Libby Trial: Part One

Blogger Swopa will be live blogging on FDL:

The closed-circuit feed to the media room just got turned on, so that may be a sign of imminent activity.
It's 9:41am ET.

Update 2:

Judge Walton: The first matter is press access to the grand jury tapes… it would appear to me that this circuit has given a level of importance to the public's right of access to exhibits. Considering the importance that our circuit has given to this right, [legalese for saying he's going to give press copies].
Jeffress objects, saying that the precedents don't really justify this step, and that the jury will find it impossible to avoid the publicity resulting from the release of tapes. (You mean they won't be able to avoid re-hearing the testimony they already heard in court??)
Walton doesn't see the difference between overhearing commentary on the tapes versus overhearing commentary on the transcripts.
Jeffress says that the intense media desire to get the tapes shows the greater play that they will receive. (He's got a point there.)
Fitz: We've stayed on the sidelines, letting Mr. Libby's attorneys and the press argue this… we take no position.
Walton says that the potential for greater media coverage is a concern — is he reconsidering?
Now a prosecutor is saying that the media coverage is unavoidable, but the context of having the whole tapes will be helpful. The press here in the media room, having a proverbial dog in this fight, occasionally bursts into kibitzing and brief arguments back at the screen.
The prosecutor now repeats my point about the jurors being exposed to the exact same material they've already heard. :)
It's 9:56am ET.

Update 3:

Jeffress is now back up, reiterating that the higher level of discussion in general will result in accidental jury contamination.
Walton: I do have my concerns about the use of these tapes by the media… it's an awesome task to ensure that media coverage does not interfere with a fair trial, which is my paramount responsibility… but based on my reading of previous cases, I think the circuit (e.g., in an appeal) would rule that the tapes should be released, and it's not my job to speculate otherwise.
(I guess he wasn't really reconsidering; the exchange above was just a Socratic exercise of some sort. Let the record show that it took less than half an hour for me to become totally confused by what was going on in the courtroom.)
W: "The next matter…" Ooops, no, there's a break to address unspecified other matters. The reason for taking the break now has to do with a specific court reporter being available to handle the matter, whatever it is.
It's 10:06.
Still on break. But, um, I'm here just in case anything happens.
It's 10:32.
Folks begin filing back in at 10:35. On the closed-circuit feed, Fitzgerald really does look like he's wearing a white yarmulke.
Walton: The next matter is Exhibits 422 and 423 (the WaPo articles on Oct. 4 and Oct. 12, 2003). Regarding Exhibit 423, how are you going to show that Libby actually read the article? (Exhibit 422, the 10/12 article, had passages underlined by Libby, so defense concedes he may have read it.)
Fitz: It was produced from his files.
W: I thought it was produced by his assistant.
F: She gave it to him, and he filed it.
W: Oh, I see. (Remember, the above three lines are just paraphrase, even if they sound like quotes.)
Walton says this article seems admissable as relevant to Libby's state of mind at the time he was questioned by the FBI (on Oct. 14th, just a few days later). But he's willing to strike passages that are unfairly prejudicial.
Jeffress: I thought the court felt Libby's GJ testimony would be sufficient to determine his state of mind, since he's asked about the topics in the article… [goes on awhile, then says he'd like to list passages that should be deleted as prejudicial.]
W: You mean unduly prejudicial. (some laughter) Everything the government presents is going to be prejudicial.
Jeffress takes this in stride, and goes on to start disputing passages. He wants to redact the specific 1×2x6 quotes:
That same week, two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to least six Washington journalists, an administration official told The Post for an article published Sept. 28. The source elaborated on the conversations last week, saying that officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson.
"It was unsolicited," the source said. "They were pushing back. They used everything they had."
Fitzgerald wants it kept in, because it shows the case goes beyond Novak, so Libby had legitimate cause to worry.
Jeffress says that the passage is completely false. Fitzgerald disagrees. Walton asks Fitzgerald to explain.
LONG pause.
I'm racing to catch up here. It's 10:55 am ET.

More on the Libby trial.