No Mistrial!

[theguvnorgc]

But an excellent opening for their appeal.....

[itsmesgd]

1. surprise, surprise, surprise

I'm going to have a fit sometime later toady or this week when Libby walks. This is why Dick is out of the country, else we could hear him laughing his wrinkled ass off.

[babylonsister]

2. Great news! Per MSNBC, one juror dismissed. nt

[displacedtexan]

3. Wonder if it's the Moonie Times woman.

Just wondering.

[babylonsister]

4. We can hope, and Schuster just said a woman was disqualified. nt

[originalpckelly]

6. Yes, same here...

and that would definitely mean that she'd not be able to fuck up the verdict.

[displacedtexan]

10. Nope, it's the librarian who wouldn't wear the Valentine T-Shirt.

Hm.

Edited: Info per Schuster, MSNBC

[dancingme]

5. deliberations continue with 11

but Fitz wanted 12 - he wanted to start over deliberations with an alternate.

[UTUSN]

7. So much for the "HIGHLY EDUCATED" jury.

It was bizarre on Valentine's day that they appeared in court in Valentine's T-shirts and read that EFFING statement to the court, with one juror refusing to participate. They are the epitome of elites playing games.

[Catherine Vincent]

11. The one that refused to wear the tee shirt was the juror that was dismissed.

[UTUSN]

14. Whoa!!1 What can it MEAN, what can it MEAN??!!1 n/t

[babylonsister]

13. What happened on VDay? I was out of town and missed that whole

drama.

[UTUSN]

19. I only saw a snippet. Eleven of the jurors were shown standing in their box

and they were wearing identical red T-shirts with a paper heart pasted over each of their hearts. And one of them read a BIZARRE statement to court, saying that these 11 were showing the ONLY unity that would be possible, and the 12th juror (the one now dismissed?) was not participating and just sat in her chair (no red T-shirt or paper heart).

Just that seemed to me so WEIRD that it should have ruined things. I didn't hear what the rest of their statement contained. A reporter said that all the lawyers were stunned and nobody knew what to make of it and everybody just smiled and let it go.

[babylonsister]

20. Thanks for the update. Maybe they're all in love with Fitz! LOL! nt

[mconvente]

8. woohoo just saw that on Yahoo!

PHEW!!!

[KharmaTrain]

9. Like You Didn't Expect An Appeal?

That was probably a foregone conclusion by Team Libby for the outset...knowing how weak their case is...to play for a technicality...find a way to get a Mulligan in the appelate court.

With the jury this deep into the deliberation process and two alternates the chances of a mistrial would have been slim. The jury could have still gone on with less than 12...if the judge felt they were that close to a verdict.

Hopefully I'm hearing a collective sigh from DU-land...the trial is proceeding. Seems Schuester thinks one of the alternates could be "anti-defense"...but then all we can do is read tea leaves until the white smoke comes from the jury room. Here's hoping the verdict happens soon...so we can scrape the many "Plamologists" here off the ceiling.

[babylonsister]

12. KT, do you understand why they wouldn't use an alternate, instead of

proceeding with 11? Is that a decision the lawyers can make, or the judge?

[KharmaTrain]

16. You Always Want 12

In my experience, we didn't distinguish the alternates from the regular jurors. They came in the same time we did, heard the same testimony and, it wasn't until the deliberations, they were treated differently. Actually they sat at the table with us as we reconstructed evidence...but didn't vote.

I was thinking it was the OJ case that kept bleeding jurors...they burned into the alternates during the trial phase and then one dropped out during deliberations. It may have been a different Hollywood case...they're all the same to me. Anyway, IRC, the judge had the discretion to call a mistrial or go ahead with less than 12 jurors if he felt there was a verdict coming.

Part of me is also thinking that this may speed things up...as there may be one lone-wolf juror for whatever reason just can't "pull the trigger"...or is holding out. This may be a subtle way the other jurors were showing their disaproval and could get the juror removed without compromising the others....and then move to a final judgement. At least that's my hope.

[babylonsister]

17. Thanks for sharing that. I'm also hoping this speeds things up. nt

[displacedtexan]

15. (Wells wants 11 jurors) Update from firedoglake...

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.

(jury filed back in)

Walton: The law does now allow you to continue your deliberations with 11 jururs, 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.

Interesting. Very interesting.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Good. Now convict the bastard already

And let Fitz get on the business of nailing Cheney.