Defense rests...Prosecution rests..
Closing arguments start on Tuesday of next week..
Delibertations start on Wednesday...
Here are the highlights:
Judge Walton seemed to be irritated by the defense. Walton said, "My absolute understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify," and "my ruling was based on the fact that he was going to testify." Walton stated that the defense misled the court into thinking that Libby would take the stand. Walton stated if defense stated in the beginning that Libby wasn't going to testify, then he would have blocked Libby from using some classified evidence in the case. Wells claimed that the defense never misled the court:
Wells: We thought there was a high likelihood Libby would testify. In December 20, 22, we for the first time received Jencks, before that time, we had no access, we did not know that witnesses like Grenier and Schmall had an utter lack of recollection. Once we got Jencks, our perception of case began to change, nonetheless we continued to think high probability that Libby would testify. We had no idea that that GJ material showed us. Nor did we know until cross Miller that it would be dismissed. Nor did we know until we examined Cooper where we think evidence shows that it's in the notes. We've proceeded at all times in good faith. To the extent there's concern on your honors part that counsel was playing fast and loose, that's not so. We spent hours working on preparing Vice President. We spent hours preparing to put Libby on the stand. We had to make decision based on our confidence that govt had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. There's no box that says innocent or did you tell full story. I'm the one that makes the call, my recommendation along with Jeffress. I had the VP on hold right up until the last minute. We had him ready to testify on Thursday. He had his schedule open. I want to make clear we've been upfront at all time. We've got to make decisions that are in clients best interest. Once we saw Jencks, our view radically changed, based on what we felt was performance of witnesses.
Fitzgerald agreed to tell jurors about the terrorist threats, war planning and other secret issues that Libby faced at the time. Fitzgerald said that he agreed to do this on the condition that he could cross-examine Libby at some point on just how seriously he considered these threats. That is why defense took the prosecution team on a wild goose chase into wanting all these classified info on National Security issues and stating that Libby would take the stand. The prosecution assumed that they will get to cross-examine Libby.
Fitzgerald said that the jurors hearing the case therefore should not be given a prewritten statement about Libby's briefings since defense stated the Libby would not testify. Walton agreed. Walton reversed an earlier ruling that the evidence could be admitted.
Defense indicated they would appeal the decision if Libby is convicted. Walton said, "If that's what the Supreme Court is going to say (in any ruling on an appeal), they might as well say the government's not entitled to a fair trial and the defendant is. "I think both sides are entitled to a fair trial. If I get reversed on that, maybe I need to hang up my spurs."
Walton said he would consider allowing three CIA briefers to testify about what they told Libby during the mid-2003 intelligence briefings. Fitzgerald stated that should be excluded now that Libby isn't going to testify.
Defense still continued to try to get Russert back on the stand. Russert was not put before a grand jury. Rather, he was allowed to testify in an interview alongside his lawyer. Defense claims found three old television clips that suggest Russert did know. From last week's testimony, Russert said he was unaware that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys present. In those clips, Russert describes the grand jury that was investigating members of the Clinton administration (we are back on Clinton). In them, he notes that witnesses are not allowed to have attorneys in the room when they testify. Fitzgerald said the defense had their chance (in the 5 hour period) to cross-examine Russert and wanted a "do over."
Finally, prosecution team rest with this in evidence:
Introducing 402: a original of document already in evidence (this is Cheney's op-ed)
The Counter-Proliferation Division, known as CPD, records of CIA reflect that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at CPD throughout 2003.
Update: Libby's defense team wanted to call Russert back to the stand to explain an apparent inconsistency in his testimony. Walton turned down the request.
No Libby, Rove, or Cheney on the stand with a weak opening arguments by the defense? Libby is definitely hosed.
No comments:
Post a Comment