Skip to comments.
Libby Jurors: Define 'Reasonable Doubt'
AP via SFGate ^
| 3/2/7
| MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
Posted on 03/02/2007 1:03:42 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Jurors asked for the definition of "reasonable doubt" Friday after completing a shortened, eighth day of deliberations Friday in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
The note offered the first real glimpse into the deliberations and suggested jurors were discussing Libby's memory. Prosecutors say he lied about conversations he had with reporters regarding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Libby said he told investigators his best recollection of those conversations and never intentionally lied.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; fitzfong; libby; plamegate; scooter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-210 next last
1
posted on
03/02/2007 1:03:43 PM PST
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
2
posted on
03/02/2007 1:04:28 PM PST
by
Thane_Banquo
("Give a man a fish, make him a Democrat. Teach a man to fish, make him a Republican.")
To: SmithL
3
posted on
03/02/2007 1:05:27 PM PST
by
Mikey_1962
(If you build it, they won't come...)
To: SmithL
This sounds like good news for Libby, IMO.
4
posted on
03/02/2007 1:05:54 PM PST
by
Pox
(If it's a Coward you are searching for, you need look no further than the Democrats.)
To: the Real fifi; Howlin
5
posted on
03/02/2007 1:06:08 PM PST
by
Perdogg
(Cheney-Bolton 2008)
To: SmithL
I hope so. But I wouldn't be too sure yet. It's hard to tell with juries.
6
posted on
03/02/2007 1:06:11 PM PST
by
twigs
To: SmithL
RUH ROH. DUmmies are going to get a lunmp of coal for Fitzmas.
I always thoguht this was a problem. If you listen to Libbys' GJ testimony it really seems he is attempting to answer truthfully.
There is no way Fitz can prove Libby was intentionally lying and commiting perjury.
7
posted on
03/02/2007 1:07:17 PM PST
by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
To: A Citizen Reporter; AliVeritas; alnick; AmeriBrit; AmericaUnited; arasina; BlessedByLiberty; ...
SCOOTER PING!@!!
8
posted on
03/02/2007 1:07:52 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
To: SmithL
"Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." I'm not that hopeful.
It sounds like it could possibly indicate that one juror is exasperating the rest by saying that the government didn't prove he couldn't have simply forgotten.
The term "not humanly possible" sounds like they are getting annoyed with the holdout.
Or I might be just reading weak tea leaves.
9
posted on
03/02/2007 1:08:59 PM PST
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: finnman69
RUH ROH. DUmmies are going to get a lunmp of coal for Fitzmas. Fitzmas never comes in DUnarnia!
10
posted on
03/02/2007 1:09:14 PM PST
by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: Howlin
A hopeful good news bump.
11
posted on
03/02/2007 1:10:54 PM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons' pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
To: Pox
This sounds like good news for Libby, This could go either way. There may be 10 trying to convince 1 that Fitz did overcome reasonable doubt.
12
posted on
03/02/2007 1:11:46 PM PST
by
SmithL
(si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: TC Rider
NIFONG
RESIGN
Take Fitz
With You
13
posted on
03/02/2007 1:12:21 PM PST
by
Doctor Raoul
(What's the difference between the CIA and the Free Clinic? The Free Clinic knows how to stop leaks.)
To: dead
I agree. I see it as asking the judge to say that there does not need to be such evidence to convict...
To: SmithL
If Libby is acquitted it may wreck plans to produce that asinine movie about Mr. and Mrs. Valerie Plame. Then again, the "magic of Hollywood" can overcome any truth.
15
posted on
03/02/2007 1:13:22 PM PST
by
Brad from Tennessee
(Anything a politician gives you he has first stolen from you)
To: SmithL
This could go either way. There may be 10 trying to convince 1 that Fitz did overcome reasonable doubt. The Dummiesphere will be ripe with stories that it was Rove in disguise...
16
posted on
03/02/2007 1:13:28 PM PST
by
Doctor Raoul
(What's the difference between the CIA and the Free Clinic? The Free Clinic knows how to stop leaks.)
To: everyone
Bad sign. He'll be convicted of something, at least.
To: SmithL; All
18
posted on
03/02/2007 1:13:52 PM PST
by
STARWISE
(They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
To: SmithL
"Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
This favors Libby, IMO.
19
posted on
03/02/2007 1:14:58 PM PST
by
maggief
To: SmithL
95% odds are bandied about as the beyond an reasonable doubt odds that the guy did it, and 65% as the clear and convincing evidence odds (the latter not applicable of course to criminal matters). It is sort of a one standard deviation (65%), and two standard deviation (95%) from the mean thingy.
20
posted on
03/02/2007 1:15:02 PM PST
by
Torie
(The real facts can sometimes be inconvenient things)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-210 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson