Uh oh! Libby jury seeks definition of "reasonable doubt"

[FourScore]

"Libby jurors: Define 'reasonable doubt'
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago

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.

"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/20070302/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

[stray cat]

1. It sounds almost like sarcasm directed at a lone hold out - lets hope!

[niyad]

2. great scott!! they remind me of a comment dan fielding once made: " a jury of my PEERS? twelve ,

people who weren't bright enough to get off jury duty, my PEERS??"

this doesn't look good at all.

[Annces]

7. Or someone who is way too smart

and says "well it depends on how you look at it." ad infinitum.

[Rosemary2205]

3. I will be very shocked if they convict him.

I hope they do, but I don't see anyone in the Bush admin ever REALLY held accountable for any of their crimes. I never saw it. To be honest I'm surprised even Libby was charged with anything.

I truly hope I'm wrong.

[sharp_stick]

4. Doesn't sound that bad to me

It appears they are stuck between the definition of reasonable doubt and beyond the shadow of a doubt and they aren't sure which to use. IMHO in a case like this the reasoable doubt would mean that the prosecution doesn't have to prove it isn't humanely possible to forget only to show that it is very unlikely that he would forget.

[Beetwasher]

6. Correct

Would your average reasonable person believe or doubt Libby's story? That's the question you have to ask. That's reasonable doubt.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. sounds to me like someone on the jury is saying

"because we can't prove that he is not lying about not remembering, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and take his word that he is not lying, and doesn't remember - even if it is something that any normal person would remember."

[Beetwasher]

8. Right, And That is an INCORRECT Interpretation of Resonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt in this case equals: Would a reasonable person believe Libby or doubt him?

[Jacobin]

10. I think you have a good read on that

there is apparently one hold out who is trying to find a way to say there is 'reasonable doubt'

[walldude]

9. Libby is already guilty. He lied, there is no debate on that point

what they are deliberating on is whether Libby is just a complete and utter moron and "forgot" or whether he is a total asshole and did it on purpose. They are going to let him off because there is no way anyone can prove that he's not stupid.

[blogslut]

11. Christy Hardin Smith @ FDL sez

"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..."

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/02/more-notes-from-the-jury/

She also goes on to guess that judge Walton may go ahead and sequester the jury on Monday - just to move things along.

I think Scooter better get his stuff together because the hammer of justice is coming down next week.

[Sydnie]

20. I have served on a jury before and I agree with her take

After deciding that the person was guilty we then bantered about what level of guilt the person could be held to account for. If you have multiple charges sometimes it takes a bit to sort out which charges were proved, which you might still have some questions about and just how much justice you feel you can serve to this person and still sleep at night.

It's the "I could/might have done something sort of like this, what would I want them to do with me if I were standing in their shoes" type deliberations now.

Once case I served on, the judge asked us if any of us had any questions to remain in the hallway and he would address us after sentencing was announced that day. I waited. I wanted a copy of the instructions that he had given us as to what the law was on the type of crime committed (drug crime). I met with him and it was then that he told me that we let this person off easier than he would have, as the person had already plead to other charges and this was the one hold over that they thought they could beat. He then told me things about the crime I couldn't hear in court. I left thinking we had done the best job we could with the info we had been given but still wondering why we weren't given the info about the pleas as well.

[rudy23]

12. All I see is the majority of the jury trying to convince a wingnut holdout--hence the post its and

dictionary, etc.

Remember Diebold, Katrina, the Swift Boat Vets, etc., etc.

I just don't see how * doesn't taint this jury. It's too important. All I see is 9 or 10 jurors who understand the case like we do, being held up by a wingnut with their fingers in their ears.

Either they're a plant, or Libby just got lucky. I promise you, there's a wingnut on this jury who is going to throw this case based on their warped view of "reasonable doubt", and their belief that Presidents and Vice Presidents are our kings, and shouldn't be bothered in a time of war.

[nebenaube]

13. Is it just me or does it seem that the jury has been tampered with? n/t

[newyawker99]

14. !!!

:thumbsup:

[Beausoir]

15. They know he's guilty...that much is clear from this.

They are wrestling with whether Fitz proved it.

Edited to add: Once they get back to the real definition of reasonable doubt, they will see that Fitz did prove the case.

[H2O Man]

16. That's good news.

Bad news would have been if they had ruled on the case based on an incorrect, rigid "definition" of reasonable doubt.

Is there any DUer who can name anyone more capable that Judge Walton to explain to this jury on Monday morning what the real definition is, in the context of this court case? Mighty glad he didn't send in a dictionary.

Scooter is found guilty on all counts on Monday afternoon.

[Me.]

17. Monday, Monday, So Good To Me.

"Now the darkness only stays at nighttime,
in the morning it will fade away
Daylight is good
at arriving at the right time
It's not always
going to be this grey

All things must pass,
all things must pass away
All things must pass,
all things must pass away"

George Harrison

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Agreed Completely.

What I'm taking from this is that there are some who were thinking too rigidly about what beyond reasonable doubt implies, and were trying to put forth the false assertion that in order to be beyond reasonable doubt you'd have to take away the remote concept that he may not have in fact remembered. We all know that would be far too rigid. It appears the majority of jury members are trying to convince the minority (possibly even just one holdout) that they are being too rigid and impractical. They probably have gotten to a point of minor frustration trying to convince them of that, and for sake of reaching consensus agreed to request clarification from the judge. When it comes back that in fact the government doesn't even have to come close to proving such things, then the firm ground the holdouts believed they were standing on will crumble, and they will most likely submit to consensus that the bar of reasonable doubt has been reached.

I say this game's just about done, and we will be satisfied with the outcome.

[Annces]

19. Thanks Fire Man, I mean Waterman

[Beausoir]

21. As someone on FDL wrote...all the judge has to say to the reasonable doubt question

is NO!
Case closed, guilty verdicts.

[H2O Man]

22. I'm confident

that Judge Walton will give the proper definition. I like to use the definition provided by Vince Bugliosi in his book "Outrage." In the context of a trial, reasonable doubt is "a sound, sensible, logical doubt based on the evidence" introduced in the courtroom.

The concept of a case being proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not translate to "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is the most common error that lay people make in the rigid misinterpretation of the instruction.

I would recommend pages 251, 321, and 364-366 of Bugliosi's book for further information.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Copy of notes

http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/jurynote32.pdf

[WorldResident]

24. I'm glad to see a jury actually paying attention to the meaning of reasonable doubt

n/t