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

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

[lugsoul]

I'm a member of the bar in two states and a practicing lawyer, and everything I know about grand jury procedure I've learned from TV. We didn't do it in my 1st year crim law class, it wasn't in my bar review, and I've never practiced criminal law. Given that Timmy has never practiced, it can't be assumed - to the point of a criminal indictment, which is what you are arguing - that he knows the procedures.

[bw17]

I posted a "vanity" thread about this yesterday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1796312/posts

[kanawa]

givedcavote

2007-03-06

3 posts, all in apparent favor of this verdict

[Lurking Libertarian]

IMO, Federal trails for nationally elected officials serving in DC should have juries composed of people from across the country, not DC proper.

...except that the Constitution prohibits that (6th Amendment).

[AmishDude]

But he explained it on TV.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

Since he didn't lie during the jury selection process, and the defense didn't object to him, they can't even bring this up on appeal.

[jackv]

bttt

[San Jacinto]

Unreal, but just as I predicted. No chance for Libby from the very start.

[San Jacinto]

This decision is more dangerous to White Conservative Males than Ben Laden and al Qaeda

I do not disagree. There is a movement afoot to make being a partisan Republican a criminal offense. After all, the 'Dark Cloud' Fitzgerald referred to was simply challenging a lying, political hack like Joe Wilson for criticizing the Republican Administration. To make such a challenge is seen as worthy of prosecution, if possible. This case shows it is possible.

[San Jacinto]

Do we know for sure which jurors the defense challenged for cause? If the judge over rules the challenge, the juror is seated, unless the defense uses one of its limited strikes. To my knowledge, we don't know which jurors were challenged for cause.

[colorado tanker]

I was talking about this over lunch and they said one news report indicated they had already used up all their challenges when this character came along. Still, I wonder if it might be a ground for reversal that the judge didn't strike him for cause because he was personally acquainted with so many of the witnesses. Obviously, he had a huge influence on the jury.

[CutePuppy]

I think entire makeup of the jury should be an appellate issue, as it goes directly to the "fair trial by jury of one's peers".

I understand change of venue had been denied by the judge, so his would be an accumulative appeal issue. Otherwise it's an issue of legalized corruption favoring one political class or group over others.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fair-trial+jury-of+peers

[colorado tanker]

It's hard to win an appeal over venue change, but it ought to be considered here. Republicans are as rare as hen's teeth in D.C. From blabbermouth's comments, it's obvious several jurors wanted to sink their teeth into some administration officials much more senior than Libby.

[anymouse]

Synopsis Three people attempt to bend justice for their own purposes in this drama based on the best-selling novel by John Grisham. After a man dies in a shooting incident, his wife files a lawsuit against the company that manufactured the gun, with her lawyer, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), arguing that the firm in question knew the shop which sold the weapon was not following federal regulations pertaining to the sale of firearms. As the case goes to trial, the firearm manufacturer is taking no chances on the outcome of a potentially devastating case, and they hire as part of their legal team Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman), a "jury consultant" who makes it his business to see that he knows enough about the jurors to be able to guarantee the result of the trial. Fitch and his team have learned incriminating secrets about nearly everyone hearing the evidence, but Fitch discovers two factors he wasn't counting upon -- Nick Easter (John Cusack), the jury member who appears to have an agenda all his own, and Marlee (Rachel Weisz), a mysterious woman who has her own plans regarding bending the jury to her will.

[lugsoul]

Nah, we only know some of the ones we had a sidebar on, from the bloggers reporting. There was a lot of talk about this guy and his WaPo connections, etc. No one talked about an extended sidebar or any apparent effort to challenge him for cause.

[lugsoul]

I'd add, though - given his connections to witnesses, if he was challenged for cause and that was refused by Walton, that'd be a newsworthy topic. I guess we won't know for sure until we see the new trial motion.

[CutePuppy]

Exactly. Venue change request is only cumulative, i.e. to show that this is something that they had tried in order to get a "fair trial by jury of one's peers" - that that could only be done in other venue - and that it had been denied to their client.

Issue of not allowing defense to examine witnesses, just because Libby didn't take the stand as is any defendant's right, is another big hole in this trial as denying defendant "right to a fair trial", that should play on appeal.

There are a lot of other solid appellate issues with this trial, I'm sure they will have appeal ready before the sentencing on June 5.

[dforest]

From what I heard, they ran out of disqualifications. You have only so many times you can say no. When you run out, you are stuck. They had to turn down so many, they ran out when this guy came up. No surprise to me. Just keep throwing lib after lib and all you can do is end up with libs. Sounds fair, huh?

[colorado tanker]

Agreed. There is a 110% chance of an appeal in this case.