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.
His characterizations of lying were lies themselves. That was clear. Maybe they figured they could suffer with 1 out of 12 being a moonbat (it was clear from his quotes that he was).
Remember that he said all the right things. If they had objected, the judge would have gotten quite testy, I think. This judge clearly wore his emotions on his sleeve and could get quite frustrated.
The first four days of questioning created a pool of potential jurors. From that pool, defense attorneys could strike 10 jurors, and prosecuting attorneys could exclude six. Lawyers could use those peremptory challenges without explaining their reasoning. Each side also had the power to chuck two alternates.
The process for discarding jurors was opaque. The lawyers didn't say out loud who they wanted cast off. Instead they handed the clerk a list, and she read it with no indication of which side sent the ejection order. The prosecution presumably struck the two women who said they had a hard time believing anyone would lie. The defense team presumably got rid of the man whose wife worked as a criminal prosecutor, since he might have sympathy for Patrick Fitzgerald's team.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157695/entry/2158028/
Just FYI's as I didn't know this either.
But you said it was. You said they could have simply objected for cause and that was that. Which is it?
They didn't want him on the jury. It was clear they were grilling him (see the linked Slate article) and decided to give up since he was saying all the right things.
It's possible that's what he'd had in mind
It's so hard to say what they were thinking, and the articles at the links don't have enough detail.
Wow, thanks!
I see. So it wasn't a linear process as we assumed and, in fact, they may have been stuck with Denis (one n) over some more unsuitable candidates.
Bottom line: I think the argument can be made that the judge should have struck this juror himself. In fact, the ties to Pincus and to others may be greater than he indicated during his testimony. Maybe even not an intentional omission.
We'll see what the other jurors say. Especially since Denis (one n) is going to make bank off of a book on this.
Seems that is a possibility. Makes as much sense as anything else in this case. :-)
Federal Prosecutors have way too much power! They keep putting our border patrol officers into prison, too.
Agreed! I'm very interested in seeing the requirements/limitations for a judge doing so.
A jury is first "qualified" by the court as to certain relationships, including with the parties. Some people aren't eligible to serve - for example, those with a financial interest in the outcome.
Of those who are eligible to serve, some can be stricken "for cause," - not necessitating the use of a peremptory strike. I have little doubt they could've gotten rid of this guy for cause. There is no indication they tried. This usually happens at sidebar after that juror is questioned.
If you have anything else to say on this topic, please try to have some idea what you are talking about.
I don't think this jury was chosen in the way that you suggest, see Rheo's research on the topic.
Since you know so much, who will be prosecuting Russert?
I'm not clear on why the rules of jury selection were so unclear to the judge and attorneys...isn't it standard practice?
Rush commented on this, this morning. He said he'd talked to some of the defense staff and the jury pool was completely stacked up with move-on.org types. They would have removed this guy but they had others that were even worse. They didn't have a chance of getting a decent jury nomatter what they did.
No, this jury was chosen that way. Pretty much all juries are chose that way. The first step, "qualification" of the jurors, sometimes happens out of sight - they are often "qualified" before they are ever put into the venire for questioning.
It is simply that you are insistent on claiming that this guy's presence on the jury was someone's fault other than the defense, but you have no basis for saying so. A good judge doesn't try the case for the parties. He is the "referee." There is no basis for claiming that any effort was made to keep this guy off the jury. If there was, it would present a ground for appeal. But even the Slate article provides some basis for thinking the defense liked the guy. So did the blogging on jury selection.
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and think this was all a grand conspiracy. But one has to wonder why anyone would go to all the trouble to plant juror and install a corrupt prosecutor and all that over Libby. If you are going to gin up something that big and impossible, why not go after a big fish?
They ran out of their challanges by the time they got to him. His attorneys did as well as could be expected considering the obvious bias of the judge and outright hostility of the jury.
I appreciate your questions AmishDude.
Not all of us have followed the case step by step and appreciate being able to discuss it without ugliness.
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.