[roses of sharon]

LOL, obviously if he would have testified, you would be saying he shouldn't have, that no defendant should, as many lawyers often council. I'm sure they are second quessing themselves now, as all do.


Motive was very important in this case, the juror just stated this on the air, regardless of judges instructions.

Any juror with common sense, and not one tainted by political propaganda that has surrounded this case for years, would not send a human being to jail for not remember conversations the same way others did, especially when it was so consistent, frequent, and was unabashed. Not to mention ridicules on its face that he would plan this with so many in his office and at various news outlets to contradict him.

It is a crime that Fitz used no discretion in this case, because he knew he had a political jury.

I have no respect for a jury that behaves like they live in a Banana Republic.

[conservative in nyc]

LOL, obviously if he would have testified, you would be saying he shouldn't have, that no defendant should, as many lawyers often council. I'm sure they are second quessing themselves now, as all do.

Well, hindsight is always 20-20. But the TV talking heads are saying that Libby's lawyers all but promised to put Libby on the stand in their opening statements (saying something like "you will hear Libby say..."). The judge was supposedly shocked Libby didn't take the stand. I haven't been following this case closely enough to know if any of that is true, but teasing a jury and not delivering would look a bit suspicious - even if a jury isn't really supposed to take that into consideration.