What I see when I picture the Libby jury--

[rudy23]

Warning--I'm a pessimist:

I see 10 or 11 of the jurors knowing that Libby is guilty on most or all counts, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just like many of us who've been following the case do.

I see the explanations being led by one or two of the jurors who get it perfectly. I see them with masking tape, post its, making a timeline with photos, and explaining logically, and deliberately why Libby had to have lied.

What I see in this lone holdout, is a Katherine Harris, or a Tony Snow type crossed with a Diebold voting machine, Bill O'Reilly, Kenneth Blackwell and the Katrina response all rolled into one.

And the leaders of the jury are spelling it out for them like they're six years old. They're drawing arrows, underlining vigorously, pacing and sweating. And this person is folding their arms deflecting, defending, and acting purposefully obtuse. "I'm just not certain beyond a shadow of a doubt to hurt our vice president during war, and take that man away from his family. I forget things all the time, and I can't risk sending an innocent man to prison, without being 100% sure, no matter what you say with your fancy timelines and your post-its, and your logic!"

And they're going to sweat out the leaders' patience, until the whiners who just wanna go home say, "can we give up, they're not going to plead guilty?"

Then get ready for weeks of I told you so's from the right wing media about how Patrick Fitzgerald is a liberal loose cannon who was just gunning for whoever he could touch, and not measuring up to the class of Ken Starr. All the "Valerie's not covert"'s and the "Joe Wilson is unpatriotic"'s.

The Anna Nicole & Britney stories will part like the Red Sea, as headlines are filled with stories about Bush-hating liberals and bloggers who accused our leaders of treason.

I just like to prepare myself for the worst.

[blue cat]

1. I agree

I've gotten my ass kicked so many times in the last 6 yrs by thinking that others will care about the truth.

[trashcanistanista]

3. I agree, too.

I think he will be acquitted by a hung jury. I think that was hinted on Valentines day with the remark "this may be the only time we all agree". Needless to say, I hold out some hope for a conviction It's not over 'till it's over.:(

[lapfog_1]

2. Juror 0677

once worked at the Washington (Moonie) Times.

Probably a wingnut.

[trashcanistanista]

5. It doesn't get any wingnuttier

than the Times. Shit.

[Jacobin]

10. a fricking moonie on the jury

all it takes is one hold out

[KharmaTrain]

16. She's The Editor???

Just because someone is employed by the Moonie Times doesn't mean they automatically are a "moonbat". Does anyone know her position there? She might be a secretary or have some other worker ant role there.

The pressures of a jury room make it difficult for one person to hold up the other 11 (or 13 including the alternates). I give all these people a great deal of credit for taking their job seriously...they know the importance of this case and are taking their time in finding fact.

I was involved in a gun control case...and I laughed when I was first empaneled as I was and still am for strict gun control...especially in urban areas. When I was chosen, I thought the defense lawyer made the biggest mistake in the world...but then the case began. Not to get into specifics, but during the next two weeks, I sat very open minded and kept in mind that I was there to interpret the law and the specific charges...not to make a political statement. The judge also shepparded the process as well...always reminding us to stick to being the finders of fact. In the end, the decision was to look at the law, look at the charges and determine from the testimony if the defendant (a gun dealer) wontingly violated the law. While the defendant made my skin crawl...when we went into the jury room and matched up the facts with the charges, I couldn't convict...and neither could anyone else in the jury. The process took several days as several others on the jury (who were also anti-gun) still wanted to convict, but as we constructed timelines and re-read key testimony, the picture became clearer and clearer.

There's a reason there are 12 on a jury and not 2 or 6. While people avoid jury duty like the plague, it was one of the most interesting times in my life...and having that experience had helped me in following this trial.

[frogcycle]

18. well, I was on a jury that had three of them

all three were batshit

each pronounced there was no way they would convict - each for completely illogical, personal reasons unrelated to the evidence. One was a conspiracy nut who though all cops, emt's, hospital employees, and dogcatchers were out to get this guy. another acknowledged he was a racist (had denied it in voir dire) who said he was going to vote not guilty to make up for all the bad things he'd done to blacks in his life. I kid you not. The third was a woman who said her three daughters were all sluts and she figured this girl was too and deserved what the guy did to her.

The nine of us just looked at each other and shook our heads. we deliberated two days and then I brought it to a head. I stated emphatically that there was no way in hell I was letting the guy walk - I didn't care how long we stayed there. The conspiracy nut said the same, on behalf of acquittal. So the group told the judge we were hung and I think the guy walked. Prosecutors probably threw in the towel.

And of course we found out AFTERWARDS that he had just been released from prison six weeks earlier - for rape - but we weren't allowed to know that because it might be prejudicial.

Really built up my confidence in the system. All three lied in voir dire. Looking back, I wonder if we could have reported them to the judge and gotten rid of them? I doubt it. They did that with ex-Governor Ryan in Illinois though.

[youngdem]

4. Everytime I think I have a verdict pegged, I have to remember a study I read in Psych in college

They asked jurors when they were leaving what 'key evidence' was crucial in them making their decision. The study had a brief synopsis of the case, and a few of the cases were well known. COMMONLY, there would be HILARIOUS leaps of faith, leaps in logic as to where the evidence pointed, an ability to MAKE UP evidence, and often they would just say something like "I know he was guilty, but he reminded me of Leroy from down the block" or some such nonsense. Finally, they would compromise on the charges, saying for example that they couldn't agree on kidnapping and rape, so they just gave him a sodomy guilty verdict so he would get something. Fucked up.

Makes you REALLY think about whether or not a jury of one's peers is truly best. REALLY does.

As far as this Libby verdict, they were allowed to exclude those angry at the administration or some such bullshit, all but assuring a jury of air heads and bushbots, so I fear the verdict was in before the opening statements were given.

[Marr]

8. I think it's an argument for changing the way we choose jurors, definitely.

As it stands, both attourneys seem to have every opportunity to simply take a big pot full of prospective jurors, and slowly boil off everyone who might have the ability to think, until they have a nice little nugget of stupid.

[youngdem]

9. You got it.

The lawyers want stupid jurors because it is easier to lie to them or convince them of a converse story that doesn't make any sense.

There are hundreds of specialists out there whose job it is to warp the jury system.

I grew up with a guy whose father was a jury consultant in small town Louisiana. His job was to basically show up at a jury selection for the party who hired him and sit on their side. The pool would walk in, and he could tell the party who hired him who would go for him and who would not. Some would see him and nod or say hello.

Just another way it is a very imperfect system.

Many lawyers suggest getting rid of peremptory challenges altogether so each side has to prove why a juror should be excluded, and prevent the sort of consultant juries that provide a predetermined outcome.

[rudy23]

6. And everyone will talk about how well educated the jury was nt

[Quixote1818]

7. Are you a writer? Your post reads like a great book!

You did a perfect job describing things!

If you are not a writer then you should think about becoming one.

[David Zephyr]

11. My household agrees with you and said so the second day of deliberations.

You are, I am afraid to say, probably right. There's a hold out or should I say a sell out.

[UTUSN]

12. yep, I don't get good vibes/results n/t

[peacetalksforall]

13. If it happens that there is a holdout - we may see libby again

at the Wilson civic trial if that keeps going.

[ThoughtCriminal]

14. Your description reminds me of Gov. Symington's trial in AZ

There was a juror like that.

Former Republican Governor Fife Symington was charged with extortion and making false financial statements, and of bank fraud.

11 jurors complained about a nutty holdout juror (who was also a Republican precinct leader). The other jurors reported that she was unable to follow the discussions, was apparently having an inability to comprehend the topic then under discussion, was not participating in the discussion process, was lacking in concentration and awareness. She refused to even consider the idea that such a nice young man could have done anything wrong.

The judge replaced her. Subsequently the jury found him guilty, but the appeals court ruled that the dismissal violated Symington's right to a fair trial.

Before there could be a new trial, Symington was pardoned by President Clinton.

[Spazito]

15. Hmmm, I see a jury that is taking it's responsibility seriously

taking the time needed to make a just decision. Asking for flip charts, tape, photos, etc, says they are approaching this methodically, count by count, using evidence/exhibits/testimony to map out each count of a far from simple case.

[never cry wolf]

17. There are 5 separate counts

each of which is independent of the others and has to be considered individually. Each count on it's own is complicated (I was on a jury for a murder one trial) and the citizens are weighing each charge with diligence and due care. They are not allowed to discuss their impressions with each other or anyone else until deliberations, the directions given by the judge do not include what issues to consider first or any agenda or step by step proceedure as to how to come to a decision. There is no foreman until deliberations begin, that is really their first order of business, elect a foreman.

From my experience I was damn impressed, 12 normal people hearing 2 weeks of testimony but not able to talk about it or read about it in the papers, sent to deliberations to figure out for themselves how they can organize and come to an outcome....

We were unanimous, the guy was on a two day coke binge and blew away the gas station attendant, guilty as sin. We gave our verdict on a Friday afternoon thinking we did our duty and would be free to go.... The clerk pronounced the verdict, the judge thanked us and said he'd see us Monday morning for the sentencing portion of the trial......

Another week of testimony and 2 days of deliberations over death or life without parole.... One of us was adamant against death ;) and convinced another.... hung jury 10-2, no death penalty....

Anyway, way off topic but wanted to relate my jury experience.