Jury Nullification. Something to think about

[Jacobin]

A jury's decision to acquit a defendant despite explicitly violating the law because the jury felt that the law was unjust or not applicable to the case. http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/jury-nullification.htm


Irving Libby was indicted for lying to a grand jury (perjury) and lying to the FBI, things which he has clearly been proven guilty of. In a bench trial, he would have already been found guilty.

The defenses purpose in putting on the raft of 'journalists' to say they heard about Plame, knew about Plame, etc from numerous other administration people is a ploy by the defense to say: "Hey, look, he's just a scapegoat here. He didn't 'out' Valerie! All these other people did, so no harm, no foul." Which of course has nothing to do with lying to the grand jury and perjury and lying to the FBI, but it may make the jury not be willing to make him the fall guy for the administration.

This of course, is known as jury nullification.

I believe this may be the outcome of this trial. Its not right, its not just, it lets all the other rats who got immunity off the hook, but I can feel it coming.

Someone please tell me I'm wrong, because I hope I'm not right.

:-(

[blogslut]

1. Libby isn't on trial for outing Plame

He's on trial for obstructing justice and lying to investigators.

[Jacobin]

5. That is what my post said

Jury nullification is when they acquit despite guilt on the CHARGE having been proven

[blogslut]

9. I got your post

I'm just saying that I don't believe that the jury is at all confused about the charges in this case.

[Jacobin]

10. I hope you are right

It would be horrible if Fitz has given immunity to the outers to get this charge against Libby and then to have him acquitted by a jury who feels he's just a scapegoat.

[Wiley50]

2. If We Are Not Allowed To Use It in Defense Of Marijuana Charges

Scooter has no right to use it either

[Jacobin]

6. It's not recognized in the law

But it HAPPENS. You can't argue it. You can't ask for it. But juries can do it anyway

[Hepburn]

3. I don't get that feeling at all.

And I am a lawyer. The cases I have seen where this comes down are generally few and far between and the defendant is a really sympathetic person and the crime victim is a POS for all intents and purposes.

The Libby case, IMO, just does not have these elements.

[Jacobin]

8. what worries me is

practically every administration official has admitted to outing Plame. Libby is sitting there as the scapegoat. the defense is making it sound as if the crime charged is the outing itself, which of course its not.

(i'm a lawyer too, but mostly bankruptcy and real estate and zero criminal trial work, so I have no experience at all in these matters)

[Hepburn]

13. Everyone talking about it...

..IMO highlights that Libby lied about it. Like I said to H20 man, if is was an "open" secret, why did Libby lie? And it is not like he only lied once ~~ he apparently could not remember ANY conversation ~~ and, yet, all these people are talking about it? And Libby ~~ who could not remember jack ~~ remembers that Russert told him? Ummmmm...my, my, what a selective memory...and incorrect to boot.

Does not pass the smell test with me...and when I practiced, I did a lot of crim defense and 99% of the time, I can see some logical and plausible defense. This one from Libby? I am NOT seeing. To me, it is a "so what" that others talked about it ~~ Libby lied about Russert.

[H2O Man]

15. Libby got trapped

in his lie to the FBI investigators. He never anticipated Mr. Fitzgerald.

[Hepburn]

17. That...

...and IMO the journalist privilege ~~ that the reporters could not contradict them. Plus...from the way the Bush Admin considered Russert...I get the feeling that they thought he might "remember" things differently. Just a small feeling on that latter thought, but an interesting thought which has been going through my head. Obviously, if they had considered this, they sure as hell read their pet MTP mod incorrectly.

It reminds me of Watergate is some respects ~~ it just snowballed and got out of control of those who tried to keep it under control. And, the more they tried to control it, the worse it got for them. Of course, IMO, the bottom line fear with BushCo was that the lies about Iraq were going to come out...and son of a gun...trying to prevent that might just be what bring the entire Bush Regime down. We can only hope.

I am hoping Cheney takes the stand....if anyone is up to a cross-x on that bastard, it is Fitzgerald.

[H2O Man]

24. In one of

the early conferences at the bench, the infamous letter that Scooter wrote to Judith Miller was discussed. Patrick Fitzgerald pointed out that Libby had attempted -- though he failed -- to get Miller to testify in his favor. And that's one of the things that reminded me of Watergate.

In the old White House tapes, there was a place where John Dean said something like, "Well, we aren't that good at this, because we aren't experienced criminals." Of course he was both wrong and right -- they were all criminials. and most had been criminal for years and years .... though he was correct that they weren't any good at the types of crimes they were then attempting.

In Scooter's fantasies, he was a "black ops" type of guy .... just as in George W's dreams, he was that rough tough soldier on the deck of the aircraft carrier. (Add to that the fact that dangerous clowns like Douglas Feith were NOT intelligence analysts!) The more Libby tried to cover up his role in the operation against the Wilsons, the more he found himself dug into a hole. I think Nixon's aides had a similar type of experience.

And should VP Cheney take the stand on Thursday, I think he'll have some Nixon-like moments.

[Hepburn]

25. The Aspen letter...

...right? LOL

[Jacobin]

16. Good.

I like what you are saying and since my trial practice had nothing to do with criminal defense, your experience in that area is far more relevant than mine.

Thank you!!

I feel better!!!

(I worry too much sometimes)

[Hepburn]

19. Worry, IMO,...

...is a frequent symptom of practicing law. Thank gawd I am retired!

[Jacobin]

21. I don't know if I'll ever be able to do that

too many kids to put through school!! (retire, that is)

[Hepburn]

23. Been there and done that...

...and when you take down that sign on your office and know FINALLY that you life is really, really yours....you then get bored!

Thank gawd Scooter got indicted ~~ now I have something interesting to follow!

[peacetalksforall]

20. I don't think people see him as a scapegoat.

He was an operative as were others.

Think WHIG. They were the people in charge of phonying up the war - it was all in their hands to handle it politically. There are several layers of operatives. Libby and Rove were at the higher end of the middle.

None below Cheney and Bush had authority to do this.

People on DU can figure that out - or people who have heard about WHIG.

If a case was made that others in the WHIG manipulated others to have him just happen to get caught in lies and obstruction, he would be their scapegoat. If some in the media got together or on their own conducted a campaign to scapegoat him to protect someone else, it might fly.

I just don't see how the jury could think that.

It's the old - who, why, when, how .... was he made the scapegoat.

If you mean by Cheney - I don't think anyone is going to say that outright, so how would the jury say it / phrase it unless you mean that Libbys' lawyers will try it???????? Say that Cheney and Bush scapegoated Libby?

However, I'm not a lawyer.

I do thank this administration for all I've learned about the law starting in the 80's.
As they move forward to destroy it, the more I follow it.

Most of all, I give thanks to all you lawyers on DU and other forums who tell it like it is - not like Gonzales or Ashcroft or Toensing or De Genova would tell it.

[Mz Pip]

4. You may be right

and I think this kind of thing is becoming more common. Damn those activist jurors!!!!

Mz Pip
:dem:

[H2O Man]

7. It's a concern

that Mr. Fitzgerald had brought up in a pre-trial motion. Team Libby's defense is based, in part, upon getting at least one juror to vote "not guilty." Having one juror think that "it just ain't fair" that only Scooter be on trial would clearly accomplish this goal.

[Hepburn]

11. My feeling?

If I were on the jury and I heard all of this talk about basically everyone leaking this info, I would wonder why Libby needed to make up the story and lie that he had heard it from Russert. That would, so far, be the critical piece of info to me. So...if everyone is talking, WHY the misinformation from Libby? No one else seemed to be shy about telling the truth and admitting they had talked about it and who they talked to and most of their stories pretty much match up...except Ari did not exactly tell all.

To me, the fact that it was being talked about so much highlights that Libby did not tell the truth. If it was supposedly an "open" secret ~~ why lie?

[H2O Man]

12. I agree.

I also think that Judge Walton is doing a good job of keeping Team Libby in line.

[Hepburn]

14. Yeah...

...I gotta agree with you on the judge. He runs a tight courtroom and does not take much bullshit! That, IMO, is NOT a judge to try an end run around his rulings. OUCH!

[rocktivity]

18. He's not ACCUSED of outing Valarie, but of LYING about what he knew.

I call it the "manslaughter syndrome," because it works particularly well with that charge. You claim your client didn't "mean" to kill anybody though that isn't what he's been charged with: if you're suspected of "meaning" to kill somebody, you're charged with murder. OJ's lawyers managed to turn his murder case into referendums on race and police corruption. Keep your eyes on the prize, jury!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Jacobin]

22. That's the point

The jury ignores the law. That is what jury nullification IS