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.
From another blogger in the courtroom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/2171
Libby Trial: media room, blog and IM comments
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 02/26/2007 - 10:12.
A little more chatter from the media room, from blogs and IMs, loosely written in live blogging...
Joking in the media room…
Does anyone know if it is a woman or man that has been exposed to information….
One person suggests the writing looks like a woman’s…
Another asks if there were little hearts over the I’s
A third says, I’d better not see that on the CNN ticker….
I pipe up that I can write that sort of stuff. I’m a blogger.
People all quickly declaim that in that case, everything they say is off the record.
This is fun…
People are already talking about mistrial. How many jurors were tainted? Is it enough to make a fair verdict unlikely?
Another comments, I don’t know why they didn’t sequester these guys.
Current court room chatter is that someone heard a joke on late night TV and repeated it to the other jurors.
Meanwhile, a reporter asks me about my blog and wishes for the freedom that we bloggers have.
Update: As we sit and wonder how long this will take, one reporter observes that in a previous incident it took half an hour to question one juror, and that this could take all day.
Around me, people have their emails ready to go... "Judge has returned... Court back in session... STAND BY!" Some people have four different emails ready...
Placeholder.
How long before we hear, "the trial was stolen!!"
From firedoglake.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Back at the Courthouse…
By Jane Hamsher @ 7:37 am
I'm at the courthouse, and as Christy said in her update, one of the jurors was exposed to media coverage of the trial. Nobody really expected anything early this morning, so everyone is scrambling into the media room to try and figure out what's going on.
Both teams are in the courtroom, and Fitzgerald, Wells, Jeffress and the judge are back with the jurors. Lots of finger drumming, toe tapping and leg swinging on the part of those left waiting. I'm sure the message from the judge to come back to court this morning was like a tazer jolt to everyone's already jangled nerves this morning.
What does this all mean? Well I, like everyone else, look to Christy:
They will voir dire the juror in question, as well as all of the members of the jury to see what that juror saw and what, if any, impact it had in deliberations. It could be as innocuous as seeing a headline.
I'm wondering if this is a product of the Toensing nullification argument special in the WaPo, to be perfectly honest.
Once they go through the discussion with the jurors on the record, there will be some determination made as to whether or not there is a substantial impact on the jury deliberations — or whether there is cause for a mistrial. If a mistrial is declared, they will have to retry the whole case.
What is more likely is that the judge will determine that what the juror saw did not have a substantial impact. Judge Walton will then admonish the jury not to have contact with media — period. He may decide to sequester the jury from here on out. He will likely issue a cautionary instruction on how this should or should not enter the jury room. But we'll have to see what the level of exposure was to know what will happen.
And now we wait.
Toensing/WaPo jury tampering article can be found here.
10:45
Everyone is filing back into court — Wells, Jeffress, Fitzgerald and his poker face.
Walton in the courtroom, calls everyone to the bench.
Sounds like the lone not-guilty is going to be politically removed to get a verdict...
Never
True, but he didn't tell the judge about his outside research and still thinks justice was done. Likely true. Plantiffs lawyers really need to seek out dimwits (cf. John Edwards) who have a victimization mentality.
Think this might be a setup? How would they know that one juror was tainted?
one juror dismissed, Wells wants to go with 11.
One juror dismissed! Just Announced!
They just announced that one juror was dismissed.
don't they have to replace the one?
that's probably the one holdout preventing conviction.
the fix is in folks.
>>one juror dismissed, Wells wants to go with 11.<<
Why on earth would they do that when they have two alternates?
its a woman juror.
wasn't the one person who failed to wear the valentine's day shirt, a woman?
Fox says it was a female. She admitted it, and said it was inadvertent exposure.
To avoid throwing out 2 days of deliberations. Installation of alternates requires beginning deliberations all over.
Wells: It is the position of defense that jury deliberation should continue with a jury of 11 and that at this juncture an alternate should not be put onto the jury, because as we understand it if a new juror is appointed they must start deliberations all over again which is something in our opinion would be prejudicial to Mr. Libby. That would be a jury of 11. If we have a situation that for some reason another juror is lost, it is such that we would be left down to 10 and we believe your honor would have the ability to appoint the alternates in, so we're not on the "cliff of a mistrial." Don't want to throw away 2 1/2 days of deliberations when these jurors are obviously making their way through the charges, and would be highly unfair to Mr. Libby.
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.