Meanwhile, Richard Armitage orders another rum toddy.
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.
I don't recall.
Judge has summoned the rest of the jury. Someone has asked for the juror to be replaced.
Walton: Don't think there is any reason to believe this jury was irresponsible — info from juror did not taint the others. They have deliberated for 2 1/2 days, don't want to throw away that work. If something does unforseeably happen to another juror then we sill have the option of recalling the alternates. I did tell them before they left they should continue to not let themselves be exposed to this case from outside sources. So rather than throw away the 2 1/2 days devoted to this effort, I will allow them to continue their deliberations.
as per a post above:
"The one juror who apparently declined to don a T-shirt was a woman who had been a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
Thanks for the explanation - I see know they are going forward with 11. I didnt realize this was an option.
Placemarker
How is this pertinent to today's events?
well, with 11 jurors ready to go maybe they'll just say, "oh, she's gone? Then we have a verdict, your honor!"
how'd that play?
The judge let the alternates go during deliberations. What's the likelihood they are not tainted, watching this on tv? Wells must not like the alternates, IMHO. Can't get a mistrial yet and doesn't want them back. The longer they stay out, the more likely they will be tainted and the trial can't finish.
Was she the one who didn't go along with the Valentine's day show of affection to the judge?
Complete firedoglake blogging on this issue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10:45
Everyone is filing back into court — Wells, Jeffress, Fitzgerald and his poker face.
Walton in the courtroom, calls everyone to the bench.
Walton: One juror has now been dismissed based upon the knowledge of her part that she did have information based on this case. It wasn't intentional, but what she had exposure to disqualifies her from further deliberations of this case, so I need to know what counsel's position is as to how to proceed.
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.
FitZ: The gov't would prefer 12 jurors. If you're going to replace jurors anew that it's preferable to do it after 2 1/2 days of deliberation. We think there is a preference for 12 jurors and we think there is a risk that if someone gets ill we get into dangerous territory of 11 jurors.
Walton: Don't think there is any reason to believe this jury was irresponsible — info from juror did not taint the others. They have deliberated for 2 1/2 days, don't want to throw away that work.
If something does unforseeably happen to another juror then we sill have the option of recalling the alternates. I did tell them before they left they should continue to not let themselves be exposed to this case from outside sources. So rather than throw away the 2 1/2 days devoted to this effort, I will allow them to continue their deliberations.
(jury filed back in)
Walton: The law does now allow you to continue your deliberations with 11 jururs, so that's what I'm going to do.
Let me just ask if all of you have kept yourself isolated from any information about this case — if that is so, raise your hand.
Okay, everybody raised their hand saying they have not had any outside information, and I ask that you continue to do that. It is imperative — you must decide this case based only on what you heard in this courtroom. With that I ask that you go back and proceed with your deliberations. Thank you.
(recess — 11:01 am)
However, it seems, that the Defense is happy to go on with just the 11 jurors they have.
no one knows yet
I wonder if Wells knows the score. If we could find out more about the woman dismissed, we might know.
Remember that we have two queens now. I'd sure like to see those two fight it out to see who's the biggest dog on the block Would be fun.
From trolling the commie websites I've never seen Hitlery mentioned anywhere as a beneficiary in the left's Fitzmas fantasy.
It probably is good for libby because Fitz wanted the juror replaced, and to go back to square 1.
I saw that in a couple of books. Must be something to it if they take the time to print it...
The one thing about a farce, No matter when you think it's gone too wacky, it gets wackier!
Thanks for the update, STAR.
So, what do you think??
I guess the jurors weren't asked how far along they were on their deliberations...so..we wait, I guess.
Yes, the removed jurist is probably the one rumored to be the hold out who would hang the jury.
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.