libbycar.jpg

(Photo by Reuters/Jason Reed.  I absolutely love this shot -- the juxtaposition of Congress and the view of Libby through the darkened window of the SUV that Wells' office has been using for morning transport from their office is pitch perfect in how things have felt at the courthouse as Libby has arrived.  Jason Reed has such a great eye -- I usually love his work.  But this one hits that "waiting for judgment" feeling perfectly, doesn't it?)

***BREAKING:  There has been exposure of at least one of the jurors to media coverage of the trial.  There is discussion going on in chambers with Judge Walton and counsel for both sides as to how to proceed.  There will likely be individual voir dire (discussions) with each and every juror now to determine if there is a taint to the jury process.  We won't know anything about whether things will proceed until that has concluded.  There is a possibility of a mistrial being declared but, again, we will not know anything unless and until the judge and attorneys speak with the jury foreperson and all of the jurors, and make their determination as to how things will or will not proceed from there.  More news as we get it.***

Huge thank you to Looseheadprop for putting together this post for us this morning -- she is stuck in court herself this morning, but I will be around to answer the questions that I can about this for everyone.  We had some discussion on the Allen charge last week, and wanted to be sure everyone understood the legal rationale involved in something like this.  But, and let me be clear about this, we have absolutely no reason to think there will be one today or ever during the jury deliberations.  We are giving you this information up front because it is a common thing for juries to hear this at some point in intricate cases -- and, frankly, we try to operate on an "abundance of caution" sort of framework in terms of explaining the basics to everyone where we can.

The jury is back in the courthouse for deliberations today.  I checked with folks on the staff, and delibrations are scheduled to begin on time today, despite some inclement weather in DC over the weekend.  There is a note that will be addressed in the courtroom at 9:45 am ET this morning, and the parties have been asked to be there to deal with it.  (This could be as simple as a jury question or another request for materials.  Take deep breaths.)  As soon as we hear anything, we will let you know -- we will have folks on the scene today reporting in whenever we get news.   And now, back to your reading and your regularly scheduled waiting for a verdict.  (Yes, deliberations for more than 2 and a half days are very, very common.  Please do not fret.)  -- CHS

The other day our own beloved Evil Parallel Universe suggested that maybe the time was coming when I should get busy writing a post explaining what an "Allen Charge" is, I think maybe that time is here. Since we didn’t get a verdict on Friday, there may be a note coming out any day now saying that the jury is divided. DO NOT PANIC.

Such a note does NOT lead to the immediate conclusion that the jury is deadlocked or the declaration of a mistrial due to hung jury. What it will almost always lead to is a supplemental jury charge know in the biz as an Allen Charge.

The Allen Charge is based upon a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1896, Allen v. US.  The relevant portion of that case is the supplemental jury instruction after they had deliberated awhile and failed to reach unanimity:

...in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of his fellows, yet they should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that it was their duty to decide the case if they could conscientiously do so; that they should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other's arguments; that, if much the larger number were for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt was a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself. If, unon the other hand, the majority were for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority. These instructions were taken literally from a charge in a criminal case which was approved of by the supreme court of Massachusetts in Com. v. Tuey, 8 Cush. 1, and by the supreme court of Connecticut in State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376, 386.

While, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, it by no means follows that opinions may not be changed by conference in the jury room. The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror shoud not listen with deference to the arguments, and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment, or that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally [Page 164 U.S. 492, 502] honest and intelligent as himself. There was no error in these instructions.

Shorter version: Each juror must reach his/her own decision and not merely surrender to group pressure.  However, each juror should also listen to the views of his/her fellow jurors with a mind open to the possibility of being persuaded by the views of his/her fellow jurors.

Oh...and that the jurors in the minority ought to be especially open to the possibility of being persuaded by their fellows.

Some judges add a little something to give the jurors the sense that they will be kept at it until Hell freezes over, so they ought to lose the stubborn and get with the deliberatin’.  But sometimes those little extras go too far.

Bottom line, it is a jury’s DUTY to decide a case unanimously, if there is any way that each juror can honestly reach the necessary conclusion with respect to the verdict and there is to be no lazyman’s quick rush to declare a jury hung as a way to avoid the hard work and discussion necessary to reach consensus.