see you. I’ll buy you beer-thirty and dinner too. Not surprisingly, there are a number of places in this town that will accommodate us quite nicely…
hackworth @ 61
Humanly.
Not a transcript.
epu’ probably again. If you aren’t watching Staff Seargant John Shannon on Waxman’s hearing on Cspan you will miss a compelling example of heroism and the terrible waste of human resources the Bush Regime has enacted on OUR SACRED HONOR. I am so ashamed of my goverment.
Am I correct in seeing that we believe there is a single hold out here?
litigatormom at #21
Thanks for that…it’s a keeper!
Busted at 71 — We have absolutely no idea what is going on in the jury room. From long-earned experience, any speculation on what may or may not be happeneing is most often wrong. Just so everyone knows…
For all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson, see:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
Bustednuckles @ 70
My suspicion is a technically-oriented hold out — engineer, academic-type, proof beyond all reason… but then again, IANAL…
hackworth @
60
exactly my problem! just a lil’ thing, but, WOWEE!
please fix so I can resume breathing & lurking egad!
make up yer mind(s) folks, please, a-fore we lose OURS, blergh!
oops. just saw 69. thanks ew!
Thanks mod. Not to worry in the future. My email address has been published in public since the mid 90s. I can’t get any more spam.
Mojotroll @
50
My impression, from sitting in the courtroom, Walton was playing it close to the vest today for a variety of reasons. (Opinon he released Friday?)
watching Walter Reed Medical Centre hearings online via Cspan.org here.
Jim Clausen @ 70
halobeam live blogging it in gabbly
Christy Hardin Smith @ 73
Court people indicated they thought the jury continued to deliberate during the hearing, but couldn’t say for sure.
Wells sure wasn’t interested in having a looksee at the jury like he did last week. Guess he feels like it didn’t do him any favors.
phillydem @ 40
Could we get an end to the academia-bashing, please?
Jane Hamsher @ 78
At the risk of exposing my ignorance…
…what opinion did Walton release Friday?
Fresh legal thready goodness, up for the reading for everyone.
I also guess one hold out. The question had the tone of “Please tell this idiot what “REASONABLE” doubt means.
v o x p o p g i r l @ 79
Is it mildly or wildly interesting?
Thanks Christy.
I just got here and skimmed the thread.
It was just an impression I was getting ,I guess.
Today would be perfect for me for the jury to return a guilty verdict,I just found out the Boss is gone all day.:-)
At this rate it will be time for the jury’s lunch before the 2 questions are answered.
yikes – this is sounding more and more like a hung jury every second that goes by — not good for those of us who wanted ms. scooter behind bars.
> yikes – this is sounding more and more
> like a hung jury every second that goes by
Correct me if I am wrong, but there has been no further communication from the jury since Friday morning. In fact they may be twiddling their thumbs waiting for Walton, Wells, & Fitzgerld to finish up. So I would say the only seconds ticking by are in the observer’s state of mind ;-)
Cranky
dave @ 89
‘ere. borrow my paper bag. now b-r-e-a-t-h-e…
again….
I tried to take this to Gabby, but couldn’t find it. All I want to know, for now, is the jury deliberating again or are they still hassling about “reasonable doubt,” “humanly possible,” and what the meaning of “is” is?
dave @ 89
Keep the faith, Dave. It ain’t over til it’s over.
re: litagator mom @ 7:46 a.m.
whoa. that was hypnotic.
I am still confused as to the exact response Judge Walton sent back to the jury concerning the two questions they asked on Friday. Can anyone quote the two answers Judge Walton sent to the jury today in answer to their two questions?
This jury needs to hurry up. Tons of people have contradicted Libby. WTF?
Jane Hamsher @ 78
Quoted by Jane herself.
While I procrastinate on writing a brief, I’d like to take the opportunity to join everyone else in thanking you, Christy, Marcy, Pach and the gang for bringing us inside the Prettyman courthouse this past month.
DaveV @
82
What academia bashing? I personally believe people who spend most of their lives in classrooms, doing research or in a daily college environment are more suseptible to getting side tracked by debates about esoteric things like, perhaps, is it possible to prove something beyond any humanly possible doubt. If I were a juror, I’d be exasperated if a fellow juror couldn’t get the difference through his or her
head.
In defense of mathematicians-
I’d say the jury note about reasonable doubt was written by an “analytical” type.
It begs for a yes or no answer.
The holdout may just be someone who functions primarily by emotion.
So to push that person along, someone requested an authority (the judge) to enlighten the holdout.
But as Christy says, we just don’t know.
Jeralyn posted a very cool video on TalkLeft yesterday.
It is a rap video called “Where is Karl Rove?”
Fun to watch while waiting, waiting, waiting.
phillydem @ 98
“Reality-based” is a slap, implying that academics don’t know how to function in the real world.
BTW, I find your dig rather ironic. The origin of “reality based” was in response to an administration official who argued that we on the left are free to stand on the sidelines, wasting our time with academic pursuits (like science and history) while they “create” reality.
I just pulled the judge’s response off of Pacer. Here it is. (pdf)
Seems the court itself is being academic as it argues for a day how to answer a simple question!
Jerlyn,
Thanks! Just read the Judge’s Responses to Jury Notes.
Do you think that the jury foreman actually meant to write the double negative in the second part of the question? Forget about the reasonable doubt issue because someone or a group of jurors definitely does not understand the “reasonable doubt” instruction. I am still attempting to deconstruct the question, “. . .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 answer is no, the government does not have to prove absolutely, 100% for the jury to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!