Posted on 03/03/2007 1:56:15 PM PST by STARWISE
there was never a chance at acquittal in this case, a hung jury is the only chance Libby has.
how are you reading that?
We would like clarification of the term 'reasonable doubt
yes, but the jurors who want to convict - could be getting a definition for the jurors who want to acquit because they see "reasonable doubt".
I disagree. You don't want to to try to convince someone to vote in favor of conviction by defining reasonable doubt.
That doesn't make any sense.
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Not Guilty.
David Corn was the first to report (erroneously) that Valerie Plame was "undercover". Considering that Joe Wilson was his only source, I cannot imagine who leaked this information to him. </sarcasm>
Depends how politically driven Fitz and the team are. With the '08 election already started, I'd not bet against it. Too much milk from that cow.
A DC jury is extremely unlikely to acquit a Bush administration official loyal to VP Cheney. It is far more likely there is one (or perhaps two) holdouts on the jury unwilling to vote to convict Libby.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The "reasonable doubt" instructions given to the jurors:
http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/reasonabledoubt.pdf
I feel better reading that again.
David Corn was the first to report (erroneously) that Valerie Plame was "undercover". Considering that Joe Wilson was his only source, I cannot imagine who leaked this information to him. </sarcasm>
I so do not want to have the rug pulled out from under me on this one.
I feel the same way.
BTW Howlin...what is up with your tag line?
lol
You know most of us are using our PCs in the house and not our vehicles.
(Just teasing ya')
;-)
You don't have a horn on your keyboard?
Nope.
How about I just say "Honk?"
His employer, DoJ would have to approve, but won't go for it, after the obvious fishing sham that he had pulled.
Media has been on trial already, they didn't like the taste of it one bit after Armitage story came out, and some of them narrowly escaped the hot seat only due to judge's rulings, they have absolutely no appetite for more... They have enough material here so they simply can recycle the same WH-OVP "conspiracy" story that Hollywood is producing for them just in time for '08.
Fitz would need something else to ask for retrial - new "evidence", evidence he feels he was not able to present due to judge's rulings, or evidence of jury prejudice ... he has nothing of the kind, if anything he got all the favors and preference and defense got almost nothing - there is no reason he can give for granting him a new trial.
Fitzfauxng did his hatchet job and maybe rewarded later by Democrats in power, but he was unmasked as a political hack with a law degree, and in that sense his case and he are done, over, finito...
"how does the author of this figure there are 2 holdouts???"
Why "Attorneys close to the Case", of course!
The same anonymous attorneys who assured us that rove was going to be arrested in 24 business hours!!
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.