â€Turning and turning in a widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer. Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy rules the world. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
… And what rough beast, it’s hour come at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?†– WB Yeats

I was reminded of this by your post EW, of course the theme here is exactly the opposite… a tightening gyre by the jury, things coming together,the opposite of anarchy, a triumph of the legal system.

Great post Marcy. I hope you are right about the steps the jury has taken. I imagine being in the jury room and I would have started at Count 1. After seeing that I need to resolve counts 4 and 5 before determining the obstruction charge, where would I go next? I would have thought the false-statement charges would be the easiest as they sort of stand alone. That would also be in order of the counts and the accountant in me would always go in order. I would have then gone on to counts 4 and 5.

Jeralyn sees it the way you do and I so hope you are right and my method is not the one they chose. I would hate to think that at most they’ve only finished with the Russert false statement charge. Not possible in this length of time, surely? It just worries me because I would have determined the outcome of the counts from October before going to the counts that happened later.

Well, these are cryptic clues, and they could — as you note — indicate anything from near-convergence to a hopeless bogging-down.

But I’m heartened by other observations of the jury at Firedoglake, the Nexus Of All Things Scooter, in which several people have said they seem to be havin’ a good ol’ time, they’re all tight with each other, smiling, and so on and so forth.

So I concur in the raptor model. And for the record, I’ll go with guilty on a majority of counts, but not all.

I don’t know if the jury is simply not reading the instructions carefully – the first Cooper note had me scratching my head, the second too.

In order to review the Cooper charges (related to July 12th), they’d necessarily have to have made some determination as to the truthfullness of Libby’s testimony with Miller and Russert, which occured earlier. If they found the testimony of Miller and Russert wanting, that would lend credence to the truth of Libby’s statement to Cooper (if you discount all the government witnesses).

Since today’s questions seem to relate to whether they had to decide if Libby lied about Cooper on the first or second FBI interview, or both, then it would seem they’ve resolved the the issue as to whose testimony was more credible.

It is interesting to note that Instructions on false statements (counts 2&3) have language specifically related to Count 2, but not Count 3. That may have confused the jury. But, Wells, in closing (Libbylive Bond-Four), did a good job with Agent Bond on FBI interview number one, where Tate made a statement that Libby hadn’t adequate time to review his notes, emails, etc and his statements to the FBI and that Libby’s statement may be inaccurate. Tate asked for that to be in Bond’s 302, but she didn’t include it, nor does she remember part of Tate’s statement. So, the jury may have reasonable doubt on Count 3 on Oct 14, but not on the second FBI interview. The jury may feel that Libby would have had additional time to review material and would add credence that his second statement to the FBI was a deliberate lie, but his first statement to the FBI could be subject to reasonable doubt.

I feel like a vulture hopping from thread to thread. This is so exciting. Everyone was having such a blast on the liveblog today. Ew, excellent job as usual. Make sure you check your last thread Shorter Judge Walton towards the end. Please try to sleep tonight. lolo

I want to see Libby found guilty because I believe that he is guilty, and part of a larger subversion of our government.

But I take no joy in his pain, or his family’s pain. The whole thing sickens me.

But not nearly as much as the carnage in Iraq sickens me.

No party for me.

It does seem as if the jury believes Libby lied at some point. However, you can’t convince me that at least a few people on the jury didn’t have a solid grasp of what â€reasonable doubt†means. The fact that they had to ask the judge means that they have at least one bonehead on the jury who can’t keep up with the rest of the class, and who is stubborn enough not to move forward until their poor little mind(s) is/are satisfied. Therefore, the sharper kids in the jury had to ask the teacher, ’cause the dumb kid simply wouldn’t accept it coming from other juror. The request for photos is a slightly less silly result of the same dynamic. We had all better hope that weak yet stubborn mind in the jury room doesn’t ultimately melt down and decide, â€I can’t understand it, so I can’t convict.†Yes guys, some of the jury think Libby lied, but the baby is still in the bathwater.

My gut feeling is that all this unity you keep talking about is by credit of extreem patience from a few sharp jurors. If you think it’s all peaches and cream in there while the jury collectively sorts this out you are kidding yourselves. They are struggling. I just hope the sharp kids can get the not so sharp kids over the hump, or at least over their egocentric sense having something important to decide for the first time in their lives.

Oops! Not having commented here before I mistook 2lucky as the author of Dismayed’s comment above; I thought the author’s name was posted above the comment. Sorry, 2lucky.

Pretty sorry theme, Dismayed.

the cubist: Appreciate the apology, as I don’t post to cause harm, online not.

I actually had the opposite feeling from Dismayed:

that it’s a too-clever-by-half element on the jury holding things up. Can’t quite explain what I mean, except that the reasonable doubt question just felt too ’cute’.

Whatever the jury dynamics, I do think they’re finding Libby guilty on at least three of the counts.

I tend to thing we’re going to get a couple of guilty verdicts as well. I’m just way too aware that juries are very unpredictable, and I’m not counting any chickens before they hatch.

We have not yet seen the questions, but it seems that the jury implied it believed Libby had lied about the Cooper charge in one–but perhaps not both–of his FBI interviews.

it seems to me that the jury was asking if it could convict on count 3 if it found reasonable doubt for the false statement charge on one of the two dates in question.

In other words, they think that Libby gave non-factual statements during both FBI interviews, but have â€reasonable doubt†that Libby intended to lie during the first interview–and without intent, there can be no â€false statement†guilty verdict. Their thinking is that Libby, being unaware of the exact line of questioning during the first interview, may have attempted to reconstruct events â€on the fly†without specific intent to lie — but that the falsity of the statements had to be evident to Libby by the time of the second FBI interview once he’d had two weeks to â€reconstruct†events.

**************

Re the obstruction charge — IIRC, the judge instructed the jury to do a â€finding of facts†on each action in order to reduce the possibility of â€reversible error†in the trial. Thus, regardless of whether the jury finds Libby guilty of obstruction in lying about Russert, they still have to determine if the Cooper conversations constituted obstruction as well.

The jury may have taken Instruction 2.52 as a charge to make a finding with regard to each enumerated allegation in the various counts.

Instruction 2.52 – MULTIPLE COUNTS — ONE DEFENDANT

A separate offense is charged in each of the counts of the indictment which you are to consider. Each offense, and the evidence which applies to it, should be considered separately, and you should return separate verdicts as to each count. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty on any one count of the indictment should not control or influence your verdict with respect to any other count or counts of the indictment.

I don’t think instruction 2.52 stands for a requirement to render a finding with regard to each enumerated allegation in the various counts, but I can see where a careful jury (this one seems to be) would either on its own, or by parsing this thusly, decide to reach a finding on each enumerated point.

On a separate subject, I think the â€date unanimity†requirement pertains to Count One, not to Count Three.

– We were told in very clear terms that all three questions related to Count Three. –

I believe you. But I see plenty of opportunity for confusion on that. The Cooper stuff happens to be the third enumerated â€lie†in count one, and perhaps the jury wrote â€count three†in reference to that. We’ll know soon enough. I just wanted to be on the record, right or wrong.

Looks like you nailed it completely, EW! Congrats for a job very well done.

All.

Kind of anticlimatic once it is over…

The Monday Morning game analyzers will have a spurt of activity.

Sentencing in June.
Motion for new trial.
Appeals.
Maybe a little excitement in Jan 2009.

I am sure many here will enjoy for a little while, what previously they would have considered a mere pittance, a few crumbs, compared to their hopes a year or so ago, but

the anticipation is over, the fun is done.

– Jodi

Hey Tokyo,

It’s just the beginning. Let the dominoes start to fall!

The good news, Jodi. Crow meat is organic. And it goes well with sour grapes!