Posted on 03/03/2007 1:56:15 PM PST by STARWISE
WASHINGTON - Notes from the jury deliberating the fate of ex-White House aide Lewis (Scooter) Libby gave a hint there might be one or two holdouts on a conviction.
"We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt,'" the jury wrote to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton on the eighth day of deliberations. "Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?"
The notes from the 11 jurors weighing the fate of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, which they sent before leaving early for their weekend break, implied there was a conflict, an expert said.
"It sounds like a minority - one or more - are digging in their heels and saying the government has to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt," said Solomon Wisenberg, a deputy of Clintons prober Kenneth Starr.
If a single juror balks at convicting Libby, who is accused of lying to investigators probing who leaked CIA spy Valerie Plame's identity, the judge will declare a mistrial and prosecutors could retry him.
Wisenberg said the government is not required to prove guilt with 100% certainty.
The jury also asked Walton if all of Libby's grand jury testimony has to be examined to find him guilty of obstructing justice.
Scooter ~~ PING!
In my mind, if you need "clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt'", thats reasonable doubt.
David Corn seems to be thrilled at the thought of a conviction, even more than the others in the media. What is his involvement in this case, I can't seem to recall.
No, they have to prove guilt wihtout a reasonable doubt.
It could be reasonable if there is a 5% chance he is telling the truth.
I'd love to be on that jury. It could be ten or eleven other people vs. just me and I'd sit there and laugh at them.
spork-ulation
"Wisenberg said the government is not required to prove guilt with 100% certainty."
Is this true or is this Clintoonesque, parsed lawyerspeak?
Just curious, but is it proper for the judge to tell the msm what the jury asks him during deliberations?
David Corn is buddies with Joe Wilson, Corn wrote the original article in which Wilson hinted that his wife worked for the CIA.
And yes "reasonable Doubt" means just that, whatmay happen is a comprimise verdict, YMMV.
100% certainty != reasonable doubt
One of the first to write about it .. check The Nation.
Not really. Theres a difference between shadow of a doubt and reasonable doubt.
That being said proving beyond a reasonable doubt is no low hurdle.
Could somebody 'splain what this is likely to mean?
The only interpretation I can make of it is that there's at least one holdout who insists on going through eight hours of testimony (again) if he's going to even entertain voting for a guilty verdict.
BINGO!!!
Don't worry everyone! No matter whether Libby is found guilty or not, one thing is clear. It will be THE END OF BUSHITLERAMERIKKKA!!!!1111 either way. DU told me.
Plus, Corn co-wrote that book about his case, Hubris.
BTW...Unless we didn't get the whole question...how does the author of this figure there are 2 holdouts???
Sounds right to me.
Right ... self-interest and protection runs DEEP.
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.