Predictions...

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
I have read a lot about the trial and LIbby's defense.

I think the most daming testamony was from Ari Fleisher who testified that Libby told him about Plame's identity July 7th.

Libby's defense was that he was mistaken when he told the Grand Jury he learned of Plaime's identity July 10th from Russert, and he did not remember that he had learned of the ID from Cheney on July 6th.

Russert testified he did not discuss Plame with Libby during the July 10th Converstation.

I think Libby gets convicted, because if he remembered Plame's identity long enough to tell Flischer on July 7th... he would have remembered he already knew the ID of Plaim when Russert "allegedly" told him on the 10th!

LIbby testified he was "Taken Aback" when told by Russert on July 10th about the identity of Plame.
 
I belive there are 5 counts... Usually when a jury is about to convict they go over and over the form, they debate it often even if they are all in agreement just to make sure.

Now if this jury goes past today, Ill agree they are likely hung. A hung jury is not good for Scotter... or the Administration. The next trial will be in the news AGAIN!
 
Lots of such speculation...

Check out the article in the National Journal... "The Libby-Chenny Conection".
 
This trial is getting exciting. Sometimes I think I should have been a lawyer. Then I remember that most trials aren't quite as exciting as this one.
 
I have an interesting DUI trial tomorrow... It will be one of my last, its a holdover from my old firm.

There is very little evidence against him, unless the witness we cant find shows up...
 
They sure do it differently in D.C., here in Florida this trial would have already been a mistrial.

They dont "restart" deliberations when a juror gets kicked out here. They either go with one less juror (by agreement of all the parties) or they grant a mistrial.
 
Jarod said:
They sure do it differently in D.C., here in Florida this trial would have already been a mistrial.

They dont "restart" deliberations when a juror gets kicked out here. They either go with one less juror (by agreement of all the parties) or they grant a mistrial.
Click to expand...
It is what alternates are for. They are there from the beginning and get the full trial as well as the deliberations... They don't vote or participate but they are most certainly informed parties.
 
Damocles said:
It is what alternates are for. They are there from the beginning and get the full trial as well as the deliberations... They don't vote or participate but they are most certainly informed parties.
Click to expand...



We have alternates here in Florida, they do not know they are alternates, until they are dismissed once the trial is over and the deliberations begin. The theory is that they have the same experience as all the other jurors until the deliberations begin, but once that process has begun you cant send an alternate in because they missed the begining of the deliberations and thus no longer share the same trial experience.

Now if in D.C. the alternates are in the deliberations but cant vote... I can see how they might then be sent in to deliberate... Still not perfect however, because they knew they were alternates and that might affect how much attention they paid or how they preceved the evidence, also they did not get to take part in the deliberations.
 
Jarod said:
We have alternates here in Florida, they do not know they are alternates, until they are dismissed once the trial is over and the deliberations begin. The theory is that they have the same experience as all the other jurors until the deliberations begin, but once that process has begun you cant send an alternate in because they missed the begining of the deliberations and thus no longer share the same trial experience.

Now if in D.C. the alternates are in the deliberations but cant vote... I can see how they might then be sent in to deliberate... Still not perfect however, because they knew they were alternates and that might affect how much attention they paid or how they preceved the evidence, also they did not get to take part in the deliberations.
Click to expand...
Hence the reason that they begin deliberations fresh.
 
Damocles said:
Hence the reason that they begin deliberations fresh.
Click to expand...

Ya, but that is sort of a misnomer, to say that those who have already been thourgh deliberations are really fresh, when they begin again. They have already developed ideas and opinions.

The theory is that they are not to develope ideas or opinions until they start to deliberate as a group...
 
Jarod said:
Ya, but that is sort of a misnomer, to say that those who have already been thourgh deliberations are really fresh, when they begin again. They have already developed ideas and opinions.

The theory is that they are not to develope ideas or opinions until they start to deliberate as a group...
Click to expand...
LOL. They each have their own opinions upon entering the room regardless of what that idea is. It would be preposterous to expect them to form no opinions while sitting in the court room.

I am sure that both parties would have to agree with this one as well. But just to mistrial when there were alternates is simply cost-laden for no real purpose. The vast majority of people take jury duty very seriously indeed and will be fair, even if they have to start deliberations from the beginning.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. They each have their own opinions upon entering the room regardless of what that idea is. It would be preposterous to expect them to form no opinions while sitting in the court room.

I am sure that both parties would have to agree with this one as well. But just to mistrial when there were alternates is simply cost-laden for no real purpose. The vast majority of people take jury duty very seriously indeed and will be fair, even if they have to start deliberations from the beginning.
Click to expand...

You should take that up with the Florida appelate courts.
 
Jarod said:
You should take that up with the Florida appelate courts.
Click to expand...
I don't live there. Do you not think that a criminal defendant may not have the money to keep paying his attorney through a whole new trial?

It seems that the rule in that case actually is pro-prosecution. The state has no problem paying the salary of the lawyer that they would have paid regardless... The defendant usually doesn't have that kind of pocketbook.
 
Damocles said:
I don't live there. Do you not think that a criminal defendant may not have the money to keep paying his attorney through a whole new trial?

It seems that the rule in that case actually is pro-prosecution. The state has no problem paying the salary of the lawyer that they would have paid regardless... The defendant usually doesn't have that kind of pocketbook.
Click to expand...

Usually criminal lawyers (t least around here) are paid per-case... not by the hour.
 
Jarod said:
Usually criminal lawyers (t least around here) are paid per-case... not by the hour.
Click to expand...
So it would be the lawyer that would have to take the hit then. What if he were a n00b at his own practice and really didn't have the cash? Does it make it better for the defendant if he has to get a new lawyer?
 
Damocles said:
So it would be the lawyer that would have to take the hit then. What if he were a n00b at his own practice and really didn't have the cash? Does it make it better for the defendant if he has to get a new lawyer?
Click to expand...

Criminal trials are not expensive, unless you hire a bunch of experts or something, but thats only in the big cases.

My trial this morning pled out! Dammit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top