Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lugsoul

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?


93 posted on 03/07/2007 9:57:27 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: AmishDude

I'm not clear on why the rules of jury selection were so unclear to the judge and attorneys...isn't it standard practice?



When lawyers tried to clarify the rules for the process with the judge, everyone seemed to get confused. Would jurors be divided into two pools (jurors and alternates) before the peremptory challenges started or as the process continued? This would influence the way in which the teams used their strikes. The lawyers and the judge had different views of the rules. "I'm sorry to be a geek about this," said Fitzgerald, explaining his opinion of how the order should work. Judge Walton grabbed an enormous book and looked up the rule.

Libby's lawyers, laughing, asked for more time to reorder their list. "We were working over the weekend [about how the selection would work]," said Wells. "We have to revisit how the world looks."


94 posted on 03/07/2007 10:00:44 AM PST by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: AmishDude
Research? You mean a Slate article.

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?

96 posted on 03/07/2007 10:06:05 AM PST by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: AmishDude

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.


99 posted on 03/07/2007 10:16:02 AM PST by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson