Posted on 02/26/2007 6:57:45 AM PST by PhatHead
Not sure what this means but we've just gotten an announcement that the parties in the Libby trial have been asked to come to the courtroom at 9:45 this morning. Could be some sort of inquiry, or it could be bigger.
Fox News needs a good copy editor. From their story:
The jury has been under orders not to avoid reading, listening to, or watching news coverage about the trial because of the possibility of tainting evidence presented in court to the jury. The jury has been provided copies of newspapers screened by court employees, who removed trial coverage from the papers before giving them to the jurors.
NOT to avoid? I don't think so!
If a mistrial occurs, will Fitgeralds mention of "Cheney" and the other preposterous stuff in his closing change his rulings in a NEW trial, the rulings about not letting Valerie Plame's status be introduced?
Is that the charge, or did somebody maybe just see Hardball and tell other jurors about it?
LOL. This has the stench of a jury out for publicity.
Following the firedoglake.com blogger BREAKING comment:
Huge thank you to Looseheadprop for putting together this post for us this morning she is stuck in court herself this morning, but I will be around to answer the questions that I can about this for everyone.
We had some discussion on the Allen charge last week, and wanted to be sure everyone understood the legal rationale involved in something like this.
But, and let me be clear about this, we have absolutely no reason to think there will be one today or ever during the jury deliberations. We are giving you this information up front because it is a common thing for juries to hear this at some point in intricate cases and, frankly, we try to operate on an "abundance of caution" sort of framework in terms of explaining the basics to everyone where we can.
The jury is back in the courthouse for deliberations today.
I checked with folks on the staff, and deliberations are scheduled to begin on time today, despite some inclement weather in DC over the weekend. There is a note that will be addressed in the courtroom at 9:45 am ET this morning, and the parties have been asked to be there to deal with it.
(This could be as simple as a jury question or another request for materials. Take deep breaths.)
As soon as we hear anything, we will let you know we will have folks on the scene today reporting in whenever we get news. And now, back to your reading and your regularly scheduled waiting for a verdict. (Yes, deliberations for more than 2 and a half days are very, very common. Please do not fret.) CHS
The other day our own beloved Evil Parallel Universe suggested that maybe the time was coming when I should get busy writing a post explaining what an "Allen Charge" is, I think maybe that time is here. Since we didnt get a verdict on Friday, there may be a note coming out any day now saying that the jury is divided. DO NOT PANIC.
Such a note does NOT lead to the immediate conclusion that the jury is deadlocked or the declaration of a mistrial due to hung jury. What it will almost always lead to is a supplemental jury charge know in the biz as an Allen Charge.
The Allen Charge is based upon a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1896, Allen v. US. The relevant portion of that case is the supplemental jury instruction after they had deliberated awhile and failed to reach unanimity:
in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, unon the other hand, the majority were for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority. These instructions were taken literally from a charge in a criminal case which was approved of by the supreme court of Massachusetts in Com. v. Tuey, 8 Cush. 1, and by the supreme court of Connecticut in State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376, 386.
While, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves.
It certainly cannot be the law that each juror shoud not listen with deference to the arguments, and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally [Page 164 U.S. 492, 502] honest and intelligent as himself. There was no error in these instructions.
Shorter version: Each juror must reach his/her own decision and not merely surrender to group pressure. However, each juror should also listen to the views of his/her fellow jurors with a mind open to the possibility of being persuaded by the views of his/her fellow jurors.
Oh
and that the jurors in the minority ought to be especially open to the possibility of being persuaded by their fellows.
Some judges add a little something to give the jurors the sense that they will be kept at it until Hell freezes over, so they ought to lose the stubborn and get with the deliberatin. But sometimes those little extras go too far.
Bottom line, it is a jurys DUTY to decide a case unanimously, if there is any way that each juror can honestly reach the necessary conclusion with respect to the verdict and there is to be no lazymans quick rush to declare a jury hung as a way to avoid the hard work and discussion necessary to reach consensus.
Seeing the car may have made no difference, doing his own medical research did. If he told the judge about it, there should have been a mistrial. The juror can also be punished.
Yes.
I think the judge was wrong not to permit the lady reporter to be used to impeach Russert's testimony. She didn't have to testify whether her statement was true. The issue was whether those words ever passed her lips. In other words, is it a fact that she said that Valerie Plame's intelligence job was known by all kinds of reporters.
*******
Libby Wants Andrea Mitchell to Testify, Contradict Russert
The defense in the Scooter Libby trial has subpoenaed NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell to speak about her earlier statement that the profession of Valerie Plame Wilson "was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community."
She's since retracted it after her remarks seemingly implicated her NBC colleague Tim Russert. The prosecution also does not want Mitchell to testify as Clarice Feldman notes:
Yet Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is fighting hard to make sure reporter Andrea Mitchell's testimony is not heard, and is asking the jury to buy some highly implausible notions about a key FBI interview with NBC's Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.
The prosecution is still trying hard to keep Andrea Mitchell from being called as a defense witness. In a pleading Friday, the defense is trying just as hard to get court permission to call her. The prosecution argues that the defense cannot call a witness just to impeach her, and the defense says that is not their only reason to call her, that she has other evidence to provide, and that a fair trial cannot be had without her being called and questioned by the defense.
In the period leading up to the disclosure of her status in the Novak case, Mitchell published a series of leaks (clearly from Department of State sources and just as clearly part of the CIA-State Department interagency war) aimed at the CIA's intelligence gathering. Among the interesting points in her stories:
- On July 14, 2003, just as Novak's article hit the newsstands, Mitchell made clear she was having a spat with Armitage (the first to leak), indicating the he wasn't returning her phone calls any longer and that he had chosen an appearance on Fox instead of NBC.
- On October 3, 2003, the very day that Armitage made his secret admission to the FBI that he was Novak's source, Andrea Mitchell publicly said that everyone knew about Plame, something she twice has tried unpersuasively to minimize once NBC became involved in this case and the knowledge of her boss, Tim Russert, became an issue.
(You would be hard pressed to find many regular Plame obsessives at Just One Minute who do not believe that Armitage leaked some details of the story to Mitchell as he did with Woodward and Novak.)
The prosecution has offered up a representation by NBC counsel in effect saying that Mitchell has no evidence to offer the Court-that she did not know Plame's identity before July 14, 2003 and never conveyed that information to Russert.
Aside from the fact that it seems ridiculous to regard this offer as the equivalent of the opportunity to confront Mitchell in court, we must remember that this representation is being made by NBC counsel, which had previously submitted a misleading and false affidavit from Russert, hiding his cooperation with the FBI, to Judge Hogan's court when the issue of reporter privilege came up. The same prosecutor now proclaiming Mitchell has nothing to add knew the Russert affidavit was false and did nothing to correct the record in that case.
I do not see how the trial court can deny the defense motion to call Andrea Mitchell as its witness.
Keep reading that post for more on how Tim Russert's testimony has a number of holes. While you're at JustOneMinute, read Tom Maguire's post sketching out a very plausible scenario in which Russert has let a small word parsing (saying he did not know "Valerie Plame" worked for the CIA as opposed to "Joe Wilson's wife") balloon into misleading the jury in his testimony last week.Worth noting: It's possible that both Russert and Libby have lied about their involvement in this whole nasty, partisan affair.
It would seem odd that out of that whole mass of people that this particular one is the one he chose to prosecute.
If a juror found out that Armitage committed "the crime" but was ignored by Fitz to nail Libby on a perjury charge, it could have no other effect except to make the juror think the trial was corrupt. If they found out about Libby's previous crushing of Fitz in another case, all the more.
It was like Seinfeld (the show about nothing)
I'm sorry. I didn't catch it.
This is one guy you gotta slap upside the head. I can be incredibly dense at times.
Especially early and when on decaf coffee. :>)
I hope this thing is over, but I think Fitz like government paychecks.
Bookmark
sad but true
He would die of dehydration from all the spittle spewed.
:>)
I also wish this to be over with a favorable ruling for Libby.
In reality I think this trial will be like Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. We wake everyday with the same old same old and Libby is forever punished for doing what was right.......... showing Wilson up for being the lying scum he is.
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.