Posted on 02/15/2007 11:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
The lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges rested their case today, but not before suffering a series of defeats in legal rulings by the presiding judge.
The judge, Reggie B. Walton, expressed in the strongest terms yet that he had been misled by the defense team about whether Mr. Libby would take the stand in his own defense
....Judge Walton said he “believed all along in the process that Mr. Libby was going to testify” and that his lawyers were now “playing games with the process.”
The juror said that they were wearing the T-shirts (red with white heart) to express their fondness for the judge and the court staff on Valentine’s Day. He then added, to the judge’s growing discomfort, that they were unanimous in this sentiment, but they would all be independent in judging the evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How can Libby get a fair trial?
A federal judge also gets to make these comments in front of the judge.
The judge could've cited them for contempt of court. The judge didn't mind the affection they have for him, he just wants it to be a secret love, like Bill and Monica.
Valentines for the judge?
This has mistrial written all over it.
This is why I suppose the Clintoons were never brought to justice. It's not even worth trying, with DC juries.
With the rotten liberal RATS running the Country, what could we expect. What business was it that the judge had to think anything. His only purpose is to maintain order in the court and making ruling if questions or evidence was relevant to the case. His statement is a direct conflict to his right as a judge and the defense never stated that Libby was going to testify. This nitwit of a judge made assumptions which is not his right.
I don't understand how the judge can disallow evidence based solely on whether Libby testifies. He is penalizing Libby for exercising a constitutional right.
This trial is a total crock! Merely payback at any level for what Clinton went through. Anything to destroy Bush. Let's see, with Congress out of session the DC IQ is 49. With both houses in session it drops to 23. Oh yeah, I can't wait to see who these jurors were. They must be very close to the 49 level!
Can Libby appeal if convicted?
Libby will not be convicted.
If Libby is charged with anything, he should appeal immediately. This "We liberals (DC is a heavy democrat area) adore you, judge. Throw the book at him!" crap is out of line.
4 jurors have already confessed to having an anti-Bush bias, but they were chosen anyway to rush Libby through the trial. This trial should have been held outside the liberal beltway.
Clinton lied to the Supreme court, and he's still walking around a free man. Washington bias? You bet!
OMG!! Judge Ito type-crap!! Our Justice System is a BIG JOKE!!!
One of the reasons socialism always fails. Government and judicial dictators prevail.
The defense rested because of the judge's rulings against them. If you're not permitted to defend yourself in the manner you had hoped, then I imagine your only hope is an appeal.
Anybody know anything specifically, definitely appealable in the conduct of this trial?
If convicted, overturned on appeal because of this. You can take that to the bank. Jurors should show affection towards a judge in a case.
I cannot be at the Libby trial. However, please find enclosed a brick which I would like you to throw through your window for me. After you have accomplished that, please review the US Constitution's prohibiting involuntary self-incrimination during criminal trial. Thanks!
"This is why I suppose the Clintoons were never brought to justice. It's not even worth trying, with DC juries."
I am pretty sure that Ken Starr's deputy, Hickman Ewing, said as much.
"Can Libby appeal if convicted?"
Of course. Every defendant has the right to appeal his conviction.
If the judge actually said he was mad, annoyed, perturbed or whatever because Libby's lawyers chose to not have him testify and he made ANY decision based on that, then yes, the argument can surely be made that he abused his discretion. Even if he didn't do anything, it was a stupid thing to say.
Libby can't get a fair trial. This will probably end up as a mistrial and Libby will not go to trial again.
The appeals, if he is convicted, will be many and worthwhile. The most important being "If there was no crime, why is my client beig prosecuted?".
I do think the judge overly constrained the defense case because Libby didn't take the stand. I think there is a huge appeal issue. The judge is not permitting the defense to make the case that Libby most likely forgot something, because Libby is not testifying.
I know other Freeper lawyers have said these other witnesses can't testify about Libby's state of mind. True. But the evidence surrounding Libby's workday goes to the likelihood of whether he lied versus just forgot. I don't think that evidence is an attempt to have Libby "testify" without taking the stand. And then the defense was not permitted to aggressively impeach Andrea Mitchel and Tim Russert.
I may be proven wrong, but I think most judges would err on the side of letting the defense get its case in. Frankly, I don't think the evidence would be that strong for Libby, but the judge ends up looking like he is over protecting the prosecution.
My first guess is concviction, maybe a hung jury, if Libby is acquitted it is owing to the extaordinary talent of Ted Wells.
My guess is there will be a mistrial.
Let's keep in mind rule #1...
The New York Times is full of it, so don't trust their reporting on anything!
AP started with an article claiming the judge bashed Libby's counsel....Immediately following that, Libby's counsel made a point that there intention was not to mislead, and explained that they had been preparing Libby and Cheney to testify, but based on the way the trial has unfolded, they do not think the government has made the case.
Judge responded:
"Walton I assume these are based on AP article entitled Judge: Libby misleads Judge. I did not intend to suggest there had been intentional misleading on that matter. It was indicated by Cline that there was a qualification. I assume based on what you’re saying now, that it was not an indication. I accept that as an accurate statement. To extent that changes can be made in newspaper articles that have already been out."
In other words, the judge is not angry as the AP and NYT portray him, and does not feel that the Libby team intentionally misled the court.
Further, this is really worth watching. The liberal group FireDogLake has been blogging the whole trial. These are all liberals, who no doubt want to see Libby strung up.
But they have been inside, watching the trial
Here is their latest video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PzGHn-bcs8
Watch this and listen to the liberal in the middle....She points out (5 minutes in) that she doesn't think Fitzgerald has really proven motive...She thinks it is a tossup...She also points out that Wells' argument makes perfect sense, and the Fitzgerald's claim about jury nullifacation is off target for what Wells is trying to do.
Overall, these liberal women, who are blogging on a liberal site, paid for by contributions from liberals, and have sat through this case don't seem to share the view that Libby is definitely going down as many in the media assert.
"The judge, Reggie B. Walton, expressed in the strongest terms yet that he had been misled by the defense team about whether Mr. Libby would take the stand in his own defense"
ie, Judge throws hissy fit because he wanted to see Libby roast. Geez, try to show some non-bias.
I was thinking that as well. Fitzgerald wouldn't allow any mention of a conspiracy of smearing Wilson by outting Plame, but wanted to prosecute pergury for Libby mistating that he heard Plame's name from Russert.
To prove a crime, don't you usually need means, motive, and opportunity? Libby has a mouth so he has means. He was before the Grand Jury so he had opportunity. But not one reporter has said Libby told them about Plame. If there was no smear campaign, there was no motive to lie about his role in such a non-existant campaign.
No joke and what kind of freak jury is this anyway?
Black judge, DC jury, Bush haters all.
Fitzgerald is the lewinski of the attorneys general branch of government. He better get his blue suit to the cleaners, I think he slobbered this one.
My guess is Libby walks - maybe a hung jury, but no unanimous guilty.
All this technical wrangling aside, Wells is going to point out that Libby goes over hundreds of documents a dayhave a strong close, IMO.
He will point out that:
1) The prosecution's case makes no sense because Libby had no motivation to lie. Libby was not the leaker, and therefore had little to fear from prosecution. Libby was not the source of the Novak article, he was not a primary source of any press articles, and it is debatable whether Cooper recalls correctly when suggests Libby said, "I heard that too" when asked directly about it by Cooper. Absent a strong, clear for Libby to lie, the prosecution has no case. Libby did not face a high likelihood of jail based on his actions - so what specifically have we learned that is so damaging to Libby that he risked jail to prevent it from becoming known?
2) Everybody in this case has a faulty memory, but Libby is the only one charged with perjury based on how he recollects events. Woodward says he told Pincus, Pincus denies this. Pincus says Fleischer told him, Fleischer denies this. Fleischer says he told Davidson, Davidson denies this. Fleischer says he told Gregory, Russert denies that Gregory could have known. Miller and her NYTimes chief disagree about whether they discussed Miller's conversations with Libby.
3) Libby had many things on his mind at the time, and the record plainly shows that Plame was not an issue he spent a lot of time discussing with reporters. Although Libby spent a lot of time tlaking with reporters about many issues during the time in question, the name, 9 of 11 of them say the Plame name nevr came up, and only one of the reporters Libby talked to alleges that he brought up Plame at all. Obviously if he was spending so much tie talking with reporters about issues other than Plame, it is easy to imagine that this wasn't a primary issue to him.
4) It is likely that Libby's recollection of Russert asking him about Plame is accurate, and that therefore the central pillar of the government's claim that this was part of a fabricated story unravels. Russert has been demonstrated to forget complete phone calls, and have poor recollection of letters he wrote to the paper apologizing. Russert equivocated some when telling the FBI that he didn't mention Plame to Libby, and then tried to quash the subpoena after he had already told the FBI about his sources. Fleischer says he told Gregory about Plame. Andrea Mitchell stated on public TV that everyone in the press corps knew. These are both colleagues of Russert at NBC. If either Mitchell or Gregory did know about Plame, then Russert surely knew too. If Russert knew about Plame, he certainly would have asked Libby about it since - as Russert admitted - it was really big news when he found out. It is reasonable to suspect that it is Russert - not Libby - who has the faulty memory about this call, or potentially that Russert has dug himself into this line of testimony because he didn't want to be fingered as spreading Plame's name when talking to the FBI, and subsequently had to stick by his story. This would also explain why he was so eager to quash the subpoena.
Wrapping up, the defense claims that it is preposterous for the prosecution to argue - beyond reasonable doubt - that Russert's recollection is correct. And that if Russert did in fact mention Plame to Libby, then the entire basis of the prosecution's thesis is based on a flawed assupmtion that Russert's recollection was correct rather than Libby's.
I'd be willing to bet a 6-pack of Stella Artois on that... and hope you get to collect.
My experience usually has been when a judge starts slanting the evidence rulings hard against a party he thinks that party is likely to win and he's protecting his record by keeping any possible appeal issues out of the hands of the other side.
I'm not saying that is necessarily happening here - sometimes a judge really is biased against a party and makes bad rulings. I'm just saying I've seen this kind of thing several times.
Give the judge a break, will ya? He's doing the best he can with what he has - a DC jury... ya know the people who actually get to decide the case before they are overturned on appeal if they prove to the world that they have more hate in them than brains.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1784841/posts?page=116#116
Apparently Judge Walton isn't familiar with the Bill of Rights. Whether he testifies, or not, is completely Libby's call to make, and he doesn't need to make that call before the trial. If he does make an indication before the trial, he is in no way bound by it, nor should he be.
Judge Walton needs to grow up and get over it. He's making himself sound like an advocate for the prosecution.
More grounds for appeal.
Judge Walton seems to be more interested in obtaining a conviction, by any means possible, than in reaching an accurate verdict, or even obtaining one that will stand up on appeal. Makes one wonder if he's just trying to present the press with an opportunity to trumpet a desired result.
An appeal will only be granted if there are grounds. It appears that Judge Walton has provided ample grounds.
If Libby is acquitted the prosecution cannot appeal.
I read on NRO, yesterday that the juror added that this was about as unanimous as they were going to get. In other words, a hung jury.
I didn't say that the appellate court has to accept the appeal, just that the defendant always has to right to make one.
The expert witness of choice in this instance is Dr. Loftus. As I understand it, the defense tried to get her on but the judge refused. For a better idea of what memory is or is not see: HERE
IMHO the judge is using the FrCp like the Malleus Maleficarum--as a means to convict an innocent person of a heinous, non-existent crime. Libby is being tried for the biological, human nature of memory over which no one has control but only understanding.
Not every case will be taken up on appeal. The appeals court may simply refuse on ground there are not constitutional issues to review in this case. This fiasco is an Outrage.
If Libby is acquitted the prosecution cannot appeal.
It depends. If an appeal would not require a retrial, the government may appeal, for example if the judge entered judgment of acquittal after a verdict of acquittal. Or the judge may be thinking of entering a judgment of acquittal even if the jury comes back guilty. In either event, he would still think about protecting his record from a successful appeal.
One is all it takes for a hung jury.
The jurors can all write love letters to the judge, it does not indicate bias against the defendant. The judge is not the prosecutor.
Yes, I am aware that the appeal doesn't have to be accepted or heard by the appellate court. The other FReeper was asking if Libby will have the right to appeal if he is convicted - and the answer is yes, he has a right to file an appeal with the appellate court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.