Libby Jurors Raise Question About Reasonable Doubt

[sabra]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/2/154042/3345

Libby Jurors Raise Question About Reasonable Doubt

The jury in the Scooter Libby trial sent two questions to the Judge today before leaving early for the weekend. You can view them here.

The one about reasonable doubt is the most interesting.

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

edit: looking at the PDF it appears the jury crossed out "For example" and wrote "Specifically" instead...

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." For example 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

[magellan]

1. That question doesn't bode well

Or am I reading it wrong? It sounds as if they aren't convinced Libby just didn't forget.

[MADem]

6. Which bodes well. If they think he's a lying sumbitch, then he's

going directly to jail, do not pass go....

[Deep13]

9. I think this looks bad for Scooter.

In other words: "We believe he's lying, but since we cannot read his mind we are not absolutely sure. Is that good enough to nail him?"

[MADem]

12. Yep...that's how I see it...of course, I am optimistic. A pessimist would say that the

question is a grasping at straws by some stooge eager to acquit -- e.g.: Doesn't the evidence have to show, plainly, that we don't need to engage our brains? Doesn't the government have to hand us the whole concept of 'reasonableness' on a plate with a bit of garnish?

It'll be a mystery till next week, at least!!!

[jaysunb]

25. " some stooge eager to acquit "

bout says it all...:evilfrown:

[Beetwasher]

24. Right

Or they may be a hold out who is saying "The gov't did not prove that it's IMPOSSIBLE Libby forgot, therefore, I have reasonable doubt". But that is NOT reasonable doubt.

[Igel]

27. But typically we don't convict when we have reasonable doubt.

Civil trials, preponderance of the evidence.

Criminal trials, *beyond* a reasonable doubt.

Now, "proving it's impossible Libby forgot" is certainly proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The question is, How much room is there beyond reasonable doubt before you reach "proving impossibility"?

[Beetwasher]

28. It's Unreasonable To Believe Libby

Any reasonable person would believe Libby is lying. That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The gov't does not have to prove it's impossible Libby forgot. Only that his forgetting is not reasonable to believe. Is it within the realm of human possibility he forgot? Yes. But it's NOT reasonable to believe that.

[magellan]

32. I think I wasn't clear, let me try again

"...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 question is inane. It sounds like absent absolute proof people don't forget events, someone's balking at finding Libby guilty on grounds of reasonable doubt. And the foreperson is trying to get something from the judge to show this person that he or she is being an ass.

It's the black & white logic of freepers at work here. God help the foreperson.

[MADem]

40. When the answer comes back, though, they don't get the satisfaction they are hoping for

And near as I could determine from the odd news reports, they were steaming along fairly steadily, dismissed juror notwithstanding, until this imbroglio. Maybe I'm an optimist, as I said, but this assessment works for me: http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/

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.

[Honeycombe8]

42. I agree. Bodes well for Libby.

It looks like there are one or more holdouts, who are saying that it is possible that Libby doesn't recall all those conversations about Plame. In support, they point out that the govt didn't present evidence that it isn't humanly possible to forget all those conversations. Therefore, in their opinion, it is reasonable to conclude that Libby did forget them.

Other jurors are trying to point out that while it might be humanly possible (or not) to forget, it is not REASONABLE to conclude that Libby forgot all those conversations. So the govt doesn't have to show evidence that it isn't humanly possible, because that's not the "reasonable doubt" test.

Other jurors are trying to show that "reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt whatsoever."

This means there might be a hung jury, with one or more digging in their heels not willing to convict unless there is no way whatsoever any human being could have forgotten those conversations, and the govt specifically presents evidence of that. Which is in itself humanly impossible.

As another poster pointed out, this is prime example of extremist right thinking (or not thinking).

[Deep13]

7. They're not convinced that it is impossible that he forgot.

They want to know if they can convict even if it is theoretically possible that he forgot. There's probably one hold-out juror unsure of this point.

[MADem]

8. It's hard to say. It could be "How much evidence do we need to have

before we just use our own good judgment?"

[Bandit]

14. There is reasonable doubt by that question

I say Libby will walk on all counts. :shrug: or at the very leasdt a hung jury. All we have left is the Civil suit filed by Wilson and his wife..

[On the Road]

39. The Question Itself Does Not Bode Well,

since it implies that at least one person on the jury considers it possible that Libby was telling the truth.

However, the answer may be to quiet that particular juror, since the standard it sets is too high. And hopefully result in conviction.

[Monkeyman]

2. All I will say is dam

[MADem]

3. In other words, at what point can we just raise the bullshit flag?

At least that's what I am taking from it....of course, I'm not in the room, so who knows how their thought processes are working?

[Deep13]

4. Answer, no.

Reasonable doubt must be based on the evidence or lack thereof and not on speculation or fantasy. The jurors must rely on their "common sense" (whatever that means) to ascertain what is or is not reasonable.

[BOSSHOG]

5. No doubt some moron

conservative(s) on the jury who believes libby just couldn't remember a fucking thing about something as important as national security. Sad. Pathetic. Waste of time. libby committed perjury. A blind man can see that.

[HereSince1628]

10. All I can say is "OH, GAWD, way too much interrogation of the common sense"

Is this to be the 21st century' primary example of being SOPHOMORIC??????????????

Oh, Gawd, please don't let this "well educated jury" fuck the nation in an attempt to prove they are erudite.

[Marnieworld]

11. It seems that they want to know if the burden is that it has to be impossible or implausible

Did the Prosecution have to prove it impossible that Libby forgot or does it just have to be implausible?

My feeling is implausible. That's why it is a beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond any doubt.

But I'm just a highly biased observer with no legal background. They need to hurry cause I'm going loony tunes over here.
:scared:

[HereSince1628]

13. Didn't the Attorneys and the Judge already instruct about reasonable doubt?

I coulda swore I read somethings about that during the blogging privided thru FDL

[Marnieworld]

16. I can't recall specifically

But I'd assume it would be covered in any Jury instruction in any criminal case in general.

I'll say one thing about the Valentine loving bunch, they are certainly trying to get things right whatever they decide. And it shows that they can reach some agreement by reaching consensus on these questions. I'm trying to have faith but of course anyone can read anything they want into this until they reach a verdict.

[Hepburn]

17. I agree...

...not beyond ALL doubt. "Implausible" is a good word and that to me conveys "reasonable" doubt.

[Marnieworld]

18. gee

And I never had any of that fancy law learning! :D

[Hepburn]

30. Too bad...

...that there ain't more common sense in lawyering and less law! :hi:

[Hepburn]

15. I am a lawyer....

...and I am trying to understand this question from the jury.

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.

The double negatives are getting to me.

But: The gist of it seems to be what is reasonable doubt...and did the govt have to ACTUALLY prove that if would be impossible for someone to not recall this.

Kind of a guess here.....

[TroglodyteScholar]

29. Seems to me...

...that if the gov't could prove it impossible for Libby to have forgotten, they wouldn/t need a jury.

What part of REASONABLE doubt is so difficult for them? I'd venture that cases with guilty verticts are seldom proven beyond ANY doubt.

[Kagemusha]

33. I'm sure the proper answer is no, don't need to prove "impossible"

just really, really unbelievably unlikely.

[ClintonTyree]

19. I don't like the sounds of it....

I've said all along that all the Bushistas have to do is get to one juror. There's no group of miscreants alive that are better than the Bushistas at strong-arming or buying what they want.

[0007]

20. I'm hoping that this is an act of torture - make the little slimmy

thugs in the WH have another nervous week-end.
Make my day daddy-0!

[The Stranger]

21. I have never heard of so many questions.

Is someone tampering with this jury?

[displacedtexan]

22. Here's Walton's jury instruction on reasonable doubt...

“The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.”

[soothsayer]

26. metaphysical certitude?

[TroglodyteScholar]

31. Excellent answer...

I'm no lawyer, but this is how I would've interpreted reasonable doubt. This is middle school civics stuff.

[Beetwasher]

23. Reasonable Doubt In This Case=: Would a Reasonable Person BELIEVE Libby?

Or would a reasonable person DOUBT Libby?

This question DOES bode well people!! It seems there may be a hold out on the jury who is arguing that the gov't did not make the case that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Libby to forget. The gov't didn't have to make that case. They only had to show that it is UNREASONABLE to believe Libby forgot. They only had to show that Libby's story is NOT REASONABLE.

[Kagemusha]

34. I have no idea what the final verdict will be but...

I'm glad they're taking their responsibility seriously and are asking questions when something is in doubt by someone. They can't look up reasonable doubt in the dictionary, the judge says, if you have such a question, ask me. Lo and behold, they did. The process is doing its job. Just wish I knew the outcome.

[chelsea0011]

35. The key word is always reasonable. It is never beyond any doubt

We woul;d never have a conviction. Is it reasonable, beyond doubt, to find someone guilty with the evidence presented? Not humanly possible sounds like beyond any doubt. That is not the standard. But it also sounds like the jury would like to not convict. I can't believe they are having a problem with reasonable doubt. They are looking for a way out.

[NastyRiffraff]

36. I tend to agree with Christy Hardin-Smith

From Firedoglake

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.

[AndyTiedye]

37. It Would Be SO Easy for Them to Blackmail one of the Jurors

They have the NSA at their disposal, with its ability to monitor communication,
as well as access to IRS, law enforcement, and all other government databases.

They only have to blackmail one juror.

[w4rma]

38. Good. This jury is thinking. I get the impression there is one Freeper holdout that the other 10

are trying to convince. I hope that Freeper holdout didn't get on the jury for the purpose of being a Libby's Ace up the sleeve holdout.

[antiimperialist]

41. Libby claims to have forgotten about 9 conversations

in which either told someone about Plame's identity, or was told about her identity.
This is not about forgetting one event. It's about forgetting 9. Give me a break!