Comments on: Two Questions: Part Two http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/ Firedoglake weblog Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:51:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: resipsa http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539643 resipsa Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:10:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539643 <p>Jerlyn,<br /> Thanks! Just read the Judge’s Responses to Jury Notes.<br /> 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!</p> 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!

]]> By: Larry http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539624 Larry Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:03:56 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539624 <p>Seems the court itself is being academic as it argues for a day how to answer a simple question!</p> Seems the court itself is being academic as it argues for a day how to answer a simple question!

]]> By: Jeralyn Merritt http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539565 Jeralyn Merritt Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:31:47 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539565 <p>I just pulled the judge’s response off of Pacer. <a href="http://talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/juryresponsemar5.pdf">Here it is</a>. (pdf)</p> I just pulled the judge’s response off of Pacer. Here it is. (pdf)

]]> By: DaveV http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539539 DaveV Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:15:34 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539539 <p><a href="#comment-539527"><em>phillydem @ 98 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-539423"><em>DaveV @<br /> 82 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-539372"><em>phillydem @ 40 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>Could we get an end to the academia-bashing, please?</p></blockquote> <p>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<br /> head.</p></blockquote> <p>“Reality-based” is a slap, implying that academics don’t know how to function in the real world. </p> <p>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.</p> phillydem @ 98

DaveV @
82

phillydem @ 40

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.

Could we get an end to the academia-bashing, please?

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.

“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.

]]> By: chrisc http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539529 chrisc Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:09:47 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539529 <p>In defense of mathematicians-<br /> I’d say the jury note about reasonable doubt was written by an “analytical” type.<br /> It begs for a yes or no answer.<br /> The holdout may just be someone who functions primarily by emotion.<br /> So to push that person along, someone requested an authority (the judge) to enlighten the holdout. </p> <p>But as Christy says, we just don’t know. </p> <p>Jeralyn posted a very cool video on TalkLeft yesterday.<br /> It is a rap video called “Where is Karl Rove?”<br /> Fun to watch while waiting, waiting, waiting.</p> 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.

]]> By: phillydem http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539527 phillydem Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:09:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539527 <p><a href="#comment-539423"><em>DaveV @<br /> 82 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-539372"><em>phillydem @ 40 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>Could we get an end to the academia-bashing, please?</p></blockquote> <p>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<br /> head.</p> DaveV @
82

phillydem @ 40

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.

Could we get an end to the academia-bashing, please?

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.

]]> By: Mojotroll http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539490 Mojotroll Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:43:33 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539490 <p><a href="#comment-539417"><em>Jane Hamsher @ 78 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-539382"><em>Mojotroll @<br /> 50 </em></a></p> <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>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?)</p></blockquote> <p> Quoted by Jane herself. </p> <p>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.</p> Jane Hamsher @ 78

Mojotroll @
50

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.

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?)

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.

]]> By: A. Perez http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539477 A. Perez Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:35:45 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539477 <p>This jury needs to hurry up. Tons of people have contradicted Libby. WTF?</p> This jury needs to hurry up. Tons of people have contradicted Libby. WTF?

]]> By: resipsa http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539470 resipsa Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:32:48 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539470 <p>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?</p> 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?

]]> By: Mabel’s Wig Shack http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539467 Mabel’s Wig Shack Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:31:14 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/05/two-questions-part-two/#comment-539467 <p>re: litagator mom @ 7:46 a.m.</p> <p>whoa. that was hypnotic.</p> re: litagator mom @ 7:46 a.m.

whoa. that was hypnotic.

]]>