I didn't follow the Libby trial much, but this statement is just ignorant. Federal court procedures for jury selection are strict and fair. Each side has exactly the same chance of picking a jury favorable to their case. Very little. You can weed out those with obvious bias and conflicts, but that's about it.
Maybe this jury convicted Libby because there was considerable evidence of his guilt? That's what usually happens.
His lawyer didn't do Libby any good by hinting in his opening argument that Libby and Cheney would take the stand, then NOT calling them as witnesses. Then he fell back on the lame "don't convict him, he's a nice guy" argument in his closing. You ought to get better lawyering for $700 an hour.
I didn't say it. You're replying to the wrong person.
Federal court procedures for jury selection are strict and fair. Each side has exactly the same chance of picking a jury favorable to their case.
But they allow someone who is the better jury picker to bias the jury as a whole. I don't think talent in jury picking should be a factor in the outcome of a case.
Maybe this jury convicted Libby because there was considerable evidence of his guilt?
That's what I think. The Plame case may be a sham, but he lied in front of a grand jury, and our justice system should never tolerate that.