One Juror Dismissed, NO MISTRIAL

[jsamuel]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

"Judge has just announced that one juror has been dismissed. Defense attorney Wells asks that deliberations continue with 11 jurors."

VIA Firedoglake:

Walton: One juror has now been dismissed based upon the knowledge of her part that she did have information based on this case. It wasn't intentional, but what she had exposure to disqualifies her from further deliberations of this case, so I need to know what counsel's position is as to how to proceed.

Wells: It is the position of defense that jury deliberation should continue with a jury of 11 and that at this juncture an alternate should not be put onto the jury, because as we understand it if a new juror is appointed they must start deliberations all over again which is something in our opinion would be prejudicial to Mr. Libby. That would be a jury of 11. If we have a situation that for some reason another juror is lost, it is such that we would be left down to 10 and we believe your honor would have the ability to appoint the alternates in, so we're not on the "cliff of a mistrial." Don't want to throw away 2 1/2 days of deliberations when these jurors are obviously making their way through the charges, and would be highly unfair to Mr. Libby.

FitZ: The gov't would prefer 12 jurors. If you're going to replace jurors anew that it's preferable to do it after 2 1/2 days of deliberation. We think there is a preference for 12 jurors and we think there is a risk that if someone gets ill we get into dangerous territory of 11 jurors.

Walton: Don't think there is any reason to believe this jury was irresponsible — info from juror did not taint the others. They have deliberated for 2 1/2 days, don't want to throw away that work. If something does unforseeably happen to another juror then we sill have the option of recalling the alternates. I did tell them before they left they should continue to not let themselves be exposed to this case from outside sources. So rather than throw away the 2 1/2 days devoted to this effort, I will allow them to continue their deliberations.

...


Walton: The law does now allow you to continue your deliberations with 11 jurors, so that's what I'm going to do. Let me just ask if all of you have kept yourself isolated from any information about this case — if that is so, raise your hand. Okay, everybody raised their hand saying they have not had any outside information, and I ask that you continue to do that. It is imperative — you must decide this case based only on what you heard in this courtroom. With that I ask that you go back and proceed with your deliberations. Thank you.

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

[Monkeyman]

1. Well at least it will go on

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Wells must be looking at appeals points

:shrug:

[HereSince1628]

6. How would that work if Walton agrees with him and lets the jury continue?

Seems to me Wells has acquiesced to this point. We need someone who knows about these things...

[gratuitous]

8. I'm less knowledgeable about criminal matters

But in civil matters, appeals are based on assignments of error: That is, mistakes in interpreting or applying the law or case precedent in a way that changed the outcome of the case against your side. Evidence that was let in or evidence that was excluded is often an assignment of error, but in order to base on appeal on an assignment of error, the lawyers have to "make a record," that is, make an objection for the judge to overrule.

By not just acquiescing to proceeding with 11 jurors but actually suggesting it, the defense is in effect not making a record that they would base an appeal on that fact. Usually, there is some statement in the colloquy between the judge and the lawyers that "the defense reserves all its rights or arguments" or some such language to indicate that they either object now or might object later to proceeding with 11 jurors.

But after the legal eagles scrutinize the entire transcript of the trial, including all the objections that were lodged and either sustained or overruled, Libby's attorneys will probably have several grounds on which to launch an appeal should he be convicted.

[HereSince1628]

10. Thanks. n/t

[sabra]

3. CNN: A federal judge has dimissed a juror in the case

http://www.cnn.com/

A federal judge has dimissed a juror in the case against former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, The Associated Press reports.

[rodeodance]

4. Thank was quick.

[rodeodance]

5. Judge Walton just ruled that deliberations will go forward with 11 jurors.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Libby Update 4

Fitzgerald argued in favor of adding an alternate to the jury, so that 12 could deliberate. That would mean that deliberations would have to start anew. Wells had argued that that would mean that two and a half days of deliberations would be thrown away. Judge Walton just ruled that deliberations will go forward with 11 jurors. If something happens to another juror, then there are two alternates who can be added, although that will mean going back to square one in the deliberations.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

7. What A Bunch Of Fucking MORONS We Have In This Country...

You're serving on quite possibly the most significant Federal trial this country has seen in decades, and you VIOLATE A JUDGE'S ORDER not to bring other outside sources into your deliberations?

THEN....to make things worse, you introduce that information to other jurors, possibly tainting the process beyond yourself and your STUPIDITY and deliberate attempt at causing a mistrial?

This person is an Asshole of the highest degree. Makes you wonder if they did this on their own, but given the amount of MORONS in this country, it would not surprise me if they took it upon themselves to do this, without necessarily being coaxed into it.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Bribery?

How best to evade justice than to pay off one person to do something stupid, but not criminal? Hmmmm!
The Professor

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. I just served jury duty, and we had 13 jurors for exactly this reason

The case I served was a very minor narcotics possession case; from jury selection to verdict was barely 2 full days (had it been any shorter, we would have been sent back down to the jury pool rather than be dismissed.) And yet, we had 13 jurors in the off-chance that someone would come up sick or otherwise become disqualified.

Why didn't they have alternate jurors in this case? And since 12 jurors are the traditional requirement, is this setting the case up for dismissal on the grounds of an insufficient jury?

[TahitiNut]

12. They DO have alternates - two of them, if my reading is correct.

The only question seems to be whether, after 2 1/2 days of jury deliberation, it's worth assigning an alternate and starting jury deliberations all over to permit that alternate to fully participate. It seems Fitz made the point that, if another juror were disqualified and discharged, they'd be in the position of being forced to start over since, it seems, they'd have no choice if the jury were reduced to 10 - that would require them to assign the alternates while a jury of 11 gives them the option of proceeding.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Ah, got it

Thanks for the info.