home

Jury Sends out Two Notes in Libby Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:28:49 PM EST
Tags: Libby Trial (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here are the first two notes sent by the jury in the Scooter Libby trial:

Update: Jury's done for the day.

< 8th Cir. Permits Genital Feel to Grab Cocaine in Pocket | Vilsack Drops Out >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jury Sends out Two Notes in Libby Trial | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sounds to Me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:24:13 PM EST
    like they are settling in.  That's good news for both sides.

    Seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by abeincicero on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    A flip chart, post it notes, masking tapes and picures of the witnesses.  Seems like some jurors are making a visual presentation to help a few jurors who have trouble following verbal arguments or points.

    By asking for "anyone documents" with pictures, it is clear that they only want the pictures.  

    Since the defense is simply Libby "forgot" or was "mistaken", it seems to me that jurors are going to recreate the prosecution's closing demonstrative aid showing Libby in the middle and arrows to all the people he talked to.  

    As an attorney, I take this as a good sign for the prosecution. The defense ran from the facts and the prosecution ran to them.

       

    Re: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    Seems like some jurors are making a visual presentation...

    ...also sounds like some (or one, the foreman?) of them are dominating discussion and argument, and taking control to sell a point of view or conclusion.

    Parent

    Memory issues of their own... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    I agree that they were only interested in the pictures. But I expect they need the pictures because some of the jurors are having trouble attaching names to faces.

    I wonder if any have noticed the irony...

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    And I see that by the rainnn already had that thought. That'll teach me to read all the way down the page.

    Parent
    grin. . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:27:35 PM EST
    s m i l e. . .

    Parent
    If that were the case (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    then the picures won't help.

    It is as reasonable to assume they have no trouble attaching names to faces, and want to place pictures in locations as location within scene recreation visual aids.

    Parent

    There's a big sale on tea leaves (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    and I think you guys have all been buying.

    It's pointless to speculate on what they're doing, thinking, etc., other than it appears they want to see the faces.  As to the masking tape, I'd suspect it's to post the pictures on the butcher board to recreate Fitz' summation exhibit (which was not evidence, I'm sure).

    The only times it's useful for the trial counsel to speculate (or even worry) about what they are doing are:  (a) when a peek inside the jury room before or after reveals magazines or newspapers, and (b) when you, out in the courtroom, can hear them screaming at each other through the closed door(s) of the jury room.  (I've had both happen - magazines with tort reform articles in the jury room during a PI case, and something close to a brawl when jurors wouldn't agree.)

    My speculation is that the lady who wouldn't wear the red t-shirt is being balky.

    Also, there's some speculation over at FDL on whether (assuming a conviction) Scooter starts any sentence right away.  I think there are good arguments on both sides (so it's pointless to speculate IMHO), but the real question I'd like to see kicked around is:

    If Scooter's convicted, does Fitz nail him with a GJ subpoena (probably to go after Deadeye) and, if so, how soon after the verdict?

    And, what about the Watergate Burglar McCord precedent - giving the stonewalling defendant the statutory max (in his case, 30 years) - as an, uh, inducement?  In the post-Booker world, the Advisory Guidelines can accommodate such a scenario.

    Thoughts?

    sipping darjeeling with mrs. nesbit. . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    ". . .and I think you guys have all been buying. . ."

    i know i am -- and, by the barrel, too!

    he he!

    [is it possible that the recent s.c.o.t.u.s.
    arguments about the sentencing guides
    will inform both fitz as to "inducements",
    and walton, as to immediate vs. delayed,
    pending appeal, sentencing/surrender?]

    Parent

    Maybe they are making Happy Easter cards (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by abeincicero on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:11:08 AM EST
    Remember that this is the same jury that on Valentine's Day pulled a stunt where all but one  wore shirts with hearts on them, and then read a Valentine to the judge, staff and lawyers from the jury box.

    Who knows, maybe they are making early Happy Easter cards.

    Keeping my fingers crossed for justice.

    supplies (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hellskitchen on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    They're taking their job seriously.  I guess this won't be over in an hour.

    Does not look like the emotional crying... (none / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    ...trick did not work for the defense.

    "Just the facts, ma'am" jury.

    Parent

    inscrutable (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    Well, I can't read much into those.

    Most times when I've been in a (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    meeting using large flip charts for making presentations, and post it notes for marking report pages for reference and discussion during the meeting - I was there  for most of the day...

    Masking Tape??? Marking off the floor to simulate peoples locations in a VP's office??

    Parent

    masking tape (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    has a million uses....

    I don't recall the alignment of things to be really that important;  Scooter's old office was Really Tiny and still he had to speak softly with ADDington when plotting the leaks.

    One wonders how the scales balanced out in Scooter's mind on this:  tiny office v. location, location, location.


    Parent

    Maybe it's just for (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    hanging often referred to docs on a wall?

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:34:19 AM EST
    I've done that any number of times when trying to put together a sense of the case or trying to get my brief to work.  Sometimes, it's the only way to work out the flow of a brief that will be 40 or 50 pages long

    Once, second-chairing a murder defense, I took up the entire wall of the library and the conference table, with two charts of the alleged timeline, and all the "witness'" contradictions and police screw-ups  - so I could see in detail where the many holes were.  No matter - my lead counsel did a mediocre job (complete with a fallen souffle of an emotional appeal to the jury during summation) and, in the middle of the defense case, a prime witness for us managed to get caught up in the temporary "disappearance" of another witness.  The latter event compelled us to not call the prime witness, because he surely would have been charged in the "disappearance" if we had.  There's a book in that case....

    And, yes, the jury convicted.

    Parent

    Especially (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:36:31 AM EST
    with 12 people conversing - it would be easier if they could all look up at all the documents, instead of each one flipping through pages when something comes up in argument...


    Parent
    Wow... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    Go here, and watch the video Christy has posted this morning at Firedoglake............

    Parent
    a good sign for the fitz team. . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    i believe the more-organized these
    jurors stay, the greater the chance
    they'll convict -- while i was not
    in the courtroom, much of wells'
    summation seemed an appeal to emotion. . .

    "give me my scooter back!" "sob"

    gag.

    fitz, otoh, seemed absolutely laser-
    focused on the idea that nine people,
    reporters, paid to get it right [no msm
    snark, now], don't ordinarily remember
    ten-ten-10-TEN conversations in ALL
    the exact same, completely implausible,
    errant way. especially if the sole
    dissenter in ALL ten conversations is
    the only one whose liberty may depend on
    a fabricated "mis-recollection" of
    those ten conversations. . .

    so, a large, poster-style chart, or bulleted-
    list, of who said what to whom, and when,
    should clearly favor the prosecution here,
    especially with names tied to faces. . .

    however. . . and, i hope this is not so, but. . .

    a contrarian, defense-lawyer-oriented
    [shout out for jeralyn!] view of the request
    for photos might be a memory-test
    prove-up/demonstration -- what does it
    mean if the jurors can't keep the witnesses'
    names and faces straight?  could the contrarian
    juror be quizzing each other juror on the
    names of the witnesses, based on their

    r e c o l l e c t i o n s. . .

    after just seeing the photos?

    if so, an acquittal could follow -- after
    all, libby's conversations were separated
    by a much-wider gulf of time than the jurors'.

    yeah, i know -- i'm wearin' the tin-foil
    hat, and squattin' in the closet with the
    radio, now. . .

    background, and more here. . .

    To me it would mean... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sphealey on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:10:40 PM EST
    > what does it mean if the
    > jurors can't keep the witnesses'
    > names and faces straight?

    To me it would mean that (1) none of the witnesses were my boss (2) I had not worked with the witnesses for years (and/or knew enough from seeing them on TV nightly to say "this is our best go-to guy).

    sPh

    Parent

    hmmm. . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    i dunno -- it could be.

    half the fun is in
    making guesses, no?

    [remember -- i think the photos
    are MORE likely a convenient memory
    aid/tool for the jurors -- not a game/test.]

    Parent

    I thought the same (none / 0) (#8)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    I had the same thoughts.

    Give us back the truth!

    Parent

    uh-huh (none / 0) (#20)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    yeah, baby!

    fitz did it.

    Parent

    Good sign (none / 0) (#13)
    by abeincicero on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    The only problem with the contrarian view is that the proponents of the game would have too much to lose.  Since the trial did not have too many witnesess, if a juror called the proponent jurors' bluff and identified the testimony to the face correctly, would the jurors who proposed the game admit defeat?

    It is my experience, after years of trying cases and interviewing jurors afterwards about they way they came to a particular verdict, when requests like these are made (usually through a request for chlak and blackboard), it is a great majority of the jurors (10 or 11) trying everything in their power to convince a very few (1 or 2).  

    Nevertheless, these simple requests clearly indicate that the jury is requiring facts not feelings to reach a verdict.  Thus it appears that the defense's hope for a simple jury nullification has failed.


    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:11:44 PM EST
    You've taken it too far. If one juror intends to hold out, the game is already won. He has no need to put the others to a memory test.

    Parent
    perhaps, but. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    the dynamics of
    group influence/bonding
    are rarely that black
    and white, in these forced-
    close settings, in my experience. . .

    it may take a while, but
    in the main, the process works.

    Parent

    i do concur. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by the rainnn on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    hey abeincicero --

    i thoroughly concur with
    your hunch that the requests
    for "visual aids" -- the big
    paper-board, and masking tape,
    particularly -- suggest the
    potential for one (or two)
    hold-outs. . .

    then, later, these filled-in props
    become the rationally persuasive
    tool-kit of the majority, to
    convince those hold-outs of
    the futility of believing
    in something plainly AGAINST
    the great weight of the evidence. . .

    but we may all know
    pretty soon. . .

    [my bet is on friday,
    late afternoon    . . .]

    cheers!

    fitz!
     

    Parent

    Convincing or just organizing? (none / 0) (#27)
    by sphealey on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:12:01 PM EST
    > It is my experience, after years of trying cases
    > and interviewing jurors afterwards about they way
    > they came to a particular verdict, when requests
    > like these are made (usually through a request for
    >  chlak and blackboard), it is a great majority of
    > the jurors (10 or 11) trying everything in their
    > power to convince a very few (1 or 2).  

    Really?  That is interesting.  Personally had I been on that jury I would have asked for chart paper (and I assume they want masking tape because they know the gov't isn't going to pay for 3M self-sticking chart paper), markers, and a white board before entering the room (even if I was already 99% sure of how I would vote).  There is no way I would take on a dissection of complex material like that without writing key points, etc down and making sure everyone had walked through them.

    sPh

    Parent

    I agree with sphealey (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MS atty on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    I too think it is folly to read too much into this, although it is an unavoidable urge since waiting for a jury is terribly frustrating.  Every jury is different of course, but in a complex case that is well lawyered by both sides you will generally find they take their role very seriously.  In this case they probably had to spend yesterday afternoon devising a plan to address the issues in a coordinated way, and simply digesting the jury instructions likely took considerable time.  If I were forced to guess I would say they are still in the "open mind" phase and they spent the day today (using these materials) trying to put the information in some sort of order where they can properly process it. I would be very surprised if they are already to the point where 10 are ready to break out the rubber hoses on two of their number.

    Parent
    My thought too (none / 0) (#29)
    by sphealey on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 08:35:39 PM EST
    > If I were forced to guess I would say they are
    > still in the "open mind" phase and they spent the
    > day today (using these materials) trying to put
    > the information in some sort of order where they
    > can properly process it

    That is my thought too.  I told a correspondent today that since they didn't come back with a not guilty in 4 hours, they would be at it until at least Friday and probably next Wednesday.  There is a lot of information and the jurors all know that this is a critical national security case - they are going to work though it carefully.

    I do think that any hope of jury nullification for the defense is lost though.

    sPh

    Parent

    Confused (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 04:39:36 PM EST
    The more confused the jurors find themselves, the more it argues for the defense. Maybe someone on the jury will recognize that and say... woa. If we can't get straight, how could these people get it straight?

    But this is a DC pro government jury that I would wager is 10 of of 12 Democrat, so Libby never had much of a chance.

    And yes, I understand what I'm saying: People's bias goes were they go.

    Assuming facts not in evidence (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:37:57 PM EST
    But this is a DC pro government jury that I would wager is 10 of of 12 Democrat, so Libby never had much of a chance.
    libby and bushco are the gov't.  Libby was touted as having nothing to do with the leak by the WH spokesman. As was rove who quickly scurried to get an immunity deal/

    Anyone who doubted the veracity of the bush regime was weeded out of the jury. (When someone has been proven to lie over and over, isn't it reasonable to doubt their veracity? Give me a break, dick 'we know where the WMDs are', 'we will be greeted as liberators' cheney is supposed to be believed!?)

    And what facts are there to support the conclusion that 10 of 12 jurors are dems? None.

    Sailor (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    Uh, I think Libby is the citizen defendent, and has been so since he left government service.

    It is the government, using the DOJ that is the prosecution

    As to the number of Demos on the jury, I'll press the bet. Could be wrong, who knows? Maybe they'll come on FNC and Hannity amd Combs can inerview them.

    Parent

    jury (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    WaPo said:
    In a city where most residents are black, 90 percent are Democrats and the local culture is steeped in politics, the jury is not completely representative. Ten of the 12 jurors -- and two of the alternates -- are white. Most said during questioning that they have no political opinions about the administration's handling of Iraq or do not follow the news.

    Parent
    Social Liberal (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    Maybe they are all social liberals and hate to see government abuse of power and the ensuing lies and obstruction through Libby's hand.

    Parent
    witness pictures? (none / 0) (#25)
    by lindalawyer on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 07:44:12 PM EST
    I agree with the idea that --- the witnesses did not make a strong, clear impression. My gut, for what little its worth, is that they are more likely to be prosecution-oriented. I think that if the witnesses had made a strong unfavorable impression---i.e witnesses werent credible, or consistent, etc, the jurors could remember their names without pictures.

    Organizational Chart? (none / 0) (#31)
    by SpudgeBoy on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:56:30 AM EST
    The first thing I thought of when I read the list of things that were requested on this list, was an organizational chart for a company or department that list the chain of command for who is in charge of a specific group. To show who works for who and who takes orders from who.

    You know Scooter works for Cheney, Rove works for Bush, Ari Fliescher, former Press Secretary no longer in administration. That kind of stuff. There is a lot of corruption and it takes a lot to keep track of.

    We need charts!!! (none / 0) (#39)
    by jdmckay on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    organizational chart for a company or department that list the chain of command for who is in charge of a specific group. To show who works for who and who takes orders from who.

    You know Scooter works for Cheney, Rove works for Bush, Ari Fliescher, former Press Secretary no longer in administration. That kind of stuff. There is a lot of corruption and it takes a lot to keep track of.

    There was dicussion on Next Hurrah a few days ago... subject of charting data came up.  Particularly with all the detailed data EW has organized, IMO visuals would greatly clarify Plame blog lurkers, general public, and from what I gather perhaps even have persuaded Scooter to cop a deal while he still could.

    Gi'meeee charts!!!

    Parent

    Even as a political junkie.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by SpudgeBoy on Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 09:29:01 PM EST
    it is hard for me to keep track of all of this mess. Explaining it to people like my mom is near to impossible. SO, I can see the need for the jurors to want to get it sorted out of who works for who and also a timeline of who talked to who when.

    Parent
    Jury Sends out Two Notes in Libby Trial | 40 comments (40 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment