Posted on 03/02/2007 1:03:42 PM PST by SmithL
Legally, the answer to that question is "no," though it is not clear if the judge will tell them that. If he does, this is not good news for Libby.
How can you prove something "Not humanly possible?"
Ever seen somebody pick up a car?
Hell, I forget my own damn birthday.
Exactly.
Will we be able to see the judge's definition of 'reasonable doubt'?
Yes, when I saw the announcement of the movie on Drudge, before a jury decision was announced, I had to wonder if Hollywood has some sort of inside word on what the jury will decide. No doubt they could spin it anyway, but a lot of credibility and money depends on finding Libby guilty.
"Reasonable doubt" has got to be one of the most thoroughly defined phrases in common law. Presumably the judge will give them some boilerplate. In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't alteady.
I think you are right. "Not humanly possible" is a bit snarky, as far as I'm concerned. But this indicates something to me. My theory is that either the jury is being fastidious about this, going over every minor detail or they can't get a conviction on at least one count. If they were ready to go home and they could get a conviction on at least one count, they'd forget the rest and go home.
I think this indicates the latter and that at least one juror is being browbeaten.
My reading of the question is a bit different. I think they could find him guilty if that is their main question. I think the judge will say no to the question that the government has to show it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall. My prediction though is we will see a hung jury with a few moonbats holding out demaning a conviction.
To merely question the definition of "reasonable doubt" in itself is reasonable doubt.
The jury's head has to be spinning with this bizarre, hyper-complex, evil prosecution case.
I didn't think about that angle but the timing of the movie announcement is suspicious considering jurors will be home all weekend and might hear about it.
I should hope so, but this is no normal case,is it?
Yeah, "snarky" is the right word.
I agree if he gives the one word answer. Do lawyers usually do that, or only when it suits their agenda?
I agree with your take, but there may be a lot more issues of disageement. This just may be one point of many. I think a hung jury, but if there is a virdict, it will be guilty based on how the question was asked.
this is crazy.
My theory is that the jury is taking copious notes for their tell all book deal, to be announced by the end of March.
Especially....the liberal loons living in DC...
My wife forgot mine last November. I waited until 3 days later to tell her. She was mad at me for not reminding her, like it was my fault, and she was serious! However, if I were to forget her birthday?
It's kind of the opposite of the deja vu feeling.
The jury's question goes to the heart of something Fitzgerald and the judge didn't want discussed ~ that is, what is the nature of memory. Libby was prepared to bring in experts in the field of the science of memory to testify on his behalf.
It really doesn't matter if Libby stated something that was not true ~ if he simply didn't recall it at that moment.
Fitzgerald's case rests solely on some apparent discrepancies in competing statements. He failed to prove that Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten. I'd suggest there's more than 1 "holdout" here ~ maybe 10 of 'em?!
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.