Posted on 03/05/2007 10:16:14 AM PST by Billy Jacks blog
It sounds to me like the jury is experiencing "reasonable doubt"
The jurors don't understand the jury instructions. That's not unusual.
Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding-Ding.
We have a winner!
That is so gross!
The more I read their question, the clearer it becomes that they're asking something very fundamental: does Fitz have to prove that Libby couldn't possibly have forgotten something?
Which means, as you say, that there isn't enough substantive evidence to make the prosecution's case.
The fact that this whole fiasco went to trial doesn't bode well for Scooter...
It's hung, and its going to stay hung, which is basically a victory for Libby, because they won't retry.
This has been a sham from the get go. Based on where the trial is taking place, there's a couple, maybe three same jurors, or moral ones, and the rest a bunch of frothing liberals.
I feel for the others. The other 9 or 10 will make bank out of vilifying the other 2 or 3.
You know it is very difficult, if not impossible to prove someones intent. Did Libby intend to lie? How could anyone know that? Or, did Libby lie at all and merely forgot. Sounds to me like they can't come up with that answer, which in my opinion is reasonable doubt. What is bad is that some of them might trying to come up with a guilt verdict because they believe that is what sombody wants.
You know it is very difficult, if not impossible to prove someones intent
no - i meant indict- this is a grand jury
__________________________
No it's not. This is the criminal trial taking place now.
Yep, you are right. There are so many of these things going on. NONE of them are ever investigated. I am equally as outraged at the smooth over Sandy Burglar has gotten. And people actually wonder why the anger and outrage within the GOP at the lack of response, or limp wristed responses given for ignoring the obvious.
Republicans should have been up in arms over Sandy Burglar.
Burglar was an insider,and insiders dont have to play by the rules..
There is no reasonable doubt of this!
She had sex with herself?
Probably right! She's probably a graduate of the Joycelyn Elders School of Sexual Gratification.
Except when they use a term like "humanly possible" it sounds over the top. Like only some idiot wants that standard and can you please tell him to accept the doubts he has so we can lynch this Republican.
The way I would interpret this is...If every element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, do the essential facts that support each element of the crime need to also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
If the prosecutor says he had to be lying because of prior statements he made on the subject, must the prosecutor prove that he could not have forgotten at a later time?
Or does the Defendant have to affirmatively prove that he did forget?
The question will depend on who bears the burden of proof...is it an affirmative defense, or is it part of the prosecutor's case?
The fact that the questions is being asked seems to indicate that the jury is focused on the memory issue, and who is responsible to prove what concerning his lack of memory...can memory be presumed?
The answer should be "No!" Memory should not be presumed.
It means they have doubt. They are just trying to see if they have enough of it.
ROTFLOL. I only thought that happened in the movies. And I can"t imagine that Joe Wilson could get anyone that hot.
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.