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?
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?
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.