Login Here
The juror who was dismissed was the art curator who wouldn't wear red on Valentine's day. Wells is reportedly quite happy with the results, and we hear Mr. Fitzgerald came as close to losing that poker face as he has -- he was evidently quite pissed.
CW has it that things are going to be a bit nutty from hereon in.
Share This 
Spotlight
fitz!!
FITZ!
Congratulations, halo!
-S
From RBG and Peterr:
Merry Fitzmas
Please help the FDL Servers keep humming along by heeding the following tips.
1. Stay on topic. Please keep your comment(s) on the topic of the current live blogging.
2. Size matters. Try to keep comment length to a minimum — especially during live blogging.
3. Links matter. More than 2 or 3 links in a comment may cause that comment to get caught in moderation.
4. Beware the ziggurat! Please don’t nest more than 2 or 3 quotes in a comment. It may bust the margins and makes more work for the people behind the scenes.
5. Words matter. Avoid words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” to keep things from getting caught in moderation.
6. Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.
Moderators really don’t like to delete comments….really, they don’t…but if comments don’t follow these tips, sometimes your witty and well crafted comment will be caught up in the clean up and may never be read by your fellow commenters.
Oh…and did I mention, please Stay on Topic and Don’t Feed The Trolls?
Thanks.
Also, from Peterr’s rules — “The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Jane is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that.”
WOW!!
Footz .. !!!!
I’m just thrilled not to be dead last as usual, when everyone else has moved on…
As someone said on the Gabbly chat (can’t remember who, it moves so quickly), if there’s a conviction by “only 11″ jurors, the conservobots will put an * next to the verdict, no underlying crime, and all that rot. Gird up your respective loins.
So there might be more to this person’s story than an inadvertant comment caught over Sunday dinner with the Joneses? Why is Wells ecstatic?
Looks like Babs Comstock just earned her paycheck. Any chance the dismissed juror will be interviewed?
Jane - any speculation as to the specific reasons why Wells would be happy and Fitzgerald pissed?
Why is Fitz upset??? Enlighten the ignorant…
Ed*ard Teller @ 9
Probably because he sensed this juror was not friendly to the defense.
so the absence of the t-shirt was significant…
Is Wells happy that there are only 11 jurors, or is he happy that the art curator was dismissed?
Frank Probst @ 10
If I were wells, I would instruct, or at least request, the juror not to give any interviews until a verdict was returned.
Could this lead to a mistrial? Or maybe another question, would this normally lead to a mistrial?
“CW has it that things are going to be a bit nutty from hereon in.”
I hope you don’t mean wingnutty.
If there is anything else you can share about the CW, please do. Thanks for everything.
Uh-oh. That doesn’t sound good. I’m not liking the way this is going.
Wells may think the woman’s adverse and Fitz think she’s on his side.
But like all of us trying cases we ourselves are just guessing at this point. For all Wells and Fitz know, there are 11 votes tallied up already one way or the other and this was the last roadblock.
Or they simply haven’t finished yet.
The Nefarious Leslie @ 16
Once a juror is dismissed, they are free to do as they like. Wells, or anyone else, can’t instruct them to do anything. He can ask politely, but that’s it.
IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset? Is this a slam dunk for an appeal? Damn it! I was just starting to believe we would see karma in action here.
Alicia @
14
Well, for one thing, she was not a “sheeple”, so that could make Wells happy.
I don’t get it. The Art Curator was the one thought to like Shooter, right? Why would Fitz be pissed? I hope Jane can fill us in.
CancerCures at 17 — It’s not currently going to lead to a mistrial because Judge Walton sent them back to the jury room to resume deliberations (see Jane’s liveblogging below). Courts generally try to avoid a mistrial if at all possible — because a retrial of a case costs the government and the defendant a LOT of money, including from the court budget, and that is not something that anyone has to spare, frankly.
I don’t care about the no-T-shirt holdout…I wanna know the instigator? WHo thought it up? Why? Maybe the Art Curator brought them in, and only had 11 (on purpose accident…etc.)
Just mho.
IANAL, but the one I live with just said “anyone who thinks they can get inside the mind of a jury is full of sh**.”
Did CNN say that they’re continuing deliberations with only 11 jurors, rather than using one of tha alternates? What sort of implications will that lead to?
logorrhea @
15
Don’t know, my guess is that the two women who were alternates always looked quite sympathetic to Fitzgerald and Wells decided it was in his interest not to have them in the pool. Although one has to wonder, since Wells only needs one, wouldn’t it increase his chances to have more jurors rather than less.
I’ll tell you one group that did not want to start over and that is the Jury.
Jane Hamsher @ 36
Jane, Couldn’t he argue that the juror poisoned the deliberations?
Peterr @ 21
Figured as much, which is why I added the “at least request” part.
dharmarific @ 31
Bingo!
> IANAL, so please someone tell me why Libby
> seems pleased by this and why Fitz looks upset?
Everyone is speculating on thin air, including Wells and Fitzgerald. And Fitzgerald in particular might be playing a tactical game vs. Wells with his “p*ker face”.
Cranky
Attaturk @ 30
But if they start over it wouldn’t be with this jury, right?
Attaturk @ 33
Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?
Take it for what it is worth. It is from the Corner, National Review
Re: Libby Update 3 [Andy McCarthy]
Back from a week of 89 degrees and sunny at poolside in Manzanillo … to 3 inches of snow in New Jersey. Trying to catch up but still take one more family day away from the fray.
Byron’s post is very interesting. Defense lawyers virtually always move for a mistrial when a juror has to be stricken during deliberations. Reason is obvious: Jury must be unanimous to convict, and it’s tougher for the prosecutor to convince 12 people than 11. Almost always, these mistrial motions are denied. Federal rules allow the judge to accept a verdict from 11 jurors regardless of whether the parties agree. (If it gets under 11, that’s a different story.)
Byron seems to be saying Ted Wells, far from objecting, actually asked for the deliberations to continue with 11 jurors. That is a sign that the defense is very confident and obviously likes this jury.
02/26 11:04 AM
Attaturk @ 33
He didn’t request a mistrial this morning, though, did he? How could this form the basis for an appeal, if he’s requested to go on with 11 jurors?
Jane Hamsher @ 29
It’s all “gut” by this point. He thinks his chances are better without someone new, so be it. Doesn’t mean he’s right.
if Libby waives his right to the full complement of 12 jurors, he’s barred from raising that issue on appeal, n’est-ce pas?
Jane Hamsher @ 29
Okay, that is fine with me.
As long as Wells isn’t smiling like the Cheshire cat because of information he picked up about deliberations from the time that he just spent in chambers with the judge and jury.
I’m glad Wells and Fitzgerald are apparently reacting to the fact that another juror wasn’t added, not because of something they gleaned about deliberations.
Attaturk @ 33
but Wells got what he wanted….and that means that he can’t appeal a verdict based on there being only 11 jurors….
Attaturk @ 33
Yes, and I suspect that Fitz is pissed off because someone is messing with the Rules of Justice. The whole situation would piss him off, based on what we know about him.
Jane Hamsher @
29
Agree with Jane. Plus, the defense did a LOT MORE due diligence with the real jurors than the alternates. The alternates didn’t even get the full “Do you think Dick Cheney is a lying sack of shit” treatment. Which means that they’re more likely to be, um, sane.
There already is one alternate on (a PhD from MIT scientist). So Wells probably figured one more could sink him.
Seems to me that the art curator was a problem child and not likely to go along with the other 11 jurors. Wells may think this bodes well for the defense or he may be bluffing. Considering how the trial went, I think the best the defense could hope for is a hung jury and the art curator certainly seemed like a person who wouldn’t mind being the 1 out of 12 voting the other way.
That said, I imagine Fitz’s frustration is over the fact that the judge didn’t seat an alternate. Fitz strikes me as a guy who likes to go by the book and doesn’t like loose ends. A jury of 11 is a loose end, and is a potential line of attack on appeal (even if Libby agreed to a jury of 11, an appellate lawyer could always argue that advising Libby to go along with 11 jurors rather than seating an alternate constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel). Had the judge dismissed the curator and seated an alternate, I think Fitz would have been more satisfied. Just a guess.
If there were a mistrial, I wonder if Scoots would get himself another lawyer- you know, one who understands that it’s not supposed to be all about the lawyer?
well. . .
i think the odds of a conviction
have just risen, and appreciably so. . .
the contrarian is gone. . .
so, again, we wait for fitz-mas
morning to come. . .
time to let this one rest,
a bit, and just. . .
c h i l l. . .
fitz was most likely ONLY
concerned about losing a
second juror — and THEN restarting
everything LATER in the deliberations — just
as he said in open court. take him at his word.
clearly, now, libby cannot appeal
a decision to go with 11 — cool!
Wells argued to only have 11 jurors. Fitz wanted an alternate added, his reasoning being that if one of 11 becomes ill or is exposed to info, you have more problems. I’m unclear if that means Wells feels confident/Fitz is less confident, or if Fitz just wants to wrap this up sooner, and worries that if a second juror is dismissed, they will have to basically start deliberations again with two new jurors. Fitz strikes me as a guy who wants to get this done quickly. He has momentum, and doesn’t want it to drag on. My gut says the break in momentum makes Wells happy, Fitz annoyed.
p.s. I think people are over-reacting to the T-shirt incident. Seriously, a 70 year old MOMA art curator might not want to be caught dead in a cutesy t-shirt. I really think it indicates a lot more about personal style than her being on an opposite side of where the jury was leaning (and lets remember, the T-shirt thing happened BEFORE deliberations, not after.)
Jane Hamsher @ 36
Bingo!
Wells got exactly what he wanted, over the objections of the prosecution. What would he appeal?
Attaturk @ 33
dharmarific @ 31
Wells is happy because any problems are grist for the ‘appeal’ mill.
Well that’s not only a good point, but the correct one.
If I was a moral and upstanding person I’d admit I completely boned my response.
Jane, did you lose a pair of glasses Friday?
I smell jury-tampering.
Gang, listen to me, please:
The art curator was an unreadable (as far as this case) individualist elitist. I have no idea how she was leaning, though she often seemed a bit bored by testimony.
Look for a more unified jury that will work hard to deliver a verdict. I have a hunch who the foreperson might be, and a hunch who organized the tee shirt thing. I think this may be the same person, one who has previously been a jury foreperson.
Fitz may have fought for and wanted an alternate, and thought that Walton’s caution in this regard was badly placed, legally. But, if I’m not mistaken, defense has forfeited its right to appeal if it has been supportive of continued deliberations with a jury of eleven.
One of the alternates, an African American woman, clearly looked dubious of the defense. Wells may be happy to keep her out (she would be a 50/50 shot to come back in), and Fitz may have wanted that chance.
We won’t know what came out in chambers so there’s not really much point in speculating what Fitz may be pissed about. He may even think this juror should not have been dismissed, and may have felt she was a good juror for him.
raven @ 35
If they declare a mistrial, then everything goes back to square one. If they had chosen to replace this juror with one of the alternates, then they’d back up to start the deliberations all over again. It wouldn’t matter if they had finished four of the five charges - they’d have to start deliberating all over again.
Starting deliberations over can make for a cranky jury, to have 2.5 days tossed away, and can put unintentional pressure on the new juror to “go along” rather than have full deliberations. That’s what Walton wanted to avoid, and the jury too.
Breathe, people.
The “media effects on jurors” article is available through JSTOR if anyone cares. Lots of public libraries subscribe to JSTOR.
Thanks Pach.
I thought that the judge dismissed the alternates once the jury went into deliberations.
The way I look at it, if a juror was exposed to media coverage and trying to use it in arguments, and the main media coverage I am aware of lately has been the WaPo op/ed pro-Libby express, then getting her dismissed is probably a good thing.
Jane Hamsher @
36
I screwed up this post earlier. Jane at 36 is right and I was wrong.
I am afraid we should consider staying off topic to the trial as a result of such contamination. It is a fact that the world in the tubes is a substantial factor now, and it may be that we must help
but, we have principles and humanity at heart. our enemies do not
Let me just say I am infinitely relieved that there is no mistrial. We just dodged a bullet. Can you imagine the gut-wrenching process of starting this whole trial over again?
I hereby commit myself to avoiding FDL and getting tons of work done for the rest of the day.
Take care everyone!
Wait, lemme understand…
…if there’s a mistrial, does that mean that all the facts that have emerged about the Vice President deliberately revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political vengeance suddenly become moot? Just checking, because last time I checked Cheney was a lying treasonous sack of crap and I’d hate to see that go back into question…
This gang has always been about perceptions and not reality, so could it be that Wells is playing a game? Maybe he just wants us to think he’s happy with this development.
Fairfax @ 56
I doubt it. They usually sit in an empty room all by themselves while the “real” jury deliberates.
I wish the jury had been sequestered during deliberations. Is it rare to sequest for only part of the process?
I’m wondering whether the judge took into consideration how close the jury might be to a decision in determining whether or not to go with 11 jurors. If the foreperson were to tell the judge that he/she thought a verdict could be reached within a few days, then it might make sense not to re-start the deliberations. Don’t know if the foreperson is allowed to respond on something like this under the circumstances.
Reading between the lines of Well’s comments, it seems that he was defensive about “not being on the precipice of a mistrial” or somesuch. It seems to me that one reason Fitz would want to have the next alternate join in deliberations now is that it is more dangerous for an alternate to be tainted. He is concerned about the short bench of alternates and believes the deliberations are going to go on for a while. He WANTS them to take their time, because the more they go through the evidience, the less the memory defense holds water. Introducing a new juror, particularly one he thinks is sypathetic to the prosectuion, would tend to push any pro Libby jurors to look more carefully at the evidence.
Just a WAG, but that’s my take on why Fitz preferred to go with 12.
logorrhea @
15
I have heard that one of the alts that Fitz wanted was a vote against Libby based on her courtroom behavior. I’m guessing that Fitz just wanted to make doubly sure he got a conviction. The art curator might have been on Fitz’s side as well but I’m guessing that the jury is probably glad to be rid of her for personality reasons.
Frank Probst @
63
Typically, a judge will release the alternates and let them go back to work, school, home, etc. but subject to recall if they are needed. Unless the jury has been sequestered, it is rare for a judge to force alternates to stick around while the jury deliberates.
Pat_AlexVA @
50
Pat, I did! I’ve been looking everywhere for them. Blue?
Jane Hamsher @ 69
Yes, blueish grey. I could swing by…
Fitz is probably worried he’s going to see a replay of the George Ryan jury. That case is still on appeal and from reports I’ve read, the defense actually has a chance of prevailing, due to weird jury happenings. In that situation, one juror was dismissed for talking to a call-in radio show, IIRC. Turned out she thought Ryan was not guilty.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions. But defense lawyer often ask for a mistrial when they think they are losing and there is a problem with the jury. The fact that Wells didn’t - worries me.
Well may not want a mistrial because he is now intimately familiar with how hard it is to defend a lying sack of shit…
thought that too Susan S . . .fits in w/ my sense of the Big Swingin’ Legal Dick mindset
Just curious…who is the woman in the picture?
none @ 54
I’ve always wanted to get those JSTOR articles. Are they free at the Library, on libraray computers?
Perhaps Wells was concerned that by restarting deliberations with a new juror, this would mean the jury would be considering evidence with the Wells sob being a mere distant memory.
Restarting deliberations would also mean yet more careful consideration of the evidence, including the nine he-saids and she-saids that support the government’s case.
I’m sure this has been asked and answered but,if found guilty and an appeal is granted,the previous trial and sentence no longer exists,right?If so,can a pardon be given while a matter is under appeal?Something tells me I’m not going to like the answer.
froggermarch @ 66
Makes the most sense of any explanation I’ve heard.
Maybe it was the nature of the “media tainting” that led to the reaction of Wells and Fitz. It might have yielded an insight into the juror’s sympathies.
Say, if the juror is going around telling a funny joke she heard on Letterman that starts out, “Libby, Cheney and Bush are sitting in hell, and Satan comes up to them and says …”
I’m pretty sure that the lady in the picture is Mrs. Scooter.
DairyMaid @ 75
Mrs. Libby, who circles Scooter like a protective hawk and glares at anyone in the courtroom who laughs.
Scooter’s in fantasy land, but she knows they’re screwed.
I think the artsy curator and the Ph.D in mathematics (likely foreperson?) had enough of each other……As a prosecutor, I didn’t like mathematicians, engineers, or other analytical types on my jury because they tend to over analyze the proof and seem to want more evidence than the law requires to prove the case…they want to erase all doubt before they convict. Hence the request for tape, pictures etc. The case boils down to the grand jury testimony and the obvious voice change when Libby was caught in his perjurious statements….you dont need pictures or masking tape to see the proof.
It seems from reading this thread that Fitz is probably pissed for two reasons:
1. The alternate juror seemed good to him.
2. (more important) I suspect that Fitz wanted to keep the jury at 12 to lower the possibility of a mistrial. As many have said, 11 is okay, below that is iffy and I am sure Fitz thinks a mistrial would be a disaster.
We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be pissed. Period.
Having a bit of experience in these type of jury issues, I can relate that Pach’s comment @52 is the best synopsis you are going to have without much more info, and we are not likely to get that info until after everything is over.
Jane Hamsher @ 81
Thanks Jane.
The only person that girl should be glaring at is Dick Cheney.
nolo @
47
Unless, as ornary as she appeared to be, the art curator was actually sympathetic to Fitz. The jury consultant would have known who his allies were and Fitz might have just lost one. That doesn’t mean the others aren’t good. It just introduces a level of uncertainty that Fitz is uncomfortable with.
DairyMaid @ 75
Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant.
Update from hair boy … take it for what it is worth.
Libby Update 5 [Byron York]
Andy — Thanks for those thoughts. It did appear this morning that the defense seemed a bit more upbeat — just body language and facial expressions — than did the prosecution. On the other hand, there’s a lot of buzz about the juror who was dismissed. She was the former art curator who declined to wear a T-shirt with the rest of the jury on Valentine’s Day. At the time, there was speculation that perhaps she was a dissenter, and her presence was dividing the jury, which would be good news for a defense team hoping for a hung jury if it couldn’t get an acquittal. In that scenario, her removal could conceivably be bad news for the defense. On the other hand, I thought that as an art curator, she probably refused to put on the red T-shirt for purely aesthetic reasons. In any event, she’s gone. Does that mean a divisive factor has been removed, or that there are other problems? You got me.
We could speculate all day about why (or if) Wells is happy (or not).
But I have no doubts that Fitz is pissed. Hell, I’m pissed. No matter what happens, this jury result will have an asterisk next to it. If they convict, the talking points will be endless. If they acquit, it will be harder to accept. And if they are hung - oy!
Fitz wanted a “clean” verdict - and no matter what happens, that is impossible now. So he’s pissed - and I can’t blame him.
emptywheel @ 89
Start talking about his wife, see how he likes it…
> We can speculate all we want, but Wells has a
> reason to be happy, and Fitz has a reason to be
> pissed. Period.
And the evidence you have for that is…? Going on the facial expressions of two experienced applied game theory practictioners is self-defeating IMHO.
Cranky
Frank Probst @ 63
Yup. Like being an understudy, only worse. Boringest thing on earth. Waiting for some jury member do develop acute appendicitis or something.
very interesting I have to say
if this were the beginning of the trial I would have been upset, thinking most artists have a liberal inclination
then when she refused to wear what the others were wearing I sensed she was going to dissent from the majority and it seems to me the majority would want a conviction and innocent would have to be the dissenting votes
when I found out she is the one dismissed I was sort of happy
then when I heard fitz wans’t thrilled I figure he has a better pulse on the juror then I do and now I don’t know what to think
Albatross @ 61
Nope. If there was a mistrial and a new trial had to be started, the evidence is still the evidence.
Jane, if YOU were Libby (sorry, sorry), and you had the opportunity to get yourself another attorney for a new trial, would you?
some of us non lawyers have thought all along that Mrs. Scooter wanted him to make a deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Grant
Jane Hamsher @ 82
Good-looking lady, in a `50s film noir-ish kind of way.
Scooter’s gonna really hate jail….
EllenG @ 91
If Judge Reggie says it’s cool, it probably is. He has said on at least one occassion that he is taking great pains to avoid being overturned. The wingnuts will put an asterisk against it in any case. Who is afraid of an asterisk?
We just have to wait and see. This jury has a mathemitician and a PhD aboard. I heard that the jury requested an easel and a big piece of paper to help them in their deliberations. Maybe the art curator did not want to hang out with the geek squad.
I enjoy lurking here, and I thank you all for your comments.
gwb:drf
I wouldn’t be surprised if after Libby is convicted that everyone points fingers at Cheney (already lots of that) and the Bush supporters (media included) just say Dubya is an idiot who didn’t even know what a NeoCon was until recently.
I heard someone on the radio this morning spouting that line, with an ‘anecdote’ about bush I and II walkin’ and talkin’ together when the younger asks, “Daddy, what’s a NeoCon”? And the father says, “Do you want names or a description?” Dubya says “Description.” and Bush I says, “I’ll put it in one word — Israel.”
So, if Dubya benefits from the idiot defense, then all the CEOs and anyone with a decent lawyer in America are not guilty of anything either.
conniptionfit @ 73
That sounds accurate…
Cranky Observer @
34
Ooooh, I like your blind analysis better than the others flying by. Fitzie you crafty fella. You pretending to be p.o’d???
If he’s trying to avoid giving them grounds for appeal, the absolute LAST thing Fitz would want to do is look delighted at getting rid of a juror. eh? Pach? Christy?
…sorry…got a little light-headed in the ethers here… back to lurking ;->
Jane Hamsher @ 82
I was wondering why you would put a picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones up there?
Or maybe Libby doesn’t have the money for a mistrial? Nah….
I think Wells & defense being happy is a sign that Libby does not a mistrial. Another trial means fresh press about Cheney, Bush, Rove and everyone elses behavior in the WH.
I think Libby is more worried about the Civil case than the criminal. I have always thought he knew he is getting a pardon.
I know this may be a rhetorical question considering the source, but cnn.com has a link to an interative “Who are the Libby jurors?”
With silhouettes and descriptions like
“Juror
Age: 30s
Gender: Female
Occupation: Comptroller
This juror studied law in graduate school, and has a classified government clearance pending. She formerly worked for the secretary of Health and Human Services. She told the court she doesn’t watch TV, but relies on radio and newspapers for her information.”
Is this not a bit irresponsible or is this commonly done?
no, I think we know who’ll play Mrs. Scooter in the film
I think Wells was pleased by the ruling, not the dismissal of the juror. And I think he was pleased with the ruling because he would rather have deliberations continue with the tainted info fresh in their minds and WITHOUT a new, 12th juror who will not have been exposed to the tainted info. This suggests to me that the tainted info was Libby favorable.
Biodun @ 85
You’re right. Might as well just close down the live-blogging, or close down FDL completely. Hey - what the heck, let’s just dump this blogging business altogether. [/snark]
perris @ 95
Perris, judging from what Jane and the attorneys such as Attaturk have said so far, Fitz is unhappy at losing a juror period, not at losing that particular juror.