Deliberations continue in CIA leak trial

Yahoo News ^ | March 5, 2007 | Matt Apuzo

[Billy Jacks blog]

Jurors have been deliberating since Wednesday, Feb. 21. As they left for the weekend Friday, they passed U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton a note.

"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."

[Billy Jacks blog]

What is so confusing about "a reasonable doubt?" It's difficult to tell from this question which way the jury is leaning, but it sounds like they are really splitting hairs. That may or may not be good for Libby.

Billy Jack

billyjacksblog.com

[Izzy Dunne]

MY doubt is reasonable, YOUR doubt is not.

[Still Thinking]

Why don't they just vote and have done with it? Why tell the government what they must or must not provide? If they don't feel the government met their burden, why give them another bite of the apple?

[Puppage]

That may or may not be good for Libby

No kidding?

[SmithL]

Have you noticed that every media story about Libby has the same final paragraph?

The five charges against Libby carry a combined top penalty of 30 years in prison, but federal sentencing guidelines would call for a far shorter sentence — possibly one to three years — even if he were convicted of all five counts.

It's like they're actively trying to influence the jury, hoping for a happy fitzmas.

[TSchmereL]

This does not sound good for Scooter.

[Mr. K]

the stupidity of the question leads me to believe they are trying to find a way to indict

In other words, if the judge says "No - the govt does not have to prove it is impossible" then they will say "OK then we can indict him"

[TommyDale]

Sounds like the jury has created more reasonable doubt than the prosecutor and defense!

[LIConFem]

Indict? He's already been indicted... thus the trial.

[CPT Clay]

The fix is in.

[snarkytart]

In other words, if the judge says "No - the govt does not have to prove it is impossible" then they will say "OK then we can indict him"
____

I think you mean "convict him."

[saganite]

Sounds like a split jury and the ones opting for acquittal are looking for ammo to convince the holdouts. At least that's my optimistic take on it.

[Political Junkie Too]

What's difficult is that the jury is trying to find an excuse to not excuse Libby's lack of recall while ignoring all the testimony about everyone else's lack of recall.

Only Libby is not allowed to forget.

-PJ

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"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."

Translation: "The government's case is that Mr. Libby could not possibly have forgotten something he once said to some reporter. We want to convict him anyway, but there is one right-wing conspirator on the jury who won't let us."

[the_Watchman]

Perhaps jury lunches in D.C. are better than we thought! :)

[massgopguy]

Sounds as if they already have doubt or they would be asking if it's reasonable. The judge should ask the Jury if they consider themselves to be unreasonable.

[TSchmereL]

I have not heard anything about a fix.

[taxesareforever]

These jurors must have been educated in the public school system. There next question will probably be "do we get to keep eating lunches and dinners on the public dole as long as we wonder what 'resonable' is?

[Al Simmons]

Sounds like a hung jury in the making to me. I sure hope that no one is browbeaten into voting 'guilty' just to get the heck home.

[Enchante]

"That may or may not be good for Libby."

Can you think of anything about the case that "may or may not be good for Libby".......?? :^)