Libby lawyers grill NBC's Russert

AP on Yahoo ^ | 2/8/07 | Matt Apuzzo - ap

[popdonnelly]

"They all conveniently forget......."

Democrats' mantra: "I think I don't remember".

[AmishDude]

Grilled? If he were grilled by George Foreman, he'd overflow the tray.

[popdonnelly]

"Look, everybody, it's the AP trying to pretend that the jury is going to be impartial!"

Nah, it's the AP demonstrating that it isn't impartial, and hoping that the jury isn't, either.

[Lancey Howard]

Yeah, I'm figuring it's another "OJ jury" that couldn't spell "DNA" if you spotted them the "D" and the "N".

[PUGACHEV]

"OK, I know that there is a lot of anti lawyer bias on freepers but I will tell you as a lawyer that doing a really good cross examination is almost as good as really good sex."

Yes, that's true, and there's hardly anything more fun than cross-examining a psychiatrist who testifies as a shill for an insurance company disguised as an "independent medical examiner". So-called handwriting experts are almost as much fun, but psychiatrists who work as professional witnesses are in a class of their own.

[Mercat]

I had a case once where we had a legitimate handwriting expert and they had an handwriting analysist who had a website on using handwriting to analyze your personality. As soon as their "expert" saw our guy, then settled the case. LOL

[torchthemummy]

Libby's attorneys say Russert knew about Plame from colleagues David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell said in an interview that she and other reporters knew Plame worked for the CIA but she later recanted that statement. Wells had hoped to play clips of Mitchell discussing her statements on the Don Imus morning show on MSNBC. Fitzgerald successfully argued that the tapes not be played. "We might as well take 'Wigmore on Evidence' and replace it with 'Imus on Evidence,'" Fitzgerald said, referencing the classic treatise on evidentiary law. "There's no Imus exception to the hearsay rule. This has no business in a federal court."

Quite fortunate for Fitzgerald to get rid of the "She Said - She Said" in regards to Mitchell. Seems alot of what has been testified to would qualify as hearsay.

[IslandJeff]

I really haven't followed this story too closely, as it just seems like typical DC Noise.

But, is there a chance Mr. PotatoHead (Mark Levin's nickname for Russert) could face perjury charges?

[1L]

>>I will tell you as a lawyer that doing a really good cross examination is almost as good as really good sex.<<

I agree. The only problem is if you are too good at it, your jury may end up not liking you because they think you are a bully.

[1L]

>>I had a case once where we had a legitimate handwriting expert and they had an handwriting analysist who had a website on using handwriting to analyze your personality.<<

I had the exact same situation once. The other side was trying to pass this personality guy off as a document examiner (the correct term for what we were doing). If his deposition testimony ever saw the light of day, he'd be ruined as he made as big a fool of himself as humanly possible.

[Mercat]

I haven't done jury trials. So I don't really know how to play to a jury. I have a client/friend who called today with great news though. I did her domestic trial last summer. She's a Jewish refugee from Russia. She and her family immigrated here in the 80s. Then a few years ago she married another immigree who claimed to be Jewish but turned out he wasn't. She wanted an annulment and no one understood but me until we did a 2 1/2 day trial and finally, the judge got it and did find that the husband had lied to her and lied to the court and we got the annulment. Her first lawyer then sued her for fees, and a bunch of other stuff. She won the jury trial. Hurray!!!! What a fighter she is. I'm proud to know her.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"How is this hearsay evidence? No one cares what Don Imus says, but surely it's relevant what Andrea Mitchell said, since she later changed her story."

I am wanting an answer to that question also.

[supercat]

I sure hope the judge didn't rule that Libby can't use Mitchell's words to impeach her if she is inconsistent on the stand. That's always fair game. He perhaps can't use it as direct evidence, but for impeachment of credibility.

I would think that such evidence would have to be introduced while the witness in question is on the stand, since its evidentiary value lies not in the truth of the statements made, but rather in the fact that statements were made.

[supercat]

...but psychiatrists who work as professional witnesses are in a class of their own.

It's amazing how some "doctors" manage to make a career out of being an "expert witness", without any need to actually take on any patients.

[Defiant]

Correct. Mitchell is supposed to be called to the stand by Libby, isn't she?

[Laserman]

"They all conveniently forget......."

Democrats' mantra: "I think I don't remember".

Remember- if their lips are moving, they are lying!

[Laverne]

The ruling about Mitchell is still pending; decision on Monday, or perhaps before. If judge does not let Mitchell testify, I would bet that Team Libby will appeal his decision immediately.