Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush and the Full Court Press (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No kidding (7+ / 0-)

    I agree on the other stuff but not on the jury selection issue.  

    Any decent trial lawyer will tell you that they try the case during jury selection.  I know damn well that if I were representing Libby, I'd be REAL concerned about jurors having made up their minds about Administration officials lying, especially since Libby's one and they may call some to testify.

    No, you don't have to be a moron without any factual knowledge or opinions to be a juror.  You just have to be able to decide the case based solely on the evidence.  The last thing you want is a conviction to be overturned on appeal; a retrial is all the harder then.

    I know for a fact that it'd be hard for me and most people here to do it.  I've made up my mind as to their lack of credibility.

    "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

    by gsbadj on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 08:21:08 AM PST

    •  It's a little ironic (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Maven, gsbadj, goodasgold, leonard145b

      We expressing our (completely justified) outrage at Stimpson at the same time as we're calling for Libby to be denied the right to an impartial jury.

      I understand that there has to be a limit to how much questioning goes on in jury selection...they're not entitled to a jury guaranteed to acquit...but they certain have a right to exclude anyone who, say, celebrates "Fitzmas."

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 08:29:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, goodasgold
      Seems to me you almost have to be a moron without factual knowledge or opinions to not have made up your mind that this administration lies regularly.

      That said, that doesn't mean you can't be open to whether Libby lied or not.

      It depends on how broad a net they're casting. If anyone who expresses skepticism about the Bush administration is rejected that's too far. If it's only the most extreme, then fine.

      •  Count me among the extreme (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsbadj

        I could never be impartial in the Libby trial.  Never.  I believe he's guilty of everything charged in the Fitzgerald indicument, and more: like the whole evil crew in the Decider's cult, he's a war criminal who should be rotting in a cell in the Hague.

        Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch of the ranged Empire fall! -- Shakespeare, "Antony and Cleopatra"

        by Egypt Steve on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 09:07:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah but... (0+ / 0-)

        ... the touchstone issue is whether the juror thinks that he/she can decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence.  Each person's level of bias (for or against the Administration) will determine whether that's the case.  You're not going to get someone with no opinions about issues but you don't want someone who has opinions about guilt/innocence.  You just want someone who can put the opinions away, listen to the evidence and decide solely on the evidence.

        Judges conduct bench trials every day in this country on issues that they may have some previous knowledge about.  It can be done.

        "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

        by gsbadj on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 11:51:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, goodasgold

      There's a certain amount of disconnect required in order to damn the administration for its corruption of the judicial process -- particularly in regard to Stimson's intimidation tactics against prominent attorneys acting as defense counsel for Guantanamo detainees -- and then turn around and lambaste similar defense counsel in the Libby trial for their tenacious conduct on behalf of their client, who is facing prosecution by the U.S. Government!

      So which is it?  Should defense counsel be cowed into abandoning their clients and/or failing to do everything in their power to benefit their clients?  I really doubt that, overall, this would be the end we'd like to see occur.

    •  Jury Selection in Libby Trial Doesn't Bother Me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, goodasgold, leonard145b

      Third, we have the jury selection process in the Libby trial, which opened yesterday. According to Time, potential anti-Bush jurors are being excluded

      As a lawyer, I also disagree with the thrust of the diary with respect to the jury selection issue.

      First, there's absolutely nothing wrong with Libby's attorneys asking potential juror's about their opinions of the Bush administration.  He's doing his job and that's the way the system works.  Likewise, the prosecution will also ask questions to identify wingnuts and try to get them excluded.

      Second, it's not the lawyers who exclude jurors for cause (which is what the article is talking about).  It's the judge.  From reading the Time article, it doesn't seem to me that he's been out of line with his exclusions.  Here's his official biography -- http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/...  Although a Bush appointee, he doesn't seem likely to be a Bush puppet, although I wouldn't mind hearing opinions from DC area lawyers about the guy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site