AP: Libby Judge Wants Jury to Clarify Note (reasonable doubt)

[Eugene]

Libby Judge Wants Jury to Clarify Note

By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press
Monday, March 5, 2007; 9:47 AM

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge said he'd ask jurors to clarify their question
about reasonable doubt Monday as deliberations continued in the trial of
former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

-snip-

"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" jurors wrote.
"Specifically, is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it
is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said jurors were asking whether the
government was required to prove guilt beyond all doubt. He said the answer
simply should be "No." But Walton said he wasn't sure that's what jurors were
asking. Libby's attorneys said if something is humanly possible, it is
reasonable.

"Humanly possible is just a nebulous term," Walton said. "They might be asking
whether the government has to prove guilt beyond all doubt. I don't know."

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500372.html

[rock]

1. "Libby's attorneys said if something is humanly possible"

"it is reasonable." So, it's possible that Libby lied. Now, let's see, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? Are these guys trying to help Libby?

[Beetwasher]

4. LOL! So, It's Humanly Possible For Me To Forget

That murder is illegal. It IS humanly possible. Is it reasonable for someone to believe me if I tell them that? That's the issue.

[rock]

6. Yikes! That is possible and scary

But not reasonable. Whew!

[Beetwasher]

7. I Know, I Can't Believe His Lawyers Actually Made That Argument

It's ludicrous! :freak:

[jsamuel]

10. it's also humanly possible to stab someone on accident

that doesn't mean that everyone who ever claims it was an accident is showing reasonable doubt.

[Hosnon]

14. Seriously? That is beyond wrong.

Just what do they think the qualification "reasonable" limits? If there were no limits, the benchmark would simply be doubt, not reasonable doubt.

And after Decartes, you'd be hard pressed to find a jury that could jump that hurdle.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. This can't be good.

[hang a left]

3. Actually it worked out good

The original language of the question the jurors posed to the judge was included in the response ie "humanly possible".

Sssallright

[dancingme]

5. It is humanly possible for Sean Hannity to be elected president

of the United States. But NOT reasonable.

[merh]

12. You know, that is the best response I've read so far.

Absolutely perfect!!!

And a belated welcome to DU!! :hi:

.

[rudy23]

8. It sounds like, as somone a FDL suggested, this is to convince a lone hold-out

As in "Somebody please tell this idiot what the difference between humanly possible, and reasonably possible!"

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. It does sound like a lone hold out and all the Defense needs is one

:(

I'd always thought the best 'behond a reasonable doubt' analogy was: You're on a deserted island and, as far as you know, you are the only one on the island. After several days, (weeks, months) of being there alone you are walking along the beach and see footprints. The following day you see another set of footprints in a different location that you were not in the day before. The third day, there are more footprints. Even though you have not seen anyone, you have evidence beyond a "reasonable doubt" that another person either is or has been on the island with you.

[hang a left]

13. Here is another possibility....

The jury is messing with everyone's head.

It is a common question that juries ask during deliberations. Maybe someone in that jury room knows that. They included the second question with the first question re where to look in the GJ transcript for the Russert obstruction or did the court want it to find it all by itself in the GJ transcripts.

[mmonk]

9. A bigger question.

Is "reasonable" subjective?