Legal question on Libby

[WorldResident]

Let's just take Libby's name out of this question, so the answer is not clouded by politics.

In fact, just to be creative, you can think of this as a drug case.


****

Juror says, "I think the defendant was the fall guy." He still finds him guilty though.

****

Does this statement reflect that the defendant's due process rights or any other rights were violated?

***

My initial answer is no, because people become fall guys all the time and this is clear generally with prosecutors. However, said prosecutors may still throw the book at the guy in the overall interest of justice. I don't know if this is analagous to Libby, but I would think the same principle applies.

[whistle]

1. Libby has been no patsy, he was a fully vested participant in the

...deception along with Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al.

[napi21]

2. NO! It simply means that juror doesn't believe Libby "acted Alone."

Libby still LIED and Obstructed Justice, and THAT is all he was charged with.

To me, the juror seems to believe that Libby was protecting some other people.

[Lerkfish]

3. welcome to DU, but I vehemently disagree

:wave:

and I categorically reject the premise of your thread.
Libby was, in fact, guilty of obstructing justice and perjury. That doesn't change, whether he is considered a fall guy or not.

the juror meant he was ordered to fall on his own sword, which he did. That means he knowingly broke the law in order to protect his boss of a higher crime.

nice try, but nope, I reject the oblique connection you're attempting to make here.

[WorldResident]

4. My initial answer was no

So in fact I agree with you currently. :)

Libby is akin to a low-level (or mid-level more accurately) drug dealer or mobster who got the book thrown at him because as you said he wouldn't give up the boss.

[Lerkfish]

5. sorry for misreading your post!

I thought you were suggesting the opposite. sorry about that.