Login Here 
Tongues wagging about why Fitz wanted to add another juror and Wells didn't move for a mistrial but insead wants to go ahead with 11 jurors. The best explanation I've seen so far (and Christy agrees) comes from froggermarch in the comments:
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.
That jibes with what I've seen in the courtroom. Both of the alternate jurors (one white, one African American) are women and appeared very attentive to Fitzgerald's points. Wells only needs one hold-out, but neither of those looked particularly likely to be one, especially not during closing arguments.
I don't buy the argument that Wells is afraid Libby will run out of money, that will NEVER happen, and a mistrial would serve to delay things, which definitely serves the interest of Team Libby. I imagine that whatever happened was just not that bad, as Walton noted, and didn't make its way to the rest of the jury.
Andy McCarthy has another thought.
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitz!
P*ker-faced Fitz!
Fitz!!
Frist?
Assuming that the POTUS (and GWB) are attached to this trial, I can’t imagine that they want to see a retrial replete with all of the new information that would come out.
Now I really DO have to have coffee. Honest.
I would just like the court to know that I am available to serve on the jury if necessary, and am even willing to fly in at my own expense.
Thanks so much for the updates and info. When I first heard this my blood pressure started heading for the hills. I can’t imagine what it must be like for those more directly involved. I’m heading out to work in the garden for balance.
EPU’d:
Pachacutec @
124
Jane,
I posted this at the end of the last thread, but since it’s direct here, I’ll mention that on fitz’s own desk he says, quote, I’m pissed because I have a full house and Randall is exhausted. unquote.
I guess if I were a defense attorney, I’d always move for a mistrial, on the theory that there’s a nonzero chance that the prosecution will decide not to re-try.
Perhaps they know that’s just not in the cards here, so the usual rule about moving for dismissal may not apply?
I think the only safe conclusion in all this is that the defense believes an acquittal is more likely than non-retrial. (Is non-retrial a word?) I don’t think that necessarily means they think the odds of acquittal are very high.
I’m just catching up, so forgive me if this has been covered.
Why in the hell wasn’t such an important, high-profile trial done with a sequestered jury? When the top executives of the Federal government are being charged with crimes, and the trial is in Washington, D.C., who could reasonably expect the jury to avoid media contact for a number of weeks? And, as we saw with the Toensing piece, the dark GOP orcs were trying all they could to undermine the trial.
Gah!
And to take Pach’s advice, I went to Crook & Liars and took a look at Gore’s little schtick movie before he got his award. We could have had this man!!!! Maybe it’s good we didn’dt, because he’s gone on to do so much more. But if the timing is right, it’s time he stood up and was counted. (again!)
For all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials surrounding the Bush administration’s outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and its politics of payback against Joseph Wilson, see:
“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
Jane, hit me on e-mail to coordinate glasses return. I sent an e-mail to your fdl addy.
And now we are going to have to wait on the edges of our seats for another 4 days to see what the jury comes up with. Ah well. . .
Jane Hamsher @
6
Can somebody in the DC area get this lady a coffee? She deserves it and she’s not dressed for going outside.
Why aren’t they sequestering this jury after this?
Just my two cents, but I’m gonna go with Andy McCarthy’s alternative thought on this.
Occam’s Razor and all that.
puppethead @ 12:
Because it costs more than they have in their budget? (That’s the reason I keep thinking of, in response to a question I’ve had in my mind for the last month.)
On the other hand, this jury will understand about clearances and classification, and why you don’t talk about some things.
hesikastor @ 13
Cool. And we can elect him again, too.
Having served as a juror, the person who didn’t wear the valentine shirt into the courtroom was probably stand-offish and not getting to know her fellow jurors. All a juror has to talk about is family, what do you do, past fun things about your life, etc. You can’t talk about anything to do with the trial at all until it is sent to you. This makes for interesting conversations in there all day. You really get to know your fellow jurors before anything about the case is discusses.
From wiki:
My bold. Christy said in the last thread that both the prosecution and the defense like to avoid retrials because they can be expensive. Another commenter said Libby was running out of money. Can anyone confirm this last bit? Libby going broke.
I don’t understand why people are fretting over a mistrial. If they lose another, then Wells would definitely ask for a mistrial, but it seems to me that Walton would instead put BOTH alternates back in (to get to 12) and make them start over. A mistrial would still not be granted. (Yes, they would have to start over (in effect losing the delays in deliberation) but I don’t see them taking that out on the prosecution. In fact, I think Wells would be very unhappy to see the two alternates added into the mix. That would give ZERO margin for more jury losses, natch.
HotFlash @ 17
Not to worry. There’s a coffee kiosk inside the court building. Pretty good quality.
lol first I typed inside the courtroom. That would be excellent.
I can’t imagine how disheartening it would be for all of you who took so much time out of your lives to cover this trial if a mistrial was declared. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed.
RE: Underwear. Get thee to Filene’s Basement on Connecticut Ave. between L & M Streets. Just north of the Farragut North Metro stop on the Red line. They keep the all-cotton (and very inexpensive but well-made) knickers by the cash registers in the basement and the others in the lingerie department. Your welcome.
I’m skeptical that none of the other jurors were tainted. I’d wonder if they were keeping quiet to get the damn case over with and/or because they’re persuaded. I think Fitz and Wells know the real situation (i.e. they have scoped out what the jurors think) but they can’t refer to that in their arguments. So Wells makes lame arguments about Libby running out of money, and Fitz makes lame arguments about losing another juror. So I’d ignore the rationalizations and just pay attention to who looks happy and who doesn’t. Which doesn’t sound good for the prosecution. Bah.
P J Evans @ 20
That is the most ridiculous argument against appropriate justice I can imagine. “It costs too much” is just not a factor I want when it comes to the right to a fair trial. Unfortunately, it’s likely true.
P J Evans @ 20
lhp said this am that she was ‘shocked‘ that they didn’t sequester this jury.
Rest of her post is good, too, re Allen charges — we’re all gonna be blogosphere lawyers by the time this is done.
HotFlash @
17
Knowing what we do, and now your handle … LMAO!! ;-)
I thought they would get to court, make believe they deliberated, had some breakfast and came back with guilty on all counts
I think that Wells would rather not trust the alternates( one of whom is black)and does not want a mistrial here because F would now know that Cheney will not be called and would be much more aggressive in objecting to voir dire that talks about the administration. A mistrial here does not favor Libby. The second trial would be even more focused and Libby’s weak defense would be in even more danger, and I doubt that another almost all white jury would be seated.
Jurors are no longer sequestered in federal trials because they felt that they sometimes rushed to be relieved of the duty.
I wouldn’t wear a valentine t-shirt either. It’s just not me.
Biodun @
23
Why would Libby be running out of money? Shooter would just have to go hit up his pals for some more dough. It’s worth it to them of there is an acquital. No price is too small.
For Scooter smiling, he’s been smiling non-stop since this whole thing went down. It’s how he copes. I wouldn’t read into it.
from a daily kos diary
Shuster on MSNBC says the tainted juror READ something. Has anyone else said anything definitve and should we believe he meant to specifically say the source was printed matter?
And in that vein, may I make a pre-emptive strike here? If the juror DOES give an interview please please please don’t go on endlessly spekkalatin over what it might mean. Unless you can make some really wild-a**ed outrageous contribution, of course.
Hotflash - your point re: speculation on the last thread was well taken. I stand properly chastised. Still think my point was generally accurate however.
I wouldn’t have wanted to wear a silly Tshirt either, but would have put it on to be one of the group. It shows that the jury is thinking/talking about something other than the trial (who else has time to do stuff like that?)
But it also shows she wasn’t making an effort to understand her fellows and get in the swing of things. I think this is a good sign, actually.
BTW, thanks and apologies to Aldon Hynes of orient-lodge.com who did a bit of live-blogging for us early before Jane arrived. We crashed his server :( but it’s better, now. No, *don’t* go look!
The only way this logic works to explain Wells’ mind-set is if he thought the jury was leaning toward conviction. Considering he’s happy not to have the alternates but to go forward with 11, he must think they are leaning toward acquittal.
And Fitz is pissed.
bmaz @ 39
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly… ;)
No matter what the jury’s verdict, remember that this trial has served to expose to the whole world how this administration manipulated the media and public and took us into a war based on lies and misinformation.
Terre @ 19
I have been away from the threads so I don’t know if this has been mentioned.
A) I think Andy has a very valid point.
B) David Schuster did a stand up outside the courthouse where he said the alternate juror in the front row had very hostile body language toward the defense during summations. If I’m the defense I don’t want a 50% shot of adding her anti-Scooter opinion to the the deliberations
OTOH, did you notice that Cheney went to Pakistan yesterday, which was not on his original schedule? He does not want to come to DC until Scooter verdict and the accompanying media storm. But he is running out of countries to visit (His Pak visit did not go well. Musharaff read him riot act.).
Two more days of jury deliberations are fine with me (and apparently for Fitz, too).
What you have is a case of the defense phsihing its way into Juror interests so as to cultivate conflicts…
a pretty deseperate move.
Well! I was at TruthOut.org and there was a box sayin’ Liveblogging from the Libby Trial so I clicked and it came *here*!
ccmask @ 34
I wouldn’t have worn anything that everyone decided to wear, I agree
I Love Jane Hamsher @ 35
Exactly!
It’s an interesting argument, and a counterintuitive result.
My instinct, for once, is to take Wells at face value. He told the judge that restarting deliberations would be prejudicial to his client. Why would that be? The prosecution has presented a detailed, complex case that seems likely to have persuaded at least some portion of the jury. We know that they bought into the case at least enough to request materials to aid them in breaking down the case in detail, the approach that Fitz would prefer them to take. Now imagine if the judge tells them to throw all of that out, and start again. This jury has been around for a while. They want to go home - who wouldn’t? If there’s a holdout, or several, the pressure on them will instantly ratchet up, while Walton’s clock for an Allen charge or mistrial resets. The more pressure, the more likely they are to cave.
Now flip that around. Fitz likes this jury, and likes the way they’re working. He’s in no rush. But he’s worried that if he has to turn to an alternate, every passing day raises the odds of inadvertant disqualification. Better to put that alternate on the jury now, so that they exercise greater caution. And if that just happens to reset the clock and ratchet up the pressure on the holdouts, he’s not about to shed any tears.
virginia cynic @ 32
You know, that is really insightful. The two parts of this trial that I did not think went as well is I would have liked for the prosecution were the jury selection and the jury instructions.
The jury selction will go completley differntly next time!
Slaps self on forehead
LoudounLib @
3
I find it hard to believe that after a month’s trial, and probable daily admonishments from the judge, this juror let herself be exposed to media reports. I suspect she was tired of being the outsider in the jury deliberations and intentionally exposed herself to the media reports so she could get out of further deliberations. Also, she would have had to self report the exposure to the Court. I look for a quick verdict after she is gone.
My $0.02….
The only way this jury acquits on all counts is if Fitz didn’t do his job to keep the wingnuts off the panel. Like many of us, I’ve followed the wonderful live blogging here carefully.
While a “reasonable” doubt might exist on some charges, no doubt “based in reason” could exist on the Russert-related perjury charge. If the jury acquits on this charge, Fitz@Co. did not monitor the jury selection process well enough.
Again, just my $0.02
LS @ 44
I know we are all starting to get a little worried libby might walk
as far as what we’ve found out, here at the lake we’ve always known what was revealed at the trial
for everyone else, they will look at an innocent verdict as vindication for cheney and bush, they will ignore whatever came out in the trial, they will say this was a political prosecution
I am prepared for an innocent verdict but I have to be honest
we need this trial and we need it bad
Are journalists donating to Libby’s fund? Because I think that is inappropriate.
If there is a mistrial I suspect there will be a major outcry from the celebrity press corps to shut down the trial altogether.
I wonder if Bushco is waiting on the results of this trial before going into Iran?
Any word yet on what it was that the juror read? I’m having a hard time figuring out how it wouldn’t have been helpful to the defense. All of the misinformation that’s out there is pro-defense, as far as I know. My best guess is that it’s NOT one of the “she wasn’t covert” articles, but rather one of the “all of the reporters knew” articles.
Why would Fitz want to add an alternate? As it is he has to convince the 11 that are there unanimously, if there were a 12th pure math says the probability of a guilty verdict would be reduced or harder to achieve. So, unless it was put forward as a trap to get the defense to want 11 - just to be contrary - which may have succeeded, it was a fool’s gambit for the prosecution to suggest an additional juror.
I want to make a point;
I heard russert on Imus this morning and you will not believe what he had the nerve to say
he said “all I said at the trial was that I didn’t remember my conversatin with libby”
now we all know that is NOT what he said, his sworn testimony is that he knows with no doubt he did not give the information to libby.
the whurlitzer has already begun it’s sick melody
perris @ 49
Not even the Decider?
95 @
51
The truth is prejudicial to his client.
_
In defense of both the art curator and Commando Jane, I’d like to go on the record and say that I would not have worn a tacky T-shirt or panties into the courtroom.
LHP@45 - McCarthy has an intersting take, but I’m not so sure the mistrial odds increase that much if we drop to 10 jurors for some reason. There are standing protocols in most districts to try to complete a trial because of Federal docket congestion. Assuming the two alternates have not themselves been corrupted, Walton would simply install them at that point. With a nod to Hotflash, however, that is just speculation.
Rich @ 53
I had that thought too, though I couldn’t articulate why. Good thinking…
Rich @ 53
Cheers, Rich. I agree 100%.
one good thing is this will eliminate an avenue of appeal for wells
I personally would not mind a retrial, more would come out for sure
itwasntme @
40
I can’t wait to hear this lady’s story. It oughta be good
“Oh, it was just awful! The t-shirt ‘concept’ was not well- executed. But that was only part of it. When the bad stick-figure drawings started in deliberations it was just so aesthetically wrong. We had actual photos! But no, they wanted to draw and draw they did. Horrible little scribbles. And then taunt me with those crude glyphs. It was nauseating.”
I ran into some snotty post-menopausal self-absorbed art lady yesterday at an art opening and video taped her annoying drivel. It’s endemic…
Ha!
WP has a story up ….
linktoWP
The press room, is the feed from the courtroom a video feed or just audio?
Any guesses as to what our cranky curator read or saw that she wasn’t supposed to?
- Toensig article?
- FDL blogging when jury was out of courtroom?
- Clarice Feldman?
A question for the lawyers….
If something were to happen to bring us to 10 jurors, must Welton put BOTH alternates on the panel to bring it back up to 12 for new deliberations? Or, can new deliberations in a continuous trial start with only 11 jurors???
b. schaeffer @ 59
Cause Pat doesn’t want a mis trial. he had a mistrial in a mfa case years ago that he and Comey did together. They were very depressed about it
b. schaeffer @ 58
I disagree. Fitz likes things to be clean-cut. A jury of 11 is not clean-cut. Furthermore, if Fitz thinks that the information that the outside juror brought in helps the defense, he would want the deliberations to start over, in order to erase this prejudice.
I continue to think that Fitz was/is pissed because some dumbass juror got tainted to begin with. I don’t think he cares what she got tainted with. It’s annoying to spend years building a case against someone and then have it tainted by someone’s idiocy.
puppethead @ 12
Yes–a non-sequestered jury in such a high profile case is like having sex without a condom–asking for trouble.
lol, offtopic. I just heard that the US Attorney who prosecuted Randy Cunningham and indicted “Dusty” Foggo was just fired for inadequate performance.
http://www.commondreams.org/he.....226-05.htm
Wonder if Fitzgerald is performing inadequately according to Mr. Gonzales.
annx @ 69
“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”
Idiot
ecoast @ 46:
Re: Cheney: See me at 143 in the last thread.
Perris 55
I know, and I totally agree with you. I’m just preparing myself, just in case. I’m trying to trust the system. Is it true that one juror worked for WAPO, played over 40 ball with Libby, and knows Walter Pincus (all of which does not mean he is biased I realize), even so, if it is true, how could that person qualify as a juror in this case? Is that just a spin rumor or what?
ccmask @ 34
Heehee … This weekend when I made the obligatory social rounds, I did wear a sticker that said I ((heart)) Patrick Fitzgerald Esq. FITZ.
and re #67
“I personally would not mind a retrial, more would come out for sure “
DITTO - esp. since many of Waltons rulings against prosecution evidence was based on the assumption Libby would testify…
bmaz @ 64
I realize that, but we don’t know how well they are following instructions not to read about the case. I have had cases where we lost jurors and tried to bring back the alternates. All were tainted.
perris @ 49
putting on a t-shirt would mess up my hairdo — if I had a hairdo.
annx @ 69
From the article:
A thought on group dynamics: If the art curator was getting on well with the other jurors, and seemed to be in line with where they were going, do you believe they would’ve reported her to the judge for commenting on outside information?
I take it to mean that Libby got to someone on the jury, or they know how that one person will vote, and, all they need is that one person.
Is that WAPO juror still a reporter or is he still a journalist?
looseheadprop @ 52
Of course it will. They’ll have a helluva time finding a jury at all when Shooter’s in the dock….
http://www.orient-lodge.com/
Aldon’s going to kill me, but he’s also live blogging the trial over at his site Orient Lodge. His server is getting so many hits that it’s very shaky right now. He can also be read at www.greaterdemocracy.org
Cozumel @ 77
I’m telling ya, she wanted OUT. She’s that snotty.
Edna Mode in a Warhol wig!
battery dead, will have to catch up in a few hours
/crosses fingers
Frank Pobst. I agree completely. That and it increases the chances of a mist tiral and Our boy does not look forward to do overs.
WaPo (thanks annx!)
good gawd, I go against FDL CW and say this lends credence (if only coincidentally) to that 11-1 split on Guilty crap that appeared on the threads this week end
goes back to kabooming the shower stall
perris @ 67 says:
Perhaps this is what Wells is really afraid of. More would come out.
Key graf from WashPost:
“According to court house sources, the woman sought information over the weekend, and realized this morning that it was inappropriate to do so.”
I presume that Fitz and Wells were both informed of the nature of the information that was sought. What if she confessed to looking for something prejudicial to Libby? The defense would be delighted to have her off the panel, and might view it as evidence that she needed ammunition to persuade other jurors of his guilt, and thus an indiciation that some are not yet persuaded. In that circumstance, they’d just as soon stick with the jury they’ve got, while Fitz would be looking for any way to start over.
LHP@81 - Agreed. Do you, EW, Jane, Pach or any of the other people on scene know if Fitz, or for that matter Wells, made any formal request for sequestration?
obsessed @ 71
The International Art Curators’ Legal Journal?
Cozumel @ 77
Makes Rich @ 53’s suggestion all that much more likely to be accurate …
cbl @ 91
Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?
Where is Pach? we need some group dynamics analysis.
Interesting theory.
When I served on a jury, the two alternates sat in the jury box with us and stayed with us in the jury room during the trial. I confess to not knowing the law, but since the alternates are essentially real jurors from the get go, why not let them be in the jury room for deliberations with the provision they just listen and don’t get to speak or vote? That way if an original juror is lost, no deliberative time would be wasted.
bmaz @ 94
Not that I am aware of.
the anti-thesis @ 68
ahem! surely you didn’t mean to cast aspersions on crones, did you?
Interested Observer @ 24
But that would give Wells a grounds for appeal, i.e., that it was too late to add TWO new jurors, Walton should have declared a mistrial, the conviction should be thrown out, blah blah blah.
Are you suggesting that she wanted to get off the jury because she was the hold out and figured this was a way to let her fellow jurors havetheir way without caving in directly?
I don’t think Walton would not have replaced her if she was the lone juror. That would really be grounds for a mistrial.
derris @ 55
“I am prepared for an innocent verdict but I have to be honest
we need this trial and we need it bad”
I couldn’t agree more. There will be little if any further investigation into Cheney and Rove without a guilty verdict for Libby. I believe that is the hold-up in the sealed indictment Fitzgerald still holds.
Cozumel @ 76
Hardly. She went looking for information, despite being told repeatedly that she should be avoiding it. I don’t think the Met would hire someone who’s that brain-dead. She’s either demented, or she did it on purpose. Either way, she’s not someone you want on a jury. I don’t think a simple dismissal was appropriate, though. I think she should have been dismissed, and then Walton should have ordered her to sit in the corner off the courtroom until the rest of the jury came back with a verdict.
phillydem @ 98
I remember making an almost identical comment in my trial with the tainted alternet jurors. No one had a good answer for me. I think that would be a better system. Or put the alternates in a seperate room with a live feed.
lhp,
no, it was my shorthand that events like this encourage crap like we saw over the week end and all we need is a coupla more Jason Leopolds running around loose
I wonder if the curator was looking up if Plame was covert?
> I couldn’t agree more. There will be little if
> any further investigation into Cheney and Rove
>without a guilty verdict for Libby.
If there is an aquittal I suspect Fitzgerald will also be added to the list of “non-performing” prosecutors and shown out the door.
Cranky
Toesning is cruella.
ccmask @ 102
Walton has no way of knowing if she is the lone juror. Just as we have no way of knwing.
looseheadprop @ 9