More breaking: Trouble in the Libby case

[malaise]

Turn on CNN. A juror may have been exposed to trial information. WTF.

All parties told to report to court.

[babylonsister]

1. MSNBC saying it could mean a mistrial. SHEEET! nt

[malaise]

3. That's a mild word for my thoughts

WTF!!

[babylonsister]

2. Exposed to media, not trial info, per MSNBC. nt

[malaise]

4. MSNBC has the best coverage

watching - instantly depressed.

[HereSince1628]

5. For the cube rats...how did the juror get "exposed" and how does

the court know that?

[Cooley Hurd]

8. No idea yet...

No elaboraton on CNN or MSNBC.

[Norquist Nemesis]

42. Jury Foreperson told judge of "exposure"

No other details on type of exposure to media about it so far. Also, they're saying others may have also been exposed. Judge is questioning them.

[NoodleyAppendage]

82. Was the Jury Foreperson the same who organized the STUPID t-shirt incident??

Sounds like the foreperson is a Repuke plant. I wouldn't bet against an acquittal and that this dismissed juror was a hold out for conviction. You watch...

J

[Norquist Nemesis]

107. Don't know

I haven't heard exactly who is the foreperson or even if it's a man or a woman. :shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

6. that sucks

if it is true.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Who got to one of the jurors and contaminated them?

Sorry for the :tinfoilhat:, but, if this is ruled a mistrial, that would be just WAY too convenient!:grr:

[babylonsister]

10. My very first thought, as well. nt

[Horse with no Name]

17. Exactly.

Right out of the Rovian playbook.

[KharmaTrain]

28. It Was Al Pacino...

But then the tin foil hats have been firmly in place here all throughout the trial. Be it the former Woodward employee and the Moonie Times worker.

I'd like to give some credit the jurors...they've come this far, it'd be tough for the Judge to call a mistrial unless a juror all but says they were bought off. Remember, deliberations had begun and I would suspect the jury has already gotten a feel for where others on the jury stand...someone who all of a sudden changes or acts strange is gonna be called out and fast. Also, these people have all the facts of the case...that's their jobs..."Finders Of Fact"...any "media coverage" won't give them any information they don't already have access to and any attempt to "poison" their minds should mean little after all these people have witnessed. There's a very good reason 12 people are on a jury...and two alternates are still participating as well.

[Mind_your_head]

9. What happens if a mistrial is declared?

Do they have to start all over from the beginning again? New jury selection, new trial?

[babylonsister]

11. Yes, I think they have to start over. nt

[Mind_your_head]

24. Thanks. Oh man, that would be awful....

One more question, when are juries 'sequestered'? So that there can be no possibility of 'taint' from outside sources. Is this ever done or is it just something I vaguely remember seeing in old movies/TV?

[spanone]

23. yes

[WiseButAngrySara]

12. I missed it. They are talking about the discovery of

"Jesus's" tomb...

[dancingme]

13. Fitz won't allow this stunt form Wells

I'm sure it's a stunt to force a mistrail. Fitz will demand that the judge question each juror to see it this has any effect on their ability to continue deliberations.

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Hope you're right. ....n/t

[jsamuel]

14. Isn't that what alternates are for?

[Democrat 4 Ever]

16. From over at firedoglake.com - they are in the courtroom

***BREAKING: There has been exposure of at least one of the jurors to media coverage of the trial. There is discussion going on in chambers with Judge Walton and counsel for both sides as to how to proceed. There will likely be individual voir dire (discussions) with each and every juror now to determine if there is a taint to the jury process. We won't know anything about whether things will proceed until that has concluded. There is a possibility of a mistrial being declared but, again, we will not know anything unless and until the judge and attorneys speak with the jury foreperson and all of the jurors, and make their determination as to how things will or will not proceed from there. More news as we get it.***

[malaise]

21. Juror exposed to media

I can't believe this. Even if Fitz proceeds this will be grounds for the appeal so Bush won't have to pardon Libby. I am pissed. :mad:

[Little Wing]

18. IMPOSSIBLE! The media covered nothing but Anna Nicole Smith for the last 2 weeks

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. lol! So true!!!!! eom

[here_is_to_hope]

48. *snicker*...good one! n/t

[Zorra]

19. What a surprise, huh? n/t

[H2O Man]

22. While it is natural

to speculate, I do not think that it can be assumed there will be a mistrial. Nor that there won't.

Jurors are human beings. And sometimes, a human being will, in the course of a debate, bring in outside information. Of course, that isn't supposed to happen during the jury's decision-making process.

It may have been a juror saying "acquit!" .... or it might be a person saying "convict!"

Either way, we want Judge Walton, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Team Libby to consider the implications.

I am aware of a case where one juror brought up a newspaper article his wife had read and told him about. The article was false. It was not a good thing. But it did not change the process.

[malaise]

30. Hope you're right H2O man n/t

[H2O Man]

35. "Worst case scenario"

is one possibility. There are others. I do not think that this is a good thing, but it may not be the worst case scenario.

I will also say that if people suspect that there is some type of jury tampering, I would not look to the defense attorneys as the likely suspects. I do not believe there much if any chance of that. However, there are other forces involved that I would certainly think would attempt to derail justice by infecting the jury.

[malaise]

36. Let us hope

Damn, damn, damn.

[cassiepriam]

117. Cheney or Rove forces??

They would do it in a heartbeat.
No wonder I saw Libby smiling the other day.

[H2O Man]

119. Right.

They are snakes.

[cassiepriam]

120. "Snakes" too good a word to use for them.

These two slithered up from the primordial ooze of Hades.

(I do wonder what took them so long. I figured they would have bought off
or threatened somebody much sooner to stop the trial. Fitz must have run a tight
ship for the blackguards to take so long.)

[H2O Man]

121. True.

I like snakes. I use the term in the symbolic sense.

If someone were looking to derail the trial, this would actually be the best time to do so. (It is possible, of course, that it was simply one personality-disordered person, who attempted to bend the rules to meet her own needs.)

[cassiepriam]

122. Why is this the best time to de rail the trial?

PS If it benefits Bush Co, then it is most likely not just one person involved here.

[H2O Man]

123. Because it can

be the most difficult time to remedy any potential damage. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorneys want the case derailed now .... much less the judge .... and it speaks well of everyone that they worked it out in a way that allows the case to move forward. (Good job by the jury foreperson, too!)

Earlier, it would be easier to get rid of a juror who doesn't follow the judge's instructions. The other jurors aren't discussing the case in the earlier stages. So any misconduct is easier to "isolate." But once they are deciding the case, and conversing about the issues, it is more likely that the contamination would have spread.

[cassiepriam]

128. The timing is interesting then, works well for Libby....

Gives the defense something to appeal later on.
That is why they are making nice no doubt.

Thanks H20Man.....!

[H2O Man]

129. Their chance

of appealing on this is greatly reduced. Judge Walton made a ruling that favored the position that the position Teddy Wells took. Wells stated that adding an alternate would be "prejudicial to Mr. Libby," and that, "It's not like by going to 11 we're on the cliff of some mistrial."

[WiseButAngrySara]

33. Thanks for your words of reason and assurance H2O Man! ....n/t

[H2O Man]

39. One possibility

would be that a juror was exposed to an article by a speciman we will code-name "Bacteria Toenail." She might have authored a misinformation op-ed carried in the Washington Post. If a juror read that, and is advocating "not guilty" verdicts, that juror can be removed, and unless Mr. Fitzgerald requests it, there would seem a reduced chance of a mistrial.

If, however, a juror read a response to this op-ed, even a LTTE in response to Ms. Toenail, and was advocating a "guilty" verdict, removal of that juror might not satisfy Team Libby. But it isn't a sure thing either way.

The only "sure thing" is that this is not a good thing. We want Libby convicted fair and square.

[WiseButAngrySara]

43. LOL! "Bacterial Toenail!" Sounds either highly contagious

or frankly gangrenous! To amputate or to treat? To dispel or to reprimand and keep the exposed juror? If dispelled, wouldn't the juror just be replaced by alternative jurors? Presuming the infection hadn't spread to the other jurors?

[H2O Man]

50. It is the type

of infection that penicillin won't cure.

It's a strange situation. It could be one person's error in judgement. It could be an organized effort to derail the case. I'm glad that the jury brought it to the attention of Judge Walton now.

[WiseButAngrySara]

58. Juror dismissed! With only 11 jurors? Is this grounds for a

mistrial?

[H2O Man]

62. Team Libby

wants to go with 11. Patrick Fitzgerald requested 12.

Strange.

[WiseButAngrySara]

66. It is strange. Is there a precedent for this? ....n/t

[H2O Man]

69. Some.

I can't think of anything quite like this, however. In a case like this, one would expect the jurors to attempt to try to function at a higher level.

[WiseButAngrySara]

76. Dumb question, but all 11 have to convict or acquit, right? So the

odd number 11 doesn't have any effect on tie-breaking, hung jury, etc? (If you get my gist)

[H2O Man]

85. "The only

'dumd question' is the one which remains unasked." -- Malcolm X

Yes, you are correct that the same rules apply. In this case, 11 jurors will convict Scooter Libby.

[WiseButAngrySara]

95. Thanks! See post #78 by Nevilledog (?) He/she states that

usually the defense wants more jurors, so why would team Libby be happy about this, and why would Fitz had wanted 12? I smell a mistrial in this.

[H2O Man]

98. At this point,

we are still not in a position that would allow us to do anything more than speculate on what the now dismissed juror had read that resulted in her being taken off the jury. Without knowing, we are only able to speculate on what is usual .... and this case is unusual. The only thing that I think is likely is that the prosecution, the defense, and the judge all want the case to move forward. It is possible, perhaps likely, that there are people associated with Libby who would want to derail the case. But I think the attorneys and judge are generally honorable people.

[robinlynne]

100. As far as I know that is what the alternate jurors are there for!

[malaise]

84. Fitz may have covered his tracks

Can the defense use what they agreed to as grounds for an appeal?

[mod mom]

54. Media Matters on Toensing (list show her true colors):

Toensing offered false defense of Bush's warrantless surveillance program
Friday, January 20, 2006 2:37PM

Toensing "called in" to CNN, falsely equated Clinton's searches in Ames case with Bush wiretapping
Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:49PM

In WSJ op-ed, Toensing revisited familiar Plame falsehoods
Thursday, November 3, 2005 6:54PM

Conservative media figures repeated false claim that Libby indictment proved no "underlying crime" was committed
Monday, October 31, 2005 6:52PM

On imbalanced Hardball panel, Toensing repeated Plame investigation falsehoods and distortions
Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:11PM

Victoria Toensing used falsehoods, half-truths to defend GOP obstruction of Clinton's judicial nominees
Friday, May 20, 2005 8:01PM

Victoria Toensing failed to disclose friendship with "No Disclosure" Novak in Wash. Post op-ed
Friday, January 14, 2005 4:29PM

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/victoriatoensing

[H2O Man]

57. Thank you.

She is a terrible human being.

[Caoimhe]

59. LOL

Thanks for giving me a belly laugh with the "Bacterial Toenail" monicker.

[merh]

25. Don't they have alternates?

If one juror exposed, that juror is dismissed and they go on with deliberations.

[Bunny]

29. The Yahoo article I read said that the judge was concerned that

this juror may have discussed what he/she heard with the other jurors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial

<snip>
Jurors occasionally saw some news coverage during the monthlong trial. Unlike those incidents, Walton said Monday that he worried that the information may have been passed to several jurors. He said each juror would be questioned behind closed doors.
<snip>

[merh]

38. That is standard in any trial

If there is the chance that a juror heard or learned of something outside of the trial or had exposure to the media, then the judge will conduct a hearing with all of the jury to see if they were contaminated. He will ususally do a one on one with each juror, possibly in chambers with counsel present.

It happens more than you know in cases like this. That's why the court selects the alternates, usually more than 2.

[dancingme]

72. but deliberations have to start all over again

with the alternate. The judge didn't want to throw out 2 1/2 days of deliberations and start all over.

[merh]

88. But to be honest, that's not a big deal, going over the last 2.5 days

of deliberation -- hell juries can take forever to deliberate - I've been involved where they took 2 weeks and longer.

No biggie really, the jury takes these things seriously and it wouldn't bother the members to have to start again.

[marmar]

26. Wonder if this "juror" will suddenly move to the Bush estate in Paraguay....

I sense a mile-high pile of bullshit.

[WiseButAngrySara]

34. Snort! ....n/t

[jollyreaper2112]

was this an intentional strategy of the defense?

Would be appropriate, in a trial for leaking they would leak info to a juror to taint the jury.

[FourScore]

27. Oh jeez...

k&r

[Sydnie]

31. They should have sequestered them

I hate to think of that happening to anyone, but this case is a national one with so many players and implications, they should have sequestered them, especially since it didn't last all that long as some criminal cases do.

Keeping my fingers crossed that it hasn't tainted the whole process completely.

[babylonsister]

32. How irresponsible of that juror! They've been repeatedly warned

by the judge NOT to watch or read any news.
Per Schuster, now the judge has to determine whether the jury has been tainted, because apparently more than one jurist fessed up. The judge is bummed.

[PDittie]

37. MSNBC's David Shuster:

The jury now, which is in its fourth day of deliberations, has a major problem which could put this entire case on the verge of a mistrial. The jury foreperson sent the Judge a note this morning, saying that one of the jurors in this panel had contact with news coverage of this case and used that information as part of the jury deliberations with others.

In other words, this outside news coverage seeped into deliberations despite the Judge adamantly demanding that jurors not watch any news coverage, that they judge this case strictly on what is presented in court.

This could be a huge problem. And what the court is now doing is, the Judge and the attorneys, in chambers, are asking the jury foreperson exactly what information has been essentially been moved into jury deliberations, who was the juror who came in contact with it, what did that juror say to the other jurors. And then after the court is done talking to the foreperson, then the Judge and the attorneys on both sides will then go individually, one at a time if necessary, to question each individual juror about what impact all of this had.

In most cases, when a Judge has said there can be no consideration of outside information, and that information gets into jury deliberations, in most cases the court will declare a mistrial.

[progressoid]

40. Oh for fucks sake.

Tell me there's an alternate juror.

This crap has been dragging on and on and on and nothing has been accomplished. If they say mistrial, I'm gonna have to start drinking heavily....again.

[blogslut]

41. New post from firedoglake

Opinion via Christy Hardin Smith:

"They will voir dire the juror in question, as well as all of the members of the jury to see what that juror saw and what, if any, impact it had in deliberations. It could be as innocuous as seeing a headline.

<snip>

What is more likely is that the judge will determine that what the juror saw did not have a substantial impact. Judge Walton will then admonish the jury not to have contact with media — period. He may decide to sequester the jury from here on out. He will likely issue a cautionary instruction on how this should or should not enter the jury room. But we'll have to see what the level of exposure was to know what will happen..."

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/7460/

[WiseButAngrySara]

46. Thanks! ....n/t

[malaise]

47. Good news from FDL n/t

[GliderGuider]

63. From FDL - Walton says the show must go on

Wells was OK with proceeding with 11 jurors, Fitz would prefer to have 12, but Walton said let's not waste the work that's been done. There was no taint to the rest of the jury, so deliberations continue.

[KansDem]

44. Sounds like a "Charlie Manson" moment...

Remember this?

A major distraction from Kasabian's testimony came on August 3, when Manson stood before the jury and held up a copy of the Los Angeles Times with the headline, "MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES." The defense moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the headline prejudiced the jury against the defense, but Judge Older denied the motion after each juror stated under oath that he or she would not be influenced by the President's reported declaration of guilt.

UMKC Law

I wouldn't put it past these thugs and cutthroats to try something like influencing the jury.

[H2O Man]

53. Good call. n/t

[blogslut]

45. Hamsher sez

The lawyers and the judge have returned to the courtroom

cross fingers

[HereSince1628]

49. Remember to breathe calmly. We'll have to wait, there's just no other way

it's too early in the morning for Johnny Walker...

[Bluzmann57]

51. Two things.

Can anything be done to the juror who brought in the outside info? I mean can he/she be charged with any crime? And I am usually who scoffs at conspiracy theories, as most are basically groundless, but this stinks to high heaven. Perhaps someone somewhere deliberately planted some outside info. Hmmm...I guess we shall see if there's a mistrial. If so, I hope the prosecution goes after the juror who tainted the panel with all guns firing so to speak.

[Oilwellian]

79. I had this visual....

Karl Rove riding by the juror's home on his Schwinn bicycle, Barney's in a basket on the back, and Karl throws last Sunday's Washington Post through the infected juror's window. I see flying monkeys with bacterial toenails everywhere!:D

[blogslut]

52. CNN sez

The juror was dismissed and the deliberations will continue

[WiseButAngrySara]

55. OK!!! Breaking news onMSNBC Juror dismissed! ....n/t

[malaise]

60. LOL

Very good news. A female juror dismissed. Government (Fitz) had wanted to restart - defense happy. Should I calm down yet? No. Libby was smiling and waving to his wife. WTF.

Add. Sp.

[WiseButAngrySara]

70. Also, as H20 Man posted above, why did the judge want to go

on with only 11 jurors, and Fitz wanted 12? Potential mistrial? I knew that the juror would have been the tea-shirt hold-out!

[malaise]

56. Now on MSNBC

Great news. Continues with 11 jurors. PHEW!

[Cameron27]

64. Are they talking about putting in an alternate?

On edit, this sucks, lost cable connection.

[H2O Man]

65. Mr. Fitzgerald did.

But Judge Walton agreed with Team Libby that the 11 remaining jurors had made progress. Strange.

[malaise]

68. I'm worried

Shuster up now. Says the art curator was dismissed. She was the one who did not wear the red Tee shirt on Valentine's day.

[H2O Man]

73. I would suggest

that we are better off with this juror dismissed.

[Catherine Vincent]

77. Has there ever been a trial that moved forward with a verdict

where there were only 11 jurors? I am still worried. If this jury finds Libby guilty, the defense could argue a mistrial because there were only 11 jurors. This doesn't seem right to me.

[malaise]

81. Shuster said the Defense wants to go forward with 11

jurors.

[Nevilledog]

83. I don't believe that would be grounds to appeal.

If the defense objected to proceeding with 11 jurors then it would be grounds to appeal. Since the defense agreed to only have 11 jurors they have waived that issue.

The only possible way it could be raised, in my opinion, would be if Libby is convicted and he raises ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney agreed to the reduced jury panel. Still not a great issue.

edit for spelling

[H2O Man]

90. I agree

about this reducing any possibility of a successful appeal based on this.

"Ineffective assistance of counsel" really isn't an issue. It requires something that is distinct from this type of decision.

[Nevilledog]

93. Ineffective assistance of counsel.

I'm not sure what you mean by "distinct from this type of decision". Anything a defense attorney does can be the subject of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. That being said, it is extremely difficult to prevail on any such claim. Remember, courts have routinely upheld convictions where a defense attorney has fallen asleep during trial, been intoxicated during trial, or failed to call witnesses. Courts seem to be very unwilling to overturn convictions for the misdeeds of counsel.

I think it would be even more unlikely that a reviewing court would look at the high-powered legal team representing Libby as ineffective or incompetent under any circumstance.

[H2O Man]

96. Well I would say

that falling asleep or being intoxicated during a trial is distinct from the Libby attorneys making a decision that has the potential to play a role in an appeal.

[Nevilledog]

99. That wasn't my point exactly.

I was trying to point out that anything an attorney does can be subject to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Including agreeing to proceed with less than 12 jurors. The rest of my post was just meant to point out that merely raising such a claim doesn't mean much as courts do not tend to overturn a jury's decision to convict even when it appears that counsel's actions were grossly ineffective.

[H2O Man]

110. Right.

Team Libby participants are likely frustrated by the ineffective assistance of client, and of his guilty-as-sin friend Dick.

[Cameron27]

74. Thanks, yes it does sound strange.

[Nevilledog]

78. This is very strange.....

As a defense attorney you'd like to have 100 people on the jury, the more the merrier. This is because it only takes 1 person holding out for acquittal to hang a jury, meaning you get another bite at the apple if the case if retried. In that case you've already had a chance to hear the government's case and can adjust accordingly. Also, if after a hung jury you poll the jury and find out that there were more people leaning toward acquittal than conviction a prosecutor will sometimes chose not to retry a case or it could lead to a beneficial plea agreement.

It makes me uneasy that the defense is willing to proceed with less than 12 people, and I don't understand why an alternate is not replacing the dismissed juror. It's not like the jury has been deliberating for such a long time that an alternate could not be brought up to speed by the other jurors.

Very, very strange.

[Catherine Vincent]

91. Same here.

Why not replace with one of the aternates. What's a nother few days? :shrug:

[WiseButAngrySara]

92. Thanks. You explained a question I had posed above, but

it still doesn't explain why the judge wanted to proceed with 11 and Fitz wanted 12. And to add to the obfuscation, you are now pointing out that in the normal case, the more jurors the better for the defense! I hope that the one dismissed juror was not the one who was favoring conviction! I would assume that she would be favoring acquittal, but who knows?

[Nevilledog]

97. I'm stumped.

I think it's unlikely that the judge or counsel would have ascertained by questioning the juror whether they were leading toward conviction or acquittal. That would have been unseemly. However, depending on what the media information this juror was exposed to and what that juror told the others might have made it possible to determine their position. The fact that Fitz wanted 12 seems to indicate that the juror shared information that somehow damaged the prosecution's case. Or it might be something as simple as Fitz being cautious and not wanting to espouse a smaller jury panel and putting the burden on the defense to okay the judge's proposal. That way Libby can't come back on appeal and point to the smaller jury as being at the request or okay of the prosecution. By acquiescing to the smaller jury Libby has removed the issue for appeal.

[malaise]

102. MSNBC just said that one of the alternates was busy

taking notes and her body language didn't look favorable to Team Libby. If that is true we know why they want to go ahead with 11.

[WiseButAngrySara]

106. If you're stumped, imagine me! I just heard that the potential

12th alternate juror took a lot of notes and was viewed unfavorably by the defense team. This might explain the decision to go with 11 jurors in spite of the lesser odds for the defense team. And I think you're right about why Fitz would want to stick to 12 jurors so as to prevent a possible mistrial. In addition, if he knew or speculated that the 12th alternate juror was favorable for his case, then this would be another reason why he would want to play by the rules with 12. It's still very strange though why the judge wanted 11?

[flyarm]

108. but i heard there were 2 alternate jurors..so if one was taking notes.we

don't know about the second one..also i heard on msnbc that the alternates were not at the court...that seems strange to me..i was an alternate once and i had to stay during deliberations..i was kept in the judges chambers the entire time..once the jury went into deliberations i was no longer a part of them..and was kept away from them..but i was nonetheless kept at the court house through the entire deliberations...i still had to follow all the rules set out by the judge..no papers, no tv ..no talking to anyone in media..or even acknowledging them in the hallways of the court..special bathroom excluded from media..or people involved with the trial..i still had to maintain all the rules as if i was part of the jury deliberating...

it was like being a bridemaid without being in the wedding!!

i do not understand why an alternate was not in the court house throughout the entire deliberations...

fly

[WiseButAngrySara]

109. I had wondered about the only 1 alternate juror, but who knows?

Do you have any explanation why the judge would want 11 jurors instead of 12?

[flyarm]

111. msnbc reported there were two alternates...

and there ususally is 2 alternates in important cases..some cases have more than 2 ...depending on the case i am sure


fly

[Left Hook]

112. I'm with you on this, Wise

There are 2 alternates they can use. But the Judge decided to have only 11 deliberate on the case. If he is found innocent, then something is up because Libby's defense ask for the 11 to deliberate. Doesn't the constitution state that a person must be tried by a jury of 12 of his peers? (except for lawsuits which can be 8, but this is a criminal case so it has to be 12).

[H2O Man]

114. Simply because

those 11 have already been working towards delivering a verdict. If they added one alternate, it would cause them to have to go back to the judge's instruction, and start again. The flow chart they've constructed would get tossed.

If another juror gets tossed -- and anything is possible -- then Walton would replace one or both "missing" jurors with alternates. But you never really know .... maybe in 24 hours, we will not be worrying about these things!

[WiseButAngrySara]

115. Thanks H2O Man! ....n/t

[Left Hook]

124. But constitutionally speaking

If in fact the worst happens and Libby was found not guilty, that won't serve Valerie Plame justice, because it is not a jury of 12, as stated in the constitution. Everyone deserves a fair trial on both sides.

[H2O Man]

125. Actually,

federal law allows a jury of 11, if the judge so decides. And, if the prosecution and defense agree, it can be less. What happened today isn't rare.

[Left Hook]

126. Now I gotcha

Was worried for a minute there

[Straight Shooter]

61. A mistrial is bad for the taxpayers, but Fitzgerald would take it in stride.

I don't think the defense would be pleased. They've seen what they're up against, their spirits are low. I think Libby is almost resigned to his fate.

The jury should have been sequestered. This is an information-saturated world. I wonder if Fitz made a motion to sequester the jury and Wells objected ...?

I don't see any nefarious activity going on. What I see is a clueless juror.

[Catherine Vincent]

67. Per MSNBC, the dismissed juror was the one that refused to wear the Valentine's teeshirt!!

[Norquist Nemesis]

71. *gasp* It was the art curator lady who was dismissed

The same one that refused to join the rest of the jury on Valentine's Day with the red t-shirts. LOL!

(per MSNBC)

[mconvente]

75. I haven't been watching the trial or following it too closely, but

wtf is up with the Valentine's Day t-shirts?? I get the hint that all the jurors are wacky or something like that, but could someone explain further? thanks

[Lasher]

86. The jury all wore red tee shirts for Valentine's Day

I believe the foreperson stood up and made some little speech. All of them were dressed alike except the elderly art curator lady. This has caused speculation that she might be a person with whom a consensus is difficult to reach.

Edit to furnish link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2876135&page=1

[malaise]

94. The more I think about it

the more I believe that not wearing the Tee shirt was way too obvious. If team Libby have a plant, it won't be the art curator lady.

[Lasher]

103. You might be right but either way I think we're better off without her on the jury

She might have turned out to be an eccentric juror who was more interested in playing the role of a rebel than in anything else. If so it wouldn't be the first time there's been a hung jury due to the presence of such an individual.

I might be way off base here, just speculating. After all, I'm not getting paid to do this. :P

[malaise]

104. Aren't we all

:D

[Lars39]

118. Ever seen the movie Runaway Jury?

There was a similar scene in that with the jury deciding to say the Pledge of Allegience.

[Lasher]

127. No, I've never seen that one.

Google told me it came out in 2003 so maybe I'll be able to watch it soon on HBO, etc.

[Spazito]

80. Fitzgerald now has it on record that the defense wanted

deliberations to continue with 11 jurors which would mitigate the defense using this specific ruling as a cause for appeal, imo.

[malaise]

87. That's my take as well

but WTF do I know.

[MilesColtrane]

89. On a positive note, if this case gets torpedoed and Libby walks...

...maybe that will piss Fitz off enough to resign and run for office.

An elected official with impeccable integrity? Naaaa...what am I thinking?

[Annces]

101. Firedoglake's take on the Renegade juror

Pachacutec has a background in psychology and has been good at sizing up the different personalities.


""Pachacutec says:

February 26th, 2007 at 8:28 am

Gang, listen to me, please:

The art curator was an unreadable (as far as this case) individualist elitist. I have no idea how she was leaning, though she often seemed a bit bored by testimony.

Look for a more unified jury that will work hard to deliver a verdict. I have a hunch who the foreperson might be, and a hunch who organized the tee shirt thing. I think this may be the same person, one who has previously been a jury foreperson.

Fitz may have fought for and wanted an alternate, and thought that Walton’s caution in this regard was badly placed, legally. But, if I’m not mistaken, defense has forfeited its right to appeal if it has been supportive of continued deliberations with a jury of eleven.

One of the alternates, an African American woman, clearly looked dubious of the defense. Wells may be happy to keep her out (she would be a 50/50 shot to come back in), and Fitz may have wanted that chance.

We won’t know what came out in chambers so there’s not really much point in speculating what Fitz may be pissed about. He may even think this juror should not have been dismissed, and may have felt she was a good juror for him. ""


http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/26/art-curator-dismissed-from-libby-trial/#comments

[wiggs]

105. Can't wait to hear from this juror....I don't believe that dismissed jurors are

barred from letting attorneys or public know how it's going in jury room.

[malaise]

113. Just saw a post saying that there

is a power cut at the Court House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x294185

Wolf about to discuss this.

Add.

[cassiepriam]

116. Has Cheney's fingerprints on this............ nt