March 02, 2007

Question Telegraph's Libby Jury Thinking

And I would argue that it bodes well for Scooter Libby.

Jurors asked for the definition of "reasonable doubt" Friday after completing a shortened, eighth day of deliberations Friday in the perjury trial of ex-White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote. "Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The note offered the first real glimpse into the deliberations and suggested jurors were discussing Libby's memory. Prosecutors say he lied about conversations he had with reporters regarding outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Libby said he told investigators his best recollection of those conversations and never intentionally lied.

Seems to me that this means that the jury is open to the possibility that Libby didn't intentionally mislead anyone, but rather had a memory lapse. That, on its face, indicates that the jury has reasonable doubt, and should acquit immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 But they didn't, so you must be wrong.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Mar 2 13:47:05 2007 (IU21y)

2 Actually, Dan, you are wrong. Indeed, given the time at which the question was sent out, thee is ample reason for them to have not have even tekne another vote yet.

I'm betting on an acquittal by Wednesday -- and very possibly by dinner time on Monday.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Mar 2 14:41:25 2007 (r6ff7)

3 Immediately is Wednesday? Is this Wonderland?

Why would it take until the end of the day today if you say the decision should be "immediate"???? Immediate?

How much are you betting? Can I get some of that action?

Posted by: Dan at Fri Mar 2 18:39:04 2007 (IU21y)

4 Dan, let's clarify what I've said for your benefit, despite the fact that it ought to be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of the English language.

The question asked indicates that the jury does have reasonable doubt, and therefore SHOULD do. said statement judges what the proper course of action ought to be.

My statement that I'm "betting on" a not guilty verdict by Wednesday indicates what I believe to be the likely outer boundary for the jury to reach such a conclusion and render the appropriate verdict, depending upon their deliberative process and the stubornness of whatever holdouts there are on the jury.

Indeed, I believe that after Wednesday the jury will likely be unable to produce anything other than a mistrial.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Mar 3 02:02:56 2007 (+lZjC)

5 So, when you say "I'm betting on an acquittal by Wednesday", that doesn't mean that you are betting on an acquittal by Wednesday. Hah. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "I'm" is, huh? Say what you mean, and mean what you say?

But, more substantively, I disagree with your read on what the question means. I think it means that a juror or two were arguing that if the prosecution did not meet a standard of "not humanly possible", that they must acquit. That seems to me that they are leaning toward conviction, since the question is about a more strict standard of proof than the proper one. If the question had been whether the standard meand "more likely than not", then I would think they were leaning toward acquittal.

But that's just the way I read it - I'm not arguing with you about it. To do so would be kind of nonsensical, since we will see soon enough what they mean (though, apparently, not "immediately") . . .

Posted by: Dan at Sat Mar 3 04:42:49 2007 (IU21y)

6 "I'm betting" is what most folks would call a figure of speech, Dan. I'm not ACTUALLY flying to Vegas to lay money down on the issue.

And your definition of "reasonable doubt" is incorrect -- the standard you are setting forth is what would be called "preponderance of evidence", and is used in civil cases, not criminal ones.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Mar 3 07:53:16 2007 (v+Vac)

7 I know that - both are incorrect statements of the standard of proof. That was my point. If they were asking about a looser standard of proof (such as more likely than not), that would indicate to me that the majority was struggling with a minority that wanted to convict him on a looser standard. The question asked is about a much stricter standard of proof, which indicates to me the majority is struggling with a minority wanting let him off on a stricter standard. But, again, the proof will be in the pudding.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Mar 3 10:07:18 2007 (IU21y)

8 I was right and you were wrong. Whodathunk? Good thing that "I'm betting" is just a figure of speech . . .

Posted by: Dan at Tue Mar 6 06:04:47 2007 (n1xH/)

9 I'm curious about how this will turn out on appeal, given that Fitzgerald abused his prosecutorial discretion by investigating a "crime" that in which he already knew the "guilty" party (Amitage) and that the "crime" was not one.  That turned the whole thing into one giant perjury trap, in which differing recollections were turned into  obstruction of justice when there was no crime to investigate in the first place!

There is also the question of the President's action in waiving the Firth Amendment rights of all Executive Branch employees, rendering it impossible for Libby to exercise rights afforded to every citizen under the US Constitution.

Posted by: Jacob at Tue Mar 6 07:10:51 2007 (TUfGm)

10 Jacob - It will be affirmed on appeal. Don't argue with me - I'm batting a thousand so far.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Mar 7 14:07:41 2007 (IU21y)

11 I want to say - thank you for this!

Posted by: phentermine adipex bontril didrex at Tue Oct 6 13:29:29 2009 (B7x9r)

12 Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Posted by: adipex bontril message phentermine post at Tue Oct 6 17:13:45 2009 (DEK4j)

13 Perfect site, i like it!

Posted by: get tramadol without perscreption at Tue Oct 6 19:06:32 2009 (pBoVO)

14 Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: what does cialis do to women at Sun Oct 11 09:08:12 2009 (vqQW+)

15 Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: tramadol hci black box warnings at Sun Oct 11 16:34:48 2009 (Q1CnL)

16 Great site. Good info.

Posted by: all information about cialis at Sun Oct 11 18:27:34 2009 (YvmLv)

17 Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: tramadol avinza at Mon Oct 12 07:43:17 2009 (vfjt6)

18 Perfect site, i like it!

Posted by: design a brochure for cialis at Mon Oct 12 09:36:47 2009 (S0+89)

19 I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Posted by: tramadol hydochloride at Wed Oct 14 20:08:30 2009 (rrJx2)

20 If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

Posted by: tramadol para que sirve at Fri Oct 16 18:10:25 2009 (gRYLh)

21 Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Posted by: is tramadol a steroid at Fri Oct 16 22:02:17 2009 (p3In8)

22 Beautiful site!

Posted by: tramadol for dogs after surgery at Wed Oct 21 01:55:51 2009 (kOL4d)

23 Great. Now i can say thank you!

Posted by: adipex cheapest adipex diet pill at Tue Oct 27 23:33:21 2009 (Dp3QB)

24 Perfect work!

Posted by: canada online pharmacy viagra indeks at Wed Oct 28 04:34:18 2009 (ny57v)

25 Great site. Keep doing.

Posted by: ag guys cialis at Fri Nov 6 11:31:38 2009 (FyinE)

26 Beautiful site!

Posted by: adipex p order at Mon Nov 9 00:31:09 2009 (3vB2W)

27 I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

Posted by: adipex sexual at Fri Nov 13 09:50:36 2009 (Ijf2n)

28 Perfect site, i like it!

Posted by: what is tramadol for dogs at Wed Nov 18 07:18:04 2009 (M3zJw)

29 Beautiful site!

Posted by: adipex purchase adipex online at Wed Nov 18 10:57:10 2009 (BGmRA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.0168, elapsed 0.0298 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.019 seconds, 58 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]