Posted on 03/02/2007 1:03:42 PM PST by SmithL
Remember how the clintons started every answer with, "to the best of my recollection..." before they started their lie??
Hung Jury!!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Correction: "Do the questions from the jury have to be from all or nearly all the jurors?" - type faster than I think sometimes.
Wow, that is a very high brow jury indeed. No wonder they are acting as they are, with flow charts, etc.
Not any more -- it is not humanly possible for the idiot to even get nominated.
Irrelevant, he will be pardoned if convicted.
If they aren't sure if there is reasonable doubt, then the prosecution loses.
Ya, I just went from memory, and that is getting increasingly problematical. :)
It could go either way depending on the response to the jurors' question.
We are praying for ya Scooter. May justice prevail; a rather novel thought in DC.
DC went about 90-92% for Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. In DC, crime is through the roof, the schools don't work, and they can't even plow the snow. Yet these people insist on making their abode within the city limits. This is not a jury made up of Mr. Libby's peers. These are not normal, rational, logical human beings. I hope W has his pardon pen ready, and it's not out of ink like his veto pen.
OTOH, if there's a conviction, this sure casts into question the judge's refusal to allow Scooter a memory expert.
"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."
So an error rate of 1 in 20 is OK? As a non-lawyer, I'm incredulous. I would have thought that beyond reasonable doubt would mean more like 1 in 5,000. This must mean that there are a lot of innocent people in jail, especially if we consider that in some cases the prosecutor will be better than the defense, by which I mean that the odds aren't always objectively determined.
I guess we all read this differently. What I see here is a holdout who's claiming that the government has to prove that it would have been impossible for Libby to forget. That, unfortunately, is not what reasonable doubt means.
The key word's 'reasonable' as opposed to 'possible', and standard jury instructions stress that difference. What the jury will get on Monday is that standard jury instruction re-read to them. Then it'll come down to whether the hold-out caves or forces a hung jury.
I don't read this question as boding well for Libby.
On this live thread ~~ been running all day.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1794082/posts?page=25#25
Why does it have to be one holdout? Couldn't the jury be split say, eight to four with the eight trying to convince to other four with this question?
There's no legal definition. If a judge gives a definition, he will be reversed on appeal for any conviction.
This does mean that either there is no consensus on any of the counts, or they have acquitted him on some. How could they ask for a definition, yet determined that they met the definition for certain counts?
My head is spinning from their bizarre, hyper-complex, evil question. I still haven't figured out what they're asking.
>>unexpected in a city where blacks outnumber whites<<
Not really, considering a huge number are ineligible for jury duty.
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.