Libby Jury Selection Completed

The jury has been seated in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Christy at Firedoglake reports the jury is composed of:

9 Women, 3 Men
10 Caucasian, 2 African American And one of the Caucasian women may or may not be Hispanic — there's some uncertainty there.)

....The alternate jurors are summed up as 2 African American women, 1 white woman and one white man.

As for occupation:

....a web architect, an investment banker, a travel agent, a retired math teacher, a consumer protection attorney, someone from HHS, an art curator, the fellow whose former editor was Bob Woodward, someone who works in hotel sales, one person who has formerly served as a jury foreperson in a prior criminal case, someone who does data entry, a retired postal worker, a day care provider, and a juror who formerly worked for the military, then a nonprofit and is now retired.

I think it's kind of odd that neither side struck the reporter who used to work for Bob Woodward and lived across the alley from Tim Russert. In the short time allowed for jury questioning, I think it's doubtful his true feelings about them emerged, and it's risky to leave a juror on who knows one, let alone two jurors in the case. I'd rather have as clean a slate as possible.

The AP reports:

Six potential jurors who had criticized war policy or the Bush administration were struck, as was one woman who said she had voted for Bush.

Update: Thanks to Jesse at Bushyheads for fixing the perspective on the graphic.

Update: More from MSNBC's David Schuster.

< Advice For Hillary: Controlling Her Second Act And Lessons From Pelosi | Bush Poll Numbers Drop to Nixon Levels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seems like a very friendly jury ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    ... to libby. If you didn't believe the admin had lied you were struck.

    cheney, bush, rice all lied, over and over and anyone paying attention would know that.

    So only bushco believers are allowed to judge whether libby lied.

    You might as well be asking evangelicals to judge whether god exists.

    Now that was quick (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:31:15 PM EST
    No surprise that your average American has no clue about the specifics of this case, at least not to the extent that would get them excluded at the rate of, say, the OJ trial selection.  Get the trial on, let's f'ing go.

    By the way, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:32:46 PM EST
    I haven't told you lately, but you are one admirable lady.  Your hard work and commitment are appreciated more than you will ever know.  Matter of fact, I feel the urge to splurge.  A few bucks are coming TL's way in a few minutes.


    Thanks, Dadler (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:45:33 PM EST
    Your compliment and your contribution are very much appreciated.  It really makes me feel good to know readers like TalkLeft.

    No girl (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:00:51 AM EST
    Your site is nearly a dependence. I got downright anxious the other day when my server acted up.

    You are always my gateway to the web. Though I don't feel the Libby trial is even close to what we should be seeing (if the country would snap out of it's fog of war), the next few weeks should be interesting. Now it's off to C&L, Raw Story, Common Dreams, whatever time permits...Jeebus my favorites list of blogs runs the length of the screen. And that's not even the news sites. My TV is going to last a lot longer. Almost 5 years now. Thank you doesn't even come close. (Yeah, I know, it's on the way)

    Thanks a lot DADLER.

    What's really going to happen? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    Since this case is really no longer about did Bush lie or did he really try to ruin Joseph Wilson (we've all come to our own conclusions and are not going to change them) what's going to happen Jeralyn?

    Fitz seems to be now trying to focus on Libby but it's Libby's defense that is going to point out the bigger picture, that Libby wasn't the leaker, that different stories were told by different characters as the investigation dragged on etc...  and it seems to me the defense will be that Libby simply retold his story incorrectly or differently then Russert and that while he may have been mistaken he wasn't lying and certainly wasn't trying to impede the investigation.

    Good article about this theory in NRO

    Is that how you read it?

    I'm not a lawyer but I've read and been told by lawyers that pergury or lying to investigators is very difficult to proove.   It seems to me that this will come down to whether or not all 12 jurors believe that Libby lied, lied in order to protect himself and also that his lying kept Fitz from getting at the truth.    

    Now that the truth is none (or appears to be know), libby wasn't the source, it seems that even if he did lie he couldn't have impeded the case because it didn't eventually lead to anyone in the Bush administration.

    Seems this will be a hard case to proove to me.  What's the other side?

    The issue is only (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 10:34:08 AM EST
      whether he knowingly and intentionally made false statements under oath. The government does not have to prove he intended to or did impede the investigation but only that any false statement found to have been made concerned a material matter.

       That's not splitting hairs; it is a major distinction and one Fitzgerald will be sure to impress upon the jury.

       I think Fitzgerald wants to keep the case as simple and focused as possible. "He made these statements and when he made them he knew thet were untrue and they were material to the matters being investigated."

         Perjury cases are considered difficult cases, but as I have observed before, to some extent this may be self-fulfilling prophecy because prosecutors shy away from them because of that convenetional wisdom (and also because allegations of perjury and false swearing often arise in cases where other charges easier to establish which carry as or more harsh penalties exist).

       A couple of things will be really interesting-- the way the media witnesses choose to testify about the relevant conversations with Libby and the ability of the defense to make Libby out as someone worthy of the benefit of the doubt in a close case.


    So.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    basically you're saying that his defense will be that while his statements might contradict what Russert said he said he did not knowlingly lie he was just mistaken or incorrect?

    What proof does Fitz have other then testimony of others that he could have knowingly lied?


     infer knowledge and intent. (that he did recollect what he actually said previously and intentionally made a false statement about what he had said).

      Juries are constantly called upon to infer states of mind from circumstantial evidence. that's why the way the media witnesses testify will be important as the substance.

      Libby's lawyers will probably ask things such as:

      Did you take notes of your conversation with Scooter?

       Why did you take notes?

       So, you are saying  the notes help you ensure you get things right  when you later come back to write about past event?

       You believe the notes are important?

       You review your notes before writing an article weeks or months after an event?

       Without the notes the chances of making an inadvertant mistake and writing something inaccurate  are increased?

       you reviewed your notes before speaking to investigators, didn't you?

        and again before testifying previously?


      To the extent the reporters respond to such questions in  a manner that would be viewed with supporting the inference the defense wants the jury to draw it will be helpful to the defense. If their manner is more likely to be viewed as being forced to agree with things against their will to support an inference they don't want drawn, it will be interesting.