Posted on 03/07/2007 7:40:14 AM PST by txradioguy
NEW YORK Denis Collins, the juror in the Libby/CIA leak case who delivered a post-verdict commentary for the press, spent about a decade at The Washington Post. Today, after a night on cable TV shows, he re-appears with a massive recounting of his experience at the Huffington Post blog.
His story is billed as "INSIDE THE JURY ROOM: WHAT THE JURY THOUGHT, DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, AT THE SCOOTER LIBBY TRIAL" by Denis Collins, Juror #9. It calls it "unedited" impressions, memories and facts. Other jurors' names are changed.
The New York Times today reports that he is a registered Democrat. He recalls that he revealed when considered for the jury that he had worked with Bob Woodward for three or four years and also with the Post's Walter Pincus, another witness at the trial. Until a year ago, Tim Russert was a neighbor and he even attended backyard barbeques at Russert's place. But attorneys at both tables merely offered "ain't this a small town" grins, he relates.
He adds that he went to grade school with the Times' Maureen Dowd, who allegedly had a crush on Collins' brother.
One of the lawyers asked him the subject of his 2005 book. "You wrote about the CIA?" Collins said yes, which along with his reporting connections amounted to the "perfect storm." He comments: "Yet here I am," on the CIA leak case jury.
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.
I posted a "vanity" thread about this yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1796312/posts
givedcavote
2007-03-06
3 posts, all in apparent favor of this verdict
...except that the Constitution prohibits that (6th Amendment).
But he explained it on TV.
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.
bttt
Unreal, but just as I predicted. No chance for Libby from the very start.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Agreed. There is a 110% chance of an appeal in this case.
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.