New Revelations from Former 'Wash Post' Reportor/Libby Juror

Editor & Publisher ^ | March 07, 2007 | Joe Strupp

[VOA]

He was one of the better educated, knew the witnesses, wrote about the
CIA and had to be viewed by the jury as an "expert". Libby's lawyers
were a bunch of dopes.

Amen to that.
I've known some professors (in the biological sciences) in the Los
Angeles area; they are about the first folks that get booted for
jury duty if there is any sort of forensic/DNA evidence involved in
a case.

Don't want someone on the jury confusing fellow jurors with facts,
don't you know.
Some poor murdering SOB might actually get convicted. And the
general zeitgeist is not to do that in Los Angeles.
It might hurt the murderer's feelings.
(/sarc)

And, in fairness, I think these professors have also been rejected
occassionally by the prosecution. I suspect this may happen when
the forensic evidence is weak or perhaps mitigating or potentially
exculpatory (depending on one's knowledge or point of view).

[joebuck]

"If you've stricken a jury, you have to know that if the defense wanted to get rid of this guy with a personal relationship with prosecution witnesses, they wouldn't have had to use a peremptory strike."

I wasn't there, maybe you were. I don't know if Libby's attorny moved to strike this juror for cause or whether he had sufficient information at that time to prompt him to do so.

[Doc91678]

You may be right. I believe they took the wrong person off the jury.
Collins sounds like a ringer for the prosecution. If I were the judge at the sentencing I would nullify the jury and their decision. But I doubt that would happen.

[Antoninus]

Gee, I wonder if this guy's opinions were prejudiced before he was ever named to the jury....

How does a guy like this not get knocked out of the jury box first by Libby's attorneys? Were they malfeasant or just complete morons? Or did the guy lie during jury selection?

[Jim Noble]

Reversed on appeal, with remand for a new trial.

[colorado tanker]

Makes you wonder what the heck Libby's attorney was thinking... Amazing.

Why the heck didn't they use a challenge and knock this guy off the jury? Shoot, if asked the judge might have stricken him for cause, given all the witnesses he knows.

[CutePuppy]

John Grisham's "Runaway Jury"

[AmishDude]

"qualification" of the jurors, sometimes happens out of sight - they are often "qualified" before they are ever put into the venire for questioning.

He should not have been qualified. Period. He simply should not have been in the pool.

It's not a conspiracy and I think the Libby team figured that they'd just take one moonbat and hope for a hung jury.

[CutePuppy]

Or at least, composed from equal numbers from either party, and independents - only then it could it be even considered a "jury of one's peers".

Otherwise, depending on the political makeup of a city (LA, DC, Austin, San Francisco...) on political class could feel protected and get away with real crimes (OJ, Sandy Berger) while others can be "politilegally" harassed (Plamegate, Iran-Contra)

That's why Starr could never bring charges against Hillary, and why likely Sandy Berger got off easy with plea agreement - they would never be convicted by DC jury. And it's the same reason that Fitzgerald was even continuing with his "investigation" of Armitage, er, "CIA leak case" - he was DC jury-shopping, the only place where his witch hunt had a chance to be successful and thus "vindicated".

Anybody knows where Wilson's "civil lawsuit" is being heard?

We better fix this before it's being used more and more.

[lugsoul]

Proving once again that you know next to nothing about the standards for qualification of jurors.

You can rant all you want about the way you think the system should work if you were making the rules. But under the rules that exist in Federal court, this guy was on the jury because the defense let him be on the jury. End of story.

[feralcat]

It would be sweet if the conviction gets thrown out because of the bias/conflict-of-intrest of this left-wing A-hole juror.

If there were a contest between Denis Collins and Joe Wilson as to who was the bigger publicity hound and suck-up to the leftist netroots who would win?

[lugsoul]

So now you want one's political belief system to be a part of the qualification to be on a jury?

I used to think there were people on this forum who knew less then you do about our judicial system. I don't think that anymore.

[CutePuppy]

This spokesman for the jury could be used, among other issues, as prima facie argument that Libby couldn't get a fair trial in DC - politically tainted jury, not "jury of one's peers".

[AmishDude]

So the defense can eliminate everyone in the District of Columbia with no complaint from the judge?

Since you are so knowledgeable, why is it taking so long to indict Russert?

[lugsoul]

Now you are simply being a dumbass.

No, but the defense could almost certainly eliminate everyone who worked for multiple witnesses in the case and was neighbors with another - without using a single peremptory strike.

And if you are actually asking a question, instead of being a dumbass, the answer is that Russert won't be indicted for anything. I'll bet you anything you are willing to wager I'm correct about that.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If I remember correctly, Pincus was called as a defense witness to discredit Ari Fliescher -- so they would have seen his knowing Pincus as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Still, it seems odd not to object to this guy.

[AmishDude]

No, but the defense could almost certainly eliminate everyone who worked for multiple witnesses in the case and was neighbors with another - without using a single peremptory strike.

And the judge won't get upset, eh? Won't get frustrated? Won't take it out on the defense?

Russert won't be indicted for anything.

Damn right. But (and remember that you passed judgment on Libby before the jury came in) did he or did he not perjur himself on the stand, given that he is a member of the bar in the District of Columbia?

[Rheo]

They could not find an impartial jury that didn't hate President Bush or the Battle in Iraq in the WOT. This buffoon appears to have been upfront with both sides and said he could be impartial.

Risky true, but the whole jury selection and fair trial was a crapshoot in this case in DC.

[CutePuppy]

Not political belief system, but rather party affiliation - there is a difference.

Nice try to provoke me again. I'll let you have the last word on this subject.

[CutePuppy]

You would get someone just as politically committed, but without potential for being an "appeals material". This guy should talk more and louder. He should be better known than Anna Nicole Smith.