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.
And he worked for Walter Pincus, a WITNESS????? geesh.
Go ahead. Defend this.
This guy didn't just have a general political conflict of interest, he knew the witnesses. The judge should have dismissed him. Libby shouldn't have had to use any challenges against this guy -- unless he lied.
How many damned objections do you think they have?
Small world indeed. Pincus knows Joseph Wilson and there were allegations that Pincus and his wife were at Wilson's home on July 4, 2003, when this whole thing began. Ann Pincus, a native of Arkansas, also worked in the Clinton State Department, Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
What about Russert? The man should be in jail for life for perjuring himself like that.
His personal relationship with Tim Russert (one of the central witnesses to the case) cast doubt on his ability to impartialy judge the veracity of the witnesses and the testimony.
IF Wells knew that the juror knew Russert, he should be disbarred for allowing the juror to be seated uncontested.
If the defense team didn't know of that relationship, anything other than a thrown out verdict and a new trial would be immoral.
Judicial Pornography....this case was so OBSCENE it makes me sick....and sad...our country is BROKEN.
One question is whether he failed to note his personal experience working with one or more of the witnesses.
We KNEW before the trial started that this guy worked at the WaPo and that he used to work for Woodward. It came out in voir dire, and it was reported. The defense decided they wanted him anyway.
The fact that Libby's lawyer let this guy on the jury is evidence of his stupidity.
Both sides were aware. Juror 1869
http://www.slate.com/id/2157695/entry/2157791/
Makes me wonder if the defense had any interest in winning the case?
The guy revealed all this stuff in voir dire. It was reported before the trial even started. The defense, for whatever reason, didn't want to keep him off the jury. That is no one else's fault but theirs.
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.
Sorry, my mistake.
I didn't deserve the tone though.
Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the link.
It is a judgment call, always. There may have been something there that made them think he would be good. And I guarantee you that Libby had a say so in jury selection. Most parties do, and Libby - a lawyer - was quite involved in his own defense.
Yeah, but if you start objecting to every juror, the judge shuts you down. Sorry, the judge should have dismissed this guy without word one from the defense.
No problem.
This link shows that there was actually another WAPO reporter but she was dismissed. The jury selection was horrible. Defense must have felt altho this Collins was a big risk, he would remain open minded??
http://www.slate.com/id/2157695/entry/2157880/
You simply refuse to accept the undeniable fact that they WANTED this guy on the jury. There was no proliferation of strikes for cause. They didn't get to any point where anyone would think that the judge would 'shut them down.' They were told all this stuff, and they didn't challenge the guy for cause. Period. You may not like it, but it isn't anyone else's fault. They wanted him, and they got him.
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.