Booman discusses how frustrating it is for liberals to finally seize control of Congress yet not have the power to instantly reshape things to our liking - which I sympathize with - by giving a litany of discouraging events, which includes this:
We've got a jury of eleven down in Washington DC that needs over a week to decide whether or not Scooter Libby committed perjury. A rented mule could determine that he committed perjury in fifteen minutes. This is discouraging.
Having been on them twice, I can say juries take their job seriously, which is to follow the law and weigh all the evidence. On the "follow the law" part, the jury in question has received instructions which are at least 74 pages long, which I know only from yesterday's report that when they asked a clarifying question of the judge, they referred to that page. The entire set of instructions might be quite longer, who knows. On the "weigh all the evidence" part, there were weeks of testimony, and the jurors are strictly forbidden from discussing any of it until after it's all over.
So having come to the issue with an open mind, they are working their way through it conscientiously.
We should be glad about that. Whichever way they come out, they are doing as thorough and fair a job as they can. As a lawyer, as a liberal, and as an American, that's exactly what I want them to do when someone's liberty is at stake.
Deciding to put someone in prison for a long time requires more consideration than that of your average rented mule. While I agree that Libby is most probably guilty, that is not my decision to make, which I am glad about, because being on a jury is torturous.
Me and eleven others once had to decide whether a guy should be put to death. The judge had very clear ideas that he should, and was very surprised that we took so long, too. Then he was shocked when we disagreed with him. But then again, he didn't have to make the call, we did. He thought the acquittal sent the wrong message. But it's not about messages. It's not about scoring political points. It's about whether the evidence taken as a whole proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant is guilty of a particular crime.
Whichever way this jury comes out, they will have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. So kindly fucking lay off.
He is charged with perjury to a grand jury empaneled to investigate a crime that was not committed. That is a justice system?
Posted by: Phil | March 01, 2007 at 10:20 AM