INSIDE THE JURY ROOM-By: Juror #9 - Huffpo Exclusive - Day By Day - Witness By Witness

[kpete]

INSIDE THE JURY ROOM
HUFFINGTON POST EXCLUSIVE

WHAT THE JURY THOUGHT, DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, AT THE SCOOTER LIBBY TRIAL

By Denis Collins, Juror #9


I. Deliberation Day

"This is a case about memory, about recollections and about words." We've heard from the fighting Irishman and weeping Wells, a gaggle of Pulitzer Prize winners, and some of the best and brightest from the CIA, State Department, FBI and office of the Vice President. The Honorable Reggie Walton has just provided us final instructions.

Deliberations in the case of the United States vs. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in District Court for the District of Columbia are ready to commence, when one of the jurors offers an unsolicited statement regarding the solemn task before us.

"I think they're lying. Every one of them."

7 more pages
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/

[DemReadingDU]

1. This is going to be fascinating reading. Thanks for posting!

[Rose Siding]

2. This juror had personal connections with 3 witnesses

I'm as surprised as he is that he wasn't bumped.

snip>
You know someone on the prospective witness list?

I do. Bob Woodward was my boss at the Washington Post for three or four years.
.....
Know anyone else on the list?

Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. I don't think I ever spoke to him during my 10 years at the Post, but twice in the last 14 months we talked at parties thrown by a mutual friend.

Anyone else?

Until a year or so ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor. His back yard and mine shared an alley and a basketball hoop where our sons played. I attended a few neighborhood barbecues in his back yard.

[Coexist]

3. wow!

[Reader Rabbit]

4. I don't mean to be negative, but...

...could something like this be used by Libby's attorney's as grounds for a mistrial? Or as evidence of bias in a re-trial?

As much as I enjoy the insider views and the karma, I'm also worried about these bastards wriggling their way out of this, somehow.

Sorry to be a killjoy. :(

[AllegroRondo]

12. I dont think so, they knew but chose not to strike him

Now if it came out after the trial that he knew all these people and didnt tell the court, that would be a different thing.

[Blackhatjack]

14. That is correct! Plus they used potential juror questionaires in this case....

These are usually quite detailed, and the results are provided to both sides before voir dire begins(that is questioning of potential jurors in court).

Someone made a decision to leave this individual on the jury panel, either because they saw something they thought would help them in understanding the evidence and their theory, OR they looked at who was left in the juror pool who might be called to take their place and they were trying to avoid that person or persons ending up on the jury.

These counsel knew a huge amount about these prospective jurors, and made informed decisions not to move to strike them. I do not recall that either side exhausted all of their preemptory challenges, so it was their decision-- they were not just stuck with them.

[WolverineDG]

16. His objections were waived

if he didn't ask those questions or have the judge do that during voir dire & have the juror stricken "for cause." I was called for jury duty in a minor federal criminal case (drug possession) & I was excused because I knew a couple of the AUSAs and Federal Public Defenders, even though the ones I know weren't the ones trying the case. You are put under oath & have to disclose who & what you know about the case & if you do & aren't struck, then too bad, so sad.

The same goes for the 11 jurors. Wells didn't object (in fact, it seemed that Fitz was pushing more for 12 jurors than Wells), so again, too bad so sad on that issue.

dg

[tanyev]

5. Kick.

[Rose Siding]

6. This is great. Look how focused and methodical-

snip>
We are finally ready for a vote on Count 5. Perjury. There is an A and B part to this count. We need to be unanimous on only one of the two counts.

Testimony regarding a conversation with Matthew Cooper on or about July 12, 2003.
Testimony given regarding conversations with reporters.
We choose B and study the underlined testimony:

all I had was that reporters are telling us that....I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. I didn't know he had a wife. I don't know if he's married. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.

Defense Counsel Wells mentioned this passage in his closing. He said Libby kept getting hammered, and hammered by Fitzgerald until he was so tired he made the statement about the wife. Wells had good reason to try to explain away this statement considering how much evidence there is to contradict Libby.

We've heard testimony that Libby was told of Mrs. Wilson in June and July by:

The Vice President, Grossman, Grenier, Judith Martin and Matthew Cooper.

We've heard testimony that during that same time period he spoke of Mrs. Wilson to:

Judith Miller (twice) Craig Schmall, Ari Fleischer.

We've also heard testimony that he received from the Vice President a July 6 New York Times article by Joseph Wilson with a hand written note about Wilson's wife.

We've also heard testimony that Libby approached David Addington and asked if a CIA employee sent a spouse on a mission would there be a paper trail. A logical inference is that Libby was talking about Mrs. Wilson.

We take a vote - 9 for conviction, 2 against.

"I just think he was confused. He had a lot on his plate."
"I just don't see why a man with that much intelligence and being a lawyer would lie? Why not go into the Grand Jury and say I didn't tell the truth?"
We retire for the evening.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next morning we begin again. Revisit our charts. We do not ask the two holdouts to change their minds. We ask them instead to change ours. After 20 minutes we vote again.

Unanimous for conviction. There is no celebration, just a communal sigh. We have four counts to go.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Did you see the answers given by the two jurors who held out?

"I just think he was confused. He had a lot on his plate."
"I just don't see why a man with that much intelligence and being a lawyer would lie? Why not go into the Grand Jury and say I didn't tell the truth?"

All they have to do, ALL they have to do is serve on a Board for a Homeowner's Association and Anglo-Americans INTENTIONALLY make deceitful decsions because they don't believe a judge or a jury will expect them to know everything; and, Lawyers lie all the time.

[Blackhatjack]

13. I have to take issue with "Lawyers lie all the time" .....

To become a lawyer requires at least 3 years of intensive study, huge expenditures of money, and passing the bar exam. Further, all you have to sell is your work ethic and your reputation for always telling the truth in order to practice in any court. I do not know any lawyers who lightly regard the prospect of 'lying' to help a client, when proof of such conduct would undoubtedly cost them their license to practice law. Even in cases where there is no proof of 'lying', even the appearance of impropriety impairs the court's opinion of counsel and would make it difficult to practice in the courtroom.

Clients come and go, but loss of a law license would be a catastrophe. Casual 'lying all the time' just does not happen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Kiss that myth good-bye.

Please, PLEASE, don't believe that a lawyer will never lie. I had a lawyer/professor who told me that if he had a client who sued him because of the advice he gave, that he would lie to protect himself.

They know all the tricks, and they have the connections. Why not? Who's going to stop them? The Bar Association? What a joke. There are heinous things that lawyers have done that have been hushed up in Federal Courts through settlement agreements.

Some of them get handsomely rewarded for skirting the law. It's worth the risk to them. And quite frankly, nothing is ever black or white. It's easy to fool the public, so that the public thinks the lawyer was on their side, but what the public never knows, is all the other clients in the law firm.

[Blackhatjack]

20. You have no understanding of how lawyers actually operate...

There are rules that prevent representing clients which have conflicts of interests.
THe Bar Association in each state disbars lawyers every month.
THere are ethical rules that apply to attorneys that do not apply to individuals.

Your observations would appear to be based on a faulty perceptions, and anecdotal in nature.

If nothing else, the risk/reward of violating the law or ethical rules prevents just the conduct you complain of. If I lie in one case to help one client, I may never make another dime representing another future client in any case. It is not worth the risk.

IF anything the Federal Courts expose what lawyers do. Go to the courthouse and read the files. THey are open to the public. Or sign up online and read them in the comfort of your own home.

THere are always some in every profession that fail to live up to these standards, but lawyers are the last defense of liberty and justice in this country.

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. I know all about those rules.

I have enough of a background to be a paralegal, but I also know there is a BIG difference between the theory and the practical application. And I'm here to tell you that wherever good ole boy networks exist, the theory be damned.

And shame on you for defending a profession that has been failing the public because it refuses to self-regulate its own.

Sure there are great lawyers, Patrick Fitzgerald being the shining star among them, but those that serve the public for little or no compensation, are few and far between. And therein lies your problem.

[Blackhatjack]

22. You have it backwards my friend, those who serve the public good are many .....

... and those who fail to meet the standard are few, but they get lots of press.

I am sorry you had a bad result, but do you really believe that the members of the legal profession who are sworn as officers of the Court to uphold the rights of every American citizen under the Constitution are the problem?

And shame on you for painting all members of the legal profession with a broad brush of unsupported allegations of corruption.

Who protects the injured? Not corporations and businesses. Who will you call if you are injured through the negligence of a corporate entity who decided not to install a safety device because it was not 'cost effective'?

If you are wrongfully accused of a crime, who will you call?

IF you are discriminated against on the basis of your sex, race, national origin, who are you going to call?

If you need to understand how to comply with the laws passed by Congress, which carry substantial penalties for non-compliance, who are you going to call?

Even Shakespear recognized the importance of having lawyers if we are to have freedom. But you would not know that if you stopped reading after 'kill all the lawyers...'

There are thousands of attorneys that labor 'under the radar' who perform just as admirably as Fitzgerald. You owe each one of them an apology.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. Oh, I know good lawyers that serve the public are out there, but none

have crossed my path. And I left room for them in my last post, but you're not about giving me any credit for that possibility, are you? As you stated, they labor 'under the radar,' so, even by your own admission, credit would have to be given on faith, since, if they're working "under the radar," they wouldn't be apparent to me or anybody else, would they? And I might add, you used british quotation marks when you quote, which makes me wonder if you practice Stateside, or in England, but that's going on a tangent, unless it means you know absolutely nothing about what it's like living in an environment where good ole boys rule. Well, do you?

I know, in theory, that they exist and it doesn't hurt when a Patrick Fitzgerald gets good press. But, let's just say the lawyers I know on an incidental basis are at least honest and fair in their appraisal of the legal situation. Especially the Democratic ones I know. One smugly said, the ordinary person can't afford them. It's all about money and you would be disingenuous to deny it. I certainly respected him for admitting it.

[Blackhatjack]

24. Obviously you live in some kind of 'alternate reality' ....

... but I see you will not accept any interpretation of the world of lawyers except your own, which is terribly skewed.

BTW any of these "lawyers (you) know on a incidental basis" who back up your beliefs certainly are outside the mainstream. And lots of lawyers give free services each year to those unable to pay as 'pro bono' work.

I guess you are in favor of tort reform also? because plaintiff trial lawyers are all crooked and getting rich, right?

In case you did not know it, the 'good ole boy' network you allege is just not backed up by the facts. The number of law school grads each year is closely split between men and women. There are now large numbers of minorities practicing law.

And to answer your personal questions about me --I have practiced law for over 24 years, all of it 'stateside', and I know a little bit more about how lawyers work than you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. LOL!

It is YOU who live in an alternate reality. I live in Bush's world.

This has nothing to do with tort reform. This has EVERYTHING to do with access to affordable attorneys to pursue civil recourse for white collar crimes which SHOULD be prosecuted on a criminal level, but never are. This has everything to do with lawyers breaking every rule of ethics in order to protect the local shadow government.

I'm sorry, but if you won't even admit that these things exist, then you have the good fortune of never having practiced in Florida.

[Blackhatjack]

32. You do realize that most government officials are not lawyers, right?

And this statement is perplexing: "This has EVERYTHING to do with access to affordable attorneys to pursue civil recourse for white collar crimes which SHOULD be prosecuted on a criminal level, but never are."

First of all, civil claims and criminal actions travel on entirely different tracks. The first affords individuals, business entities, and non-profits with a forum for resolving disputes between themselves and with their government. The second is the system which enforces the criminal laws in the name of the people, and not in the name of any individual.

While it is possible for a course of conduct to trigger simultaneously both civil claims and action by the state to criminally prosecute, each proceeds under an entirely different set of rules.

If you have personal knowledge of the wrongdoing you claim is ongoing in the Florida district in which you live, then you need to share that information with the Florida State Bar. I have friends who practice in Florida, and I find your accusations do not match their experience. Are you sure you are not associating the wrongdoing of individuals that lawyers represent, with the lawyers themselves?

Living up to the duty imposed on lawyers by the Constitution we are sworn to uphold does not always make us popular, but it is necessary if we are to have a free society with all the rights and liberties we all cherish.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. There is no way on the face of this earth that

the Florida Bar nor criminal justice agencies cannot know about a Richter scale 7 earthquake that occurs in their backyard. It's mum, because all those great people that you say are suppose to enforce the law, want it mum. They even instilled fear in the hearts of any member of the public who dares speak out. And not all members of the public are created equally. You see, those ignorant Republican voters who are easily fooled into believing that we have to destroy the Muslim scourge because every dark-skinned son of Islam wants to kill us, can be fooled into believing other things as well. Dumb, because they believed that guv'mint interfered with their business transactions so they thought the Libertarian way is the right way, so they weakened laws that protected the public, in order to facilitate their private affairs; dumb because they get bitten in the ass when outside developers walked in and used those weaken laws to shit in their backyards. Dumb because they thought that finding Jesus through community activism would work in a conservative social network that they helped create in the first place. Dumb, dumb dumb.

So, lawyers who help them clean up the mess are good guys to this inside group, and who knows, maybe some of them are; but because the laws were bent in this glaring case, it reinforces a trickle down effect of good ole boy corruption. They got away with it once, so now, it's a reinforced way of life. And you can't attack the latter, without opening a can of worms on the former.

I have nothing more to say about it.

[sandnsea]

25. "skirting" isn't "lying"

Which is why I have no problem with 'what the definition of is, is'.

The rule is... don't talk to the police, and if you think you MUST talk to the police, DO NOT LIE.

Omitting, forgetting, skirting, uncertainty - none are LYING. Lawyers do not advocate clients LIE.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. What lawyers are suppose to do, and what they actually do are not

always the same thing.

[sandnsea]

28. Most of the time, they are

No lawyer is going to risk losing his/her license over some thug of a criminal.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. Are we talking about the Libby case, or are we talking about

how law is practiced in small towns where good ole boys prevail?

[sandnsea]

30. Lawyers, plural, lie all the time

That was your statement, so you tell me. I'm talking about lawyers, with an s, wherever they may be. They do not advocate clients lie.

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. I'll take that criticism.

I was talking about my personal experience with lawyers on a professional basis. A glaring example of good ole boyism. Outside of that, those I know as personal acquaintances, I can't say I've seen them work, so I can't judge them on that basis, but they seem to be nice people.

[jannyk]

7. Exclusive? This guy's been talking to

everyone and anyone with a digicam - he can't keep his mouth shut.

My guess is, if he keeps flapping his lips, he's eventually going to hand Libby's lawyers the 'gift' they need to cry 'mis-trial'.

He needs to shut the fuck up!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. He's doing this on purpose.

The other lady was removed for doing almost the same thing.

[napi21]

15. I don't see a problem with what he's doing. He and the entire jury

would have caused a mis-trial if this would have occurred BEFORE the end of the trial, butit's over and the verdict has been rendered. I can't really see howthe defense would be able to use any of this info to support an appeal or a mis-trial.

[Beausoir]

10. Excellent read. I love this inside peek.

[Blackhatjack]

11. This inside account of a juror should set aside any doubts regarding the verdict reached....

I just finished reading all 7 pages of the account at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/libby/?p=1

It clearly demonstrates that this jury took a very methodical and logical approach to witness credibility, witness testimony content, and logical testing of conflicting evidence.

It appears that this jury did everything right in their deliberations, at least as far as this account shows.

The defense's only chance was to have a jury that bought into the emotional arguments, and fallacious arguments they put forward. Having a jury which carefully reviewed everything, used the evidence to put together and weigh each element of each count, meant that Libby could not escape conviction.

I find it both interesting and significant that this jury had a lawyer, and a former employee of the Washington Post(who wrote his own book), on this jury. Both have specialized knowledge and both are familiar with the requirements that everything they say and write be supported by independent evidence.

Lawyers get to talk to jurors after the trial, if the jurors are amenable. But this goes way beyond the superficial Q and A that usually entails.

Although I was always representing the defendant at trial, this would have been exactly the kind of jury I would have tried to seat in the trials in which I was involved. THe most you can hope for is a jury that will listen and impartially consider all of the evidence. IMHO this account shows that is exactly what they did in Scooter's case.

The revelation that may be a 'bombshell' from this jury's deliberation is their opinion of other possible wrongdoers(Cheney/Rove/Armitage and Bush, etc) and their possible culpabililty for this and other wrongdoing.

[Sydnie]

18. Don't have time to read this now,

but don't want to lose it for later when I do.

Kicked and rec'd!

[napi21]

19. I just finished reading all 7 pages. It's very interesting to understand

what was going on inside the jury room. I congratulate all of them for a job well done.