Skip to main content

in hunter's earlier piece he pondered:

The whole of the Plame case may -- or may not be -- cracked by simply noting where the "Valerie Flame" reference did come up. Was it in the middle of notes with another source? Scrawled in a margin? Drawn in a box with hearts and flowers around it? Was it in the same pencil/pen/marker/crayon as the notes around it? Was it BEFORE, or AFTER, the notes about her conversation with Libby?

a forensics lab could easily answer all these questions. hopefully fitzgerald is doing this now and if it shows (or if he has already done the analysis and knows that it shows) that judy is LYING, perhaps he is holding back this information to rebutt her with it on the stand during the actual trial or holding it back so that he can threaten her with perjury and obstruction again at the last minute (on the eve of her trial testimony) in order to surprise libby's defense.

i am unsure of the legal rules here -- does fitz have to turn over such info to the defense? or can he hold it back if he only intends to use it to rebutt?

are there any lawyers out there who can answer?

Originally posted to mindtrafficcontrol on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:04 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  well (none)
    I bellieve he'll have to make the evidence available to all and any details on the expert witnesses he plans to call.  But that isn't until trial.  Indictment is a different story.
    •  so then how does it work (none)
      when a prosecuter holds some evidence back if he uses it to rebutt a witness that lies? i know there is some exception to the rule of turning over evidence, can you explain or link this legal territory?
      •  yeah (none)
        i believe you can bring up new information/argumentation to rebutt a claim made on the stand.  I'm not a lawyer though, so cannot say definitively what that rule is or how it is applied in trial cases.  Most of my legal experience is administrative law and rarely goes to trial.
        •  so then back to my original postulation (none)
          that fitz could be holding it back until miller is on the stand or just before she takes the stand at trial -- is that kosher for a prosecuter or not; is there some way fitz could manipulate the system to surprise the defense here?
          •  well (none)
            I don't think he can hold back the evidence.  Since he already knows what Judy is claiming he would have to ensure that all of the relevant information is in the record and that if necessary an expert has testified.  He can add an argument based on information in the record, but only if it is in the record.  so he can't "hold it back".  He could try to move to add something, but presumably her journal would be in the record from the start.  To make a motion to add something to the record at that point the prosecutor would have to dot a number of ts and is.  You always take a major risk as a prosecutor bywithholding evidence as many appeals are over this very issue.
  •  Total BS (none)
    Miller is trying to pretend that her note is sacred. She doesn't remember how she made the note, what the note means in context of previous events, etc.

    All she does is acting dumb and say...'whatever the note says'

    She can't explain why she makes the note in June, how it relates to WHIG/Cheney visit/WHIG scheming to suppress Wilson... etc.

    She tries to parse her note as if she doesn't know Plame is secret agent, except she works in winpac.  (yeah... sure.  And how many winpac agents does she know? just Plame?  How does she know Wilson is related to plame? ... Now THAT is the big question, she is still covering up. Obviously she knows far before July meeting with Libby.)

  •  If "Flame" ain't a Freudian slip (none)
    I'd like to see one.
    •  I kind of think it was (none)
      "a running joke" to call her like that in the circles that ordered Mr. Wilson's work-up and hinted to everyone involved "that she is fair game". Isn't she (Valerie Plame) a hot woman that would incite the Cheney administration's co-conspirateurs to call her "Valerie Flame?" So many variations to look at it. She was hot like a flame, she was the flame of Mr. Wilson's life, we guys will make her go down in flames. Judy Miller could just be a little jealous of Valerie Plame getting such media attention that she called her mockingly Valerie Flame. I think it makes perfectly sense, this "nick name".
  •  what we have here is the csi effect (none)
    That's what lawyers are calling the civilian supposition that everything can be solved by a crime lab. Suffice it to say, it ain't necessarily so. Even fingerprints aren't as sure as many people think they are.

    In fact it's almost impossible to sort this one out given the time frames involved, except PERHAPS with certain kinds of microanalysis-- but it's by no means a sure thing.

    I'm afraid we're going to have to find another tree to bark up.

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:33:48 PM PDT

  •  Judy purposefully mis-spelled (none)
    even back then in 2003.

    She's a traitor but no dummy.

    "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

    by gandalf on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 09:58:30 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site