I noticed a curious bit in my earlier post on Libby's proposed theory of defense today. Libby is harping on precisely the words he used in his sonnet, the note he wrote and Cheney endorsed to try to get Scottie to exonerate Libby.
Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he was confident that he had not provided any information about Mr. Wilson's wife to Robert Novak, and that he had not disclosed classified information about Mr. Wilson or his wife to any other reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them.
This is what he's got–an attempt to flip his sonnet on its head, to spin it as proof that he was sure he was innocent, rather than proof that he was panicked when all the media attention started focusing on him. Jeralyn said yesterday that she wasn't sure that Fitzgerald had done enough on motive. But this goes to show just how important the whole Scottie exoneration was to Libby in Fall 2003. This tension is probably worth keeping an eye on in today's wranglings.
One of the guys frm the court room just got on the phone (he's alone in the court room) said, "What we should tell the media is that Cheney is coming in today to testify." Funny guy.
We've got Libby's teams media teams filing in, Fitz and Cline touching base on something. About 10 journalists in the media room socializing.
3:01pm ET
We've got Libby's teams media teams filing in, Fitz and Cline touching base on something. About 10 journalists in the media room socializing.
3:01pm ET
Update 2:
Heeeerrrre's Reggie.
Bonamici: To the extent we were able to digest them (jury instructions) WRT elements instruction, govt concerned about summarization of false statements as part of elements instruction. We understand that the precise charge statements will be appended to the back. It was our understanding that the summaries of the false statements would only be provided at preliminary and that the false statements would be read for the final instructions.
Jeffress stands.
Bonamici Is the perjury quoted as well.
Walton: Perjury is. I wouldn't be inclined to read all that, I would say it's going to get lost. I'd give a short statement about that and the jury will have an opportunity to read it.
Bonamici: We're of the view that the charged false statements are the core of the case.
Walton: I was only talking about the perjury.
Bonamici: They're shorter. I do see the distinction. We took from the first instruction that you were struggling with just reading them allowed.
Walton: As far as the false statements are, I thought I had indicated I would summarize what the false statements were.
Jeffress: [I think he says he was under the same understanding as Bonamici, too]
Bonamici: In the seventh circuit, the indictment goes back so it is never the practice to presesnt the false statement in the instructions.
Walton: I'm okay to have those portions of the indictment appended. I have a problem with the entire indictment going back bc there's a lot of stuff in there that should not be submitted to the jury.
Bonamici: That would be acceptable to the govt and would probably solve the problem.
Walton: I'm looking at the false statement instruction. I thought that was everything.
Bonamici: I don't, I don't. Have you figured out what page it's one.
Wells is up. Shows it to her. [Guess we have nice Ted today]
3:10pm ET
Update 3:
Jeffress stands.
Bonamici Is the perjury quoted as well.
Walton: Perjury is. I wouldn't be inclined to read all that, I would say it's going to get lost. I'd give a short statement about that and the jury will have an opportunity to read it.
Bonamici: We're of the view that the charged false statements are the core of the case.
Walton: I was only talking about the perjury.
Bonamici: They're shorter. I do see the distinction. We took from the first instruction that you were struggling with just reading them allowed.
Walton: As far as the false statements are, I thought I had indicated I would summarize what the false statements were.
Jeffress: [I think he says he was under the same understanding as Bonamici, too]
Bonamici: In the seventh circuit, the indictment goes back so it is never the practice to presesnt the false statement in the instructions.
Walton: I'm okay to have those portions of the indictment appended. I have a problem with the entire indictment going back bc there's a lot of stuff in there that should not be submitted to the jury.
Bonamici: That would be acceptable to the govt and would probably solve the problem.
Walton: I'm looking at the false statement instruction. I thought that was everything.
Bonamici: I don't, I don't. Have you figured out what page it's one.
Wells is up. Shows it to her. [Guess we have nice Ted today]
3:10pm ET
Update 3:
Wells She's just trying to reargue something that was read to the jury.
B Our view is different and that's the whole point.
Walton Do you have problem with "that allegation" I can take it out.
B And then make that a period
Wells makes a frustrated, ah fine.
B And we're also changing "remaining allegations."
B WRT memory instruction. We appreciate that you put it behind the credibility instruction. THough we do recognize that you addressed much of this. The court is addressing it in such a way that is a reptition of the theory of the defense. If we're going to add this detail about memory. We previously objected to this. If we are going to add more detail about memory. it should be a neutral instruction rather than one connected to the defense theory of defense or connected to our witnesses. We don't see the point of the "defense contention" here. It puts the courts stamp of approval on it.
Walton Defense contends, I'm not putting a seal of approval on it.
B Another way of saying it is "the issue of memory has been raised as an issue in this trial.
Jeffress I don't think that specifically addresses the purposes of this instruction at all. We tried to call memory expert. The one you have here is pretty much the one in the preliminary instrutcion. The defense is entitled to point to the way memory bears on defense or innocence. We think that ought to stay in. As far as B's point that this applies to other witnesses. We submit that that is necessary to point to jury to the necessity of these priinciples.
B If your view is that this is neutral, I guess we can live with it. I guess we wanted to include other elements. The two we flagged were importance of info, the distinctiveness. [Jerelyn is almost certainly saying "see, you should have let the memory expert in] On page two if we added, If you consider the nature of the information–that is supported by both sides on this.
J We're permitted to argue importance
Walton She said distinctive
J I don't even know what that means. If we're going to put importance here, we're going to argue it.
B I don't know what that means. I don't see any drawback to putting distinctiveness.
Walton I think nature covers a wide range of factors. We're going to have some discussions abotu what would be appropriate argument. I don't think there's any evidence in record that he considers this of more importance than Valerie Wilson. It would be appropriate to say, you have heard info Libby dealing with, and we submit it's not unreasonable he would not remember the events of this case. I think it's a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence before the jury.
B The final instruction, this takes us back to obstruction. Which is, five pages in, number 1, it's a very minor point.
Walton Which one, I'm trying to put them back in order.
B Paragraph is number 1, We would ask that the sentence be broken up with an A and a B. an A be put before Mr Rusesrt and that, after semicolon that a B be put before "that"
Sounds like Walton's cold is back. Jeffress, leaning against the defense table, they do not object.
3:57pm ET
B Our view is different and that's the whole point.
Walton Do you have problem with "that allegation" I can take it out.
B And then make that a period
Wells makes a frustrated, ah fine.
B And we're also changing "remaining allegations."
B WRT memory instruction. We appreciate that you put it behind the credibility instruction. THough we do recognize that you addressed much of this. The court is addressing it in such a way that is a reptition of the theory of the defense. If we're going to add this detail about memory. We previously objected to this. If we are going to add more detail about memory. it should be a neutral instruction rather than one connected to the defense theory of defense or connected to our witnesses. We don't see the point of the "defense contention" here. It puts the courts stamp of approval on it.
Walton Defense contends, I'm not putting a seal of approval on it.
B Another way of saying it is "the issue of memory has been raised as an issue in this trial.
Jeffress I don't think that specifically addresses the purposes of this instruction at all. We tried to call memory expert. The one you have here is pretty much the one in the preliminary instrutcion. The defense is entitled to point to the way memory bears on defense or innocence. We think that ought to stay in. As far as B's point that this applies to other witnesses. We submit that that is necessary to point to jury to the necessity of these priinciples.
B If your view is that this is neutral, I guess we can live with it. I guess we wanted to include other elements. The two we flagged were importance of info, the distinctiveness. [Jerelyn is almost certainly saying "see, you should have let the memory expert in] On page two if we added, If you consider the nature of the information–that is supported by both sides on this.
J We're permitted to argue importance
Walton She said distinctive
J I don't even know what that means. If we're going to put importance here, we're going to argue it.
B I don't know what that means. I don't see any drawback to putting distinctiveness.
Walton I think nature covers a wide range of factors. We're going to have some discussions abotu what would be appropriate argument. I don't think there's any evidence in record that he considers this of more importance than Valerie Wilson. It would be appropriate to say, you have heard info Libby dealing with, and we submit it's not unreasonable he would not remember the events of this case. I think it's a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence before the jury.
B The final instruction, this takes us back to obstruction. Which is, five pages in, number 1, it's a very minor point.
Walton Which one, I'm trying to put them back in order.
B Paragraph is number 1, We would ask that the sentence be broken up with an A and a B. an A be put before Mr Rusesrt and that, after semicolon that a B be put before "that"
Sounds like Walton's cold is back. Jeffress, leaning against the defense table, they do not object.
3:57pm ET
More on the jury instructions.
No comments:
Post a Comment