Libby Trial: Verdict Unlikely Today

A verdict is unlikely today in the Scooter Libby trial. The jurors' note (pdf) yesterday said they wanted to be excused at 2:00 pm to attend to "personal, professional and medical obligations," and the Judge granted it.

The judge thinks they will deliberate into next week. And yes, it appears they care about being dressed appropriately when the verdict is returned:

`So I assume they will not have a verdict tomorrow either,'' Walton told lawyers as jurors finished their seventh day of deliberations.

Before bringing the jurors into court, Walton advised lawyers they ``will not be happy about coming into court because they don't think they are dressed appropriately.''

He said that's why they decided not to come into court Monday for a brief discussion and how ``I knew there wasn't a verdict'' coming Thursday. About half were wearing blue jeans, but most smiled broadly when Walton granted their request to leave early Friday.

Walton said he denied the dictionary request - not an uncommon one for juries - because definitions of common words can have legal implications. He told jurors if they had questions, they could ask him directly.

If I were the judge, my answer to this mind-numbingly stupid question would be itself in the form of the question:

How would government go about proving that some act "is NOT humanly possible"? How do you prove a negative?

Maybe that would make jury think about what the heck they keep asking... and maybe like with the previous request, they can find it in themselves to answer their own question. Or would it take them a week to figure it out?

Is it me, or this question looks like it was designed by a committee (a "camel" question)?

LOL...your post made me laugh.

I needed it, too.

Did you read the take about this by Andrew McCarthy?

He said something about how jurors sometimes tend to "retry" the case during deliberations..and this may be why they are taking so long...need all of the pictures, etc.

Good GRIEF!!!

If all of this wait boils down to needing to know what "reasonable doubt" is....then I have reasonable doubt that they know what they are doing...

Did you read the take about this by Andrew McCarthy?

Yes, I read it, but I can't surmise that from a makeup of the jury, i.e. I don't know if they are looking at it from the point of count-by-count or trying to get "the wider, overall picture" of the case, which is the favorite theory of David Corn and other libs who want to assign the conviction, if there is one, to the WH-Bush-OVP-Cheney sinister conspiracy of "outing" Valerie to "punish" a "war critic whistleblower" Joe Wilson, thus "justifying" and "vindicating" the entire Fitzfong entrapment "investigation" rather than a case of possibly "faulty memory" of Libby or, even worse, a case of faulty memory of witnesses for the persecution.

Which begs the question, if there was a "conspiracy", as Fitz insisted in his closing summation and rebuttal, why Libby was not charged with it, and nobody else was charged with it? Wouldn't that lend more credence and panache to the case and added the number of counts on which to convict?

Re jury, I am less and less impressed : - starting with silly Valentine T-shirts stunt (I don't know if the museum curator is a flaming lib, but I respect her sense of propriety and common sense of not going along with the rest)

- continuing with a request / question to the judge that he couldn't understand and was withdrawn after apology

- and now this tied-into-k"NOT"s senseless question trying to have judge prove a negative for the prosecution and declare function of human memory (forgetfulness) NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

Maybe MIT professor can straighten them out on that, but I have little faith in this jury abilities to make obvious conclusions on the basis of straight facts.

Fitz stated in the Court room that because Libby lied, Libby had put a curtain between the facts and the truth.

1. Fitz knew the facts!
2. The referral from the CIA to the DOJ was for the "outing" of a "covert" agent.
3. Fitz knew the Referral was phony.
4. Fitz knew that Plame was not covert.
5. Fitz knew Armitage was blabbing her name as well as JOE WILSON!
6. Fitz knew no crime had been committed. See Pt. 3.
7. Fitz lied to the Court! There could be no "curtain" or obstruction the Truth when NO CRIME WAS COMITTED!
And, When Fitz, Already was in possession of the FACTS!

Yes, WE know the FACTS, we know that Fitzfauxng (aka Fauxngerald) so-called "investigation" was not based on laws, but was nothing more than a political witchhunt and retaliation, and basically fizzled out as only one man (Libby) was charged and only with procedural counts having nothing to do with anything that was supposed to be investigated. Fitzfauxng could ONLY continue with this farce, knowing from the beginning that he will have support of al-Media and that trial will take place in DC and that he can get favorable rulings and claim something he didn't have to prove by rules of evidence - to appeal to political instincts of the jury rather than convince them with facts.

That said, the left (and many on the right) will use the verdict (if it's "favorable" to their side) as "vindication" of their position, while WE ALL know that in reality verdict depends only on political views and beliefs of 11 members of the jury and/or whatever pressure that can be exerted on them.

And that is very "sad and pathetic", considering how proud we're of our justice system compared to some in "uncivilized" or "undeveloped" countries.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.