{"id":110006,"date":"2017-12-04T13:33:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-04T13:33:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:57:02","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:57:02","slug":"the-runaway-jury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/04\/the-runaway-jury\/","title":{"rendered":"The Runaway Jury?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>It sounds like something out of a John Grisham novel: a jury appears  headed for one verdict, only to stun the court&#8211;and the nation&#8211;when it  reaches the opposite conclusion.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, Grisham&#8217;s book, <em>The Runaway Jury<\/em>,  was a tale of jury manipulation, intrigue and double-cross in a  fictional tobacco litigation case. By comparison, we may never know the  machinations that took place during jury deliberations in <a href=\"http:\/\/apnews.myway.com\/article\/20070306\/D8NMQ9980.html\">the  Lewis &#8220;Scooter&#8221; Libby case, which ended today with the panel finding  the former Vice-Presidential aide guilty on four of five counts of  perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>History  will record that Libby was originally accused of &#8220;outing&#8221; former CIA  officer Valerie Plame. But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was  unable to indict Libby&#8211;or anyone else&#8211;on that charge, because Ms.  Plame, wife of Bush Administration critic Joe Wilson, was not a covert  operative when her identity was revealed to columnist Robert Novak. We  subsequently learned that Ms. Plame&#8217;s affiliation was well known in  Washington circles, and discussed by a number of power players,  including Richard Armitage. But only Libby was indicted, and on charges  relating to those favored prosecutorial catch-alls: perjury, lying under  oath, and obstruction. Libby&#8217;s attorneys blamed his changing story on a  faulty memory. Court testimony revealed that other participants in the  saga changed their recollections as well, but only Mr. Libby was in the  dock.<\/p>\n<p>Regrettably, all of this was lost on the jury, which may be  remembered as one of the dimmest in recent federal court history. Only  three hours before delivering their verdict, the panel sent a note to  the judge, saying (essentially) that they couldn&#8217;t figure out what Libby  was accused of doing. I&#8217;m not an attorney, nor have I ever sat on a  civilian jury. But I did cover criminal courts as a reporter, and it&#8217;s  not a stretch to say that today&#8217;s verdict was stunning&#8211;not because of  the jury&#8217;s decision, but how they apparently arrived at it. As Fox News  judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano noted, the Libby jury, on Day 10 of  deliberations, was still asking questions it should have broached on Day  One.<\/p>\n<p>During my days as a reporter, I spent enough time in court  houses to understand that funny things happen in jury rooms. It&#8217;s a bit  odd&#8211;perhaps incredible&#8211;to see how a jury can move from an elementary  question about the charges to a guilty verdict on four of five counts,  in the span of three hours. Perhaps the jurors were simply tired of  deliberating. Maybe the foreman finally took charge of the process and  convinced the other jurors that Mr. Libby was guilty of whatever he was  accused of.<\/p>\n<p>Over at <a href=\"http:\/\/powerlineblog.com\/archives\/016957.php\">Powerline,<\/a> John Hinderaker says the handwriting was on the wall when the jury&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">came  back with a question about whether the prosecution had to prove that it  was &#8220;not humanly possible for someone not to recall&#8221; in order to prove  Libby guilty. That, of course, is not the definition of &#8220;reasonable  doubt,&#8221; and the question suggested that a majority of the jury favored  conviction, and was trying to overcome the objections of the minority  who were applying a strict standard of proof.&#8221; <\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><\/span><br \/>Libby&#8217;s  attorneys are expected to appeal the verdict. I wish them well. The  sentencing portion of the trial is scheduled for mid-May. I wouldn&#8217;t be  surprised if the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton, sends Mr. Libby to  jail. Meanwhile, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who  pleaded guilty to the (arguably) more serious charge of stealing  classified documents from the National Archive, was sentenced to  community service, a nominal fine, and loss of his security clearance  for three years. You may recall that the Bush Justice Department  recommended that the judge &#8220;go easy&#8221; on Mr. Berger. At the very least,  they should extend the same courtesy to Scooter Libby.<\/p>\n<p>***<\/p>\n<p>One  final thought: after my initial post, I caught one of the jurors on TV,  speaking to reporters after the verdict was announced. He claimed the  jury felt &#8220;sorry&#8221; for Mr. Libby, viewing him as a &#8220;fall guy&#8221; and  wondering &#8220;where was Karl Rove?&#8221; That single soundbite confirms that the  jury bought Mr. Fitzgerald&#8217;s notion about some dark conspiracy to &#8220;out&#8221;  Ms. Plame and discredit administration critics.  From that, we can  surmise that none of the jurors is eligible for Mensa membership, and  Mr. Libby&#8217;s attorney, Ted Wells, should have solid grounds for a planned  appeal. As for why Mr. Rove wasn&#8217;t indicted, the juror should direct  that question to Mr. Fitzgerald, not members of the press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It sounds like something out of a John Grisham novel: a jury appears headed for one verdict, only to stun the court&#8211;and the nation&#8211;when it reaches the opposite conclusion. Of course, Grisham&#8217;s book, The Runaway Jury, was a tale of jury manipulation, intrigue and double-cross in a fictional tobacco litigation case. By comparison, we may [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110006"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}