The Nation: Libby Trial: More Waiting, More Jury Notes

[marmar]

BLOG | Posted 03/02/2007 @ 4:37pm
Libby Trial: More Waiting, More Jury Notes


The jurors in the obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby left early on Friday. But they do appear still to be diligently working through their review of the case. Before knocking off for the weekend, the jurors sent two notes to Judge Reggie Walton. The first note referred to one of the allegedly false statements Libby made to the FBI and grand jury investigating the CIA leak. This statement is part of the overall obstruction of justice count. "Are we supposed to evaluate the entire Libby transcripts (testimony) or would the court direct us to specific pages/line," it read. "Thank you."

The other note dealt with an overarching issue:

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 doubt.

How to interpret these communications? The jurors are fixing on both the specifics of the charges and on the larger themes of the case. They may be some conflicting views within the jury room. But these clues suggest the jurors are not yet stuck.

The second note is intriguing. Fitzgerald's case is partly based on the premise that if Vice President Dick Cheney, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, senior CIA official Robert Grenier, and vice presidential spokesperson Cathie Martin each told Scooter Libby around June 9 to June 12, 2003, that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and if Libby talked about Valerie Wilson in the next few weeks with CIA briefer Craig Schmall, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, then Libby had to be lying when he told the FBI and grand jury that by July 11, 2003, he had forgotten completely about the wife. So completely that when Meet the Press host Tim Russert supposedly told him on July 11 about Wilson's wife and her CIA connection, Libby believed he was learning this fact "anew" and was even surprised by it. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=171061

[H2O Man]

1. Interesting article.

Thank you for posting this.

Nominated.

[snappyturtle]

2. Ditto. K&R n/t

[Me.]

3. A Nation Waits

at least a part of it

[sendero]

4. Frankly...

... I don't see how ANYONE could buy the "I forgot" defense. There is plenty of testimony to the effect that he was "excited" about the whole thing, do they think all these people are lying?

Every time I start believing in the jury system, a trial like this comes along and knocks me back :)

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

5. Easy question.

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 doubt.

Answer: No.

I am curious as to the exact wording of the jury instructions on this point, but I do recall it involves "moral certainty". In this case, the jury seems to be asking the judge to make the decision, which is not his job.

This is a pretty humble and human question to ask, given the circumstances - these jurors must certainly have a high level of apprehension over the case, and need a little reaasurance before they sign their sheets.

[MissWaverly]

6. I do not believe in the "I forgot" excuse

He is able to describe other things that happen around that time, down to the smallest detail, I don't know why the jurors didn't catch on to that.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

7. Miss, I think they are effectively isolating one holdout.

Someone on the jury is contending that "reasonable doubt" means "not humanly possbile". The majority knows this is not true, and would like the judge to at least re-iterate the instruction.

[girl gone mad]

9. That's my take, too.

Someone thinks 'reasonable doubt' means there is a chance, no matter how unlikely, that Libby forgot. The rest of the jurors are trying to convince him or her that Libby's defense is unreasonable.

[MissWaverly]

10. that sounds reasonable

but if you look at interviews with him, he remembers who he met with in proper order,
what day, and the time but then claims he forgot the "details" Memory is not selective,
if you can't remember where you parked the car, you are not likely to remember the number
of the space you parked in.

[Patsy Stone]

12. I concur

and I think that they've made it through all of the individual lies and are debating if there's even an infinitesimal chance he's innocent whether they should they acquit. This doesn't look good for Scoots.

It seems they've decided to get to the final question (obstruction), which would be moot if they didn't find him guilty of at least one of the lies. IOW, if you didn't lie, the discussion about whether you were guilty of obstruction would be moot.

[Garbo 2004]

11. Jeralyn Merritt has link to pdf of jury instruction on reasonable doubt in this post at TalkLeft:

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

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

8. Jury Instructions:

In considering Mr. Libby’s position and the testimony of any other witness 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 person’s memory to accurately recall those
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 you have to assess in this trial.