Scotter Libby Trial

[Felix_Nietzsche]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...600405_pf.html
The judge dismissed a juror in the Libby trial so now 11 people will decide the fate of Scooter Libby.

Mark Levin, a conservative lawyer, had some interesting thoughts on the dismissed jury and the reactions of the defense and the DA.
What make this event fascinating is NORMALLY when a juror gets dismissed, the defense moves to replace that juror. The thinking is that it only take one hold-out juror to have a mistrial. So better to have 12 than 11 in a close vote. But in this case the opposite happened. Fitzfong wanted that juror replaced but the defense said no, let the 11 decided his fate. The judge sided with the defense. Is Fitzfong running scared of an acquital? If he can't get a conviction by a Washinton DC jury of a Republican politcal aide then he must have had a flimsy case.

Also, did anyone hear about the judge complaining that Libby's lawyers tricked him.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/cat...mbalibbytrial/
Evidently this judge made a bizarre ruling that the defense could ONLY present certain evidence if the defense would agree to make Libby take the stand. The defense said ok, then presented the evidence, and then said sorry judge Libby changed his mind. The judge ruled that the defense could not refer to that evidence in their closing remarks. This seems VERY-VERY-BIZARRE. One of the cornerstones of the American legal system is the state must prove their case and the defendent can NOT be forced to testify. For a judge to place this conditions on the evidence that the defense could present seems EXTREMELY bizzarre.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/0...l_n_41254.html

I think the best Libby can hope for is a hung jury and my reasons are:
1. Washington DC is a HEAVILY democratic city and the jury pool was heavily tainted with people who don't like Bush/Cheney.
2. The judge is probably a democrat. Why? 90% of blacks typically vote democrat and this is a Washinton DC judge. So the odds of him being a coonservative black are about 10,000:1
3. The judge's bizzare rulings of trying to coerce the defense to make Libby testify raise a lot of questions of his impatiality Not allowing the defense to reference previosuly presented evidence in their closing remarks is HIGHLY irregular.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Rule #25 of internet debate:

If you can't spell the person's name right, you should not be debating the merits of their case.


q/q

[bdk3clash]

Boy, this sure looks like someone's trying to preemptively argue that this was an unfair trial just in case the jury finds Libby guilty. What does it matter if the judge (nominated by Bush, by the way) is (err, might be) a Democrat?

Do you have any reasons to think the jury pool was "tainted" and that the 12 (now 11) jurors are unqualified to reach a fair verdict, other than DC being largely black and Democratic?

What makes you characterize the judge's rulings as "bizarre"? I'm not a lawyer and don't know much about the laws at play here, but even the blog entry you linked to states:
[ QUOTE ]
...Judge Walton made it quite clear before the trial started that “the memory defense” was only permissible if the defendant testified. He made it seem that this was a matter of legal precedent, not his own whim. The defense team did not protest that, giving me the impression they agreed that this was in fact the way it usually worked.

[/ QUOTE ]Also, Judge Walton stated:
[ QUOTE ]
I did not intend to suggest there had been intentional misleading on that matter.

[/ QUOTE ](To be fair, I actually clicked through and read the article you linked to--these passages aren't available on the front page.)

It seems clear to me that the judge did not trying "to coerce the defense to make Libby testify." I don't see what is "HIGHLY irregular" about the judge making it clear at the beginning of the trial that certain arguments would only be allowed contingent upon Libby taking the stand himself and then not allowing those arguments to be used after it became clear that (for whatever reason) Libby wouldn't testify. Nor is it clear to me how this "raise[s] a lot of question of his [impartiality]."

At least wait until the verdict is in before screaming about a liberal bias. Who knows, he might get off, in which case I'll assume you'll be satisfied that justice has been served.

QoQ: Dumb response on your part.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Washington DC is a HEAVILY democratic city and the jury pool was heavily tainted with people who don't like Bush/Cheney.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a factor, although we don't know 1. How many people were taken from the suburbs and 2. the ability of the jurors to set aside their biases. My experience is that juries do an ok but not great job of this.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The judge is probably a democrat. Why? 90% of blacks typically vote democrat and this is a Washinton DC judge. So the odds of him being a coonservative black are about 10,000:1

[/ QUOTE ]
The judge is a federal judge. The demographics in DC actually have less to do with his appointment than the demographics in the rest of the country because he was appointed by Bush (taking BDK's word for it) and DC doesn't have representation in Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
Not allowing the defense to reference previosuly presented evidence in their closing remarks is HIGHLY irregular.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its not. In order to raise a defense, either side in a criminal trial must have a "good faith basis" to raise the claim. This means that there must be some admissible evidence supporting the claim. When Libby declined to testify, the evidence his lawyers raised was ruled inadimssible per the judge's previous instruction. Therefore, it would be improper to let them argue that theory in closing.

As for whether the judge should have ruled the evidence inadmissible, correct me if I'm wrong about the following: Libby presents a defense that he forgot about who he told what. In order to be able to make this case, you must present evidence of this. The only way the defense could do this is to put Libby on the stand and say that he forgot. The fact that the Defense was allowed to present all of this evidence and then have it ruled inadmissible makes it sould like the prosecution could easily get a mistrial if they wanted it.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

2. The judge is probably a democrat. Why? 90% of blacks typically vote democrat and this is a Washinton DC judge. So the odds of him being a coonservative black are about 10,000:1


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. Flaming Liberal:

[ QUOTE ]

Judge Reggie B. Walton assumed his position as a United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on October 29, 2001, after being nominated to the position by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Judge Walton was also appointed by President Bush in June of 2004 to serve as the Chairperson of the National Prison Rape Reduction Commission, a two-year commission created by the United States Congress that is tasked with the mission of identifying methods to curb the incidents of prison rape. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Walton to the federal judiciary's Criminal Law Committee, effective October 1, 2005. Judge Walton previously served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001, having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991. While serving on the Superior Court, Judge Walton was the court's Presiding Judge of the Family Division, Presiding Judge of the Domestic Violence Unit and Deputy Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division. Between 1989 and 1991, Judge Walton served as President George H. W. Bush's Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush's Senior White House Advisor for Crime.


[/ QUOTE ]

... Source uscourts.gov

[Felix_Nietzsche]

So what.....you have shown me nothing.....

Bush41 nominated Souter, one of the most liberal whackjobs on the supreme court now.

Reagan nominated Kennedy. Attourney Mark Levin, who was on Reagan's committee to choose Kennedy calls Kennedy a liar. He said Kennedy lied to Reagan claiming to be a conservative orinalist so he could get on the supreme court. Being nominated by a Republican president does not mean a judge is a conservative....unfortunately....

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
So what.....you have shown me nothing.....

Bush41 nominated Souter, one of the most liberal whackjobs on the supreme court now.

Reagan nominated Kennedy. Attourney Mark Levin, who was on Reagan's committee to choose Kennedy calls Kennedy a liar. He said Kennedy lied to Reagan claiming to be a conservative orinalist so he could get on the supreme court. Being nominated by a Republican president does not mean a judge is a conservative....unfortunately....

[/ QUOTE ]
Would a judge have to be a "conservative" to preside over a fair and legal trial for Libby? What difference does it make?

Again, do you think that Judge Walton is presiding over an unfair or unlawful trial? If so, why?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a factor, although we don't know 1. How many people were taken from the suburbs and 2. the ability of the jurors to set aside their biases. My experience is that juries do an ok but not great job of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gerry Spence, a top defense lawyer who got Randy Weaver, the the Ruby Ridge shooter, acquited wrote a great book on persuasion. He cites an example where he defended a white banker and had an almost all-black jury. He thought he was easily winning he case. Later the jury convicted the banker in a landslide. The moral of the story...a jury that is prejuduce against the background of your climate is a huge hurdle to overcome.
http://www.gerryspence.com/

[ QUOTE ]
The judge is a federal judge. The demographics in DC actually have less to do with his appointment than the demographics in the rest of the country because he was appointed by Bush (taking BDK's word for it) and DC doesn't have representation in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish is was true that Republican never put liberal judges on the bench. It would be a better world. Souter was Bush41's worst mistake. Blacks typically vote 90% for the democrats. Black conservatives are a rare comodity... I'm just playing the odds here...

[ QUOTE ]
No, its not. In order to raise a defense, either side in a criminal trial must have a "good faith basis" to raise the claim. This means that there must be some admissible evidence supporting the claim. When Libby declined to testify, the evidence his lawyers raised was ruled inadimssible per the judge's previous instruction. Therefore, it would be improper to let them argue that theory in closing.

As for whether the judge should have ruled the evidence inadmissible, correct me if I'm wrong about the following: Libby presents a defense that he forgot about who he told what. In order to be able to make this case, you must present evidence of this. The only way the defense could do this is to put Libby on the stand and say that he forgot. The fact that the Defense was allowed to present all of this evidence and then have it ruled inadmissible makes it sould like the prosecution could easily get a mistrial if they wanted it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately the news stories I've seen are short of details so I don't think we can discuss this very thoroughly. My point is evidence should either admissible or it is not admissible....regardless of whether a defendent choose to not testify. To compel a defendent to forgo his right to NOT testify in order to present evidence smacks of unfairness and an attack on the Bill of Rights. This judge is no civil libertarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is evidence should either admissible or it is not admissible....regardless of whether a defendent choose to not testify. To compel a defendent to forgo his right to NOT testify in order to present evidence smacks of unfairness and an attack on the Bill of Rights. This judge is no civil libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jesus, how much clearer can this be? According to the very first blog post you linked to, it was made clear to the defense at the beginning of the trial that certain lines of argument (ie "Libby was exhausted when this was going on") were only admissible contingent upon Libby taking the stand himself. If there is a legal problem with this the defense team didn't raise it at the time, nor since then.

If you know something about the laws at play here then put it forward--otherwise you're just rehashing the same speculation you made in your original post without anything to back it up other than your (also unexplained) mistrust of Judge Walton's ability to put on a fair trial because he's probably a liberal and/or Democrat and therefore untrustworthy.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, how much clearer can this be? According to the very first blog post you linked to, it was made clear to the defense at the beginning of the trial that certain lines of argument (ie "Libby was exhausted when this was going on") were only admissible contingent upon Libby taking the stand himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> How much clearer can I be?
The subject is whether a judge has the authority to allow evidence ONLY if a defendent to forgoes his right NOT to testify. The Bill-of-Rights carries a lot of weight and the judge tried to make an end run around Libby's constitutional rights.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a legal problem with this the defense team didn't raise it at the time, nor since then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh?...this is more than I know.
If you have a link to the court transcripts then I would love to read whether the defense attourneys said nothing. Most defense attorneys I know aren't afraid to raise objections to protect their clients. When objections are raised, between the prosecuter and the defense lawyers the judge makes a ruling. Is it your contention that the judge made a ruling that evidence could be admitted ONLY if Libby agreed to testify when no objection was even raised?????? The judge ruled that Libby's right NOT to testify should be invalidated if the defense presented other evidence. The judge sided with the prosecution on this issue. No where in the Bill of Rights does it place restrictions on a defendents right NOT to testify. The judge knew this and he had to back down when Libby chose not to testify...