Walton back in.
Asked a question of someone–perhaps to close the door.
Three people for a different case. Walton putting off the start of his next case. Looks like he's rescheduling his next court case until June. Now they're talking about June/July time frame for next trial. Okay, they've got it rescheduled. Walton: I apologize.
Walton: Um, I will read what counsel has given me regarding the second question. In reference to first question, I understand govt has issue with last sentence I proposed, I have changed one word. "If you can rephrase the question considering the language I gave you in instruction, I will assess whether I can provide further guidance to you." If they can rephrase considering reasonable doubt.
Jeffress: with the change your honor has made, that's acceptable.
Bonamici: It's just not clear to us how jury will rephrase the question. We don't have a problem with asking them to rephrase after considering language in instruction.
Walton The reason I did that is because I won't deviate the reasonable doubt instruction. I'm not prepared to do that. I'm on reversible error grounds if I go beyond that.
Bonamici: We don't have your Honor's language.
Walton I'll have it typed up–he's working for free.
Fitz: If we don't tell them where the ambiguity is, Your honor has the whole sentence. If they're told if they can clarify "not humanly possible." Absent that, they may be in the dark considering what your honor is concerned about.
Walton I'll give it as I indicated.
10:30 am ET
Three people for a different case. Walton putting off the start of his next case. Looks like he's rescheduling his next court case until June. Now they're talking about June/July time frame for next trial. Okay, they've got it rescheduled. Walton: I apologize.
Walton: Um, I will read what counsel has given me regarding the second question. In reference to first question, I understand govt has issue with last sentence I proposed, I have changed one word. "If you can rephrase the question considering the language I gave you in instruction, I will assess whether I can provide further guidance to you." If they can rephrase considering reasonable doubt.
Jeffress: with the change your honor has made, that's acceptable.
Bonamici: It's just not clear to us how jury will rephrase the question. We don't have a problem with asking them to rephrase after considering language in instruction.
Walton The reason I did that is because I won't deviate the reasonable doubt instruction. I'm not prepared to do that. I'm on reversible error grounds if I go beyond that.
Bonamici: We don't have your Honor's language.
Walton I'll have it typed up–he's working for free.
Fitz: If we don't tell them where the ambiguity is, Your honor has the whole sentence. If they're told if they can clarify "not humanly possible." Absent that, they may be in the dark considering what your honor is concerned about.
Walton I'll give it as I indicated.
10:30 am ET
I think we're waiting for Walton to have his former clerk–working pro bono today–to get his instruction typed up so everyone can fight it once more or not.
Jeffress chatting up Libby, Libby covering his mouth with his hand intently. Wells reading his blackberry and chewing gum.
Prosecution huddling over something.
Status still the same–Wells blackberrying, Prosecution huddling, Zeidenberg has joined in.
10:38 am ET
Libby and Jeffress still chatting. Libby shifting uncomfortably. Jeffess looks calming.
Now Libby's laughing with one of the Associates.
I can see David Corn gesticulating wildly holding forth with other journalists in the court room.
Now Jeffress has joined the laughing Libby. Wells still blackberrying (hey Ted! You reading along??–waves). And the prosecution is still huddling.
We just got the language in. Jeffress reviews, Now Fitz reviews. We're going to have a little chat. (Walton is not in the courtroom–it is just Team Libby and Team Fitz discussing at this point.) One of the Defense associates ran over to join the huddle, and Libby tried to walk over there, but got headed off. someone stopped him to occupy him with a chat.
10:49 am ET
Jeffress chatting up Libby, Libby covering his mouth with his hand intently. Wells reading his blackberry and chewing gum.
Prosecution huddling over something.
Status still the same–Wells blackberrying, Prosecution huddling, Zeidenberg has joined in.
10:38 am ET
Libby and Jeffress still chatting. Libby shifting uncomfortably. Jeffess looks calming.
Now Libby's laughing with one of the Associates.
I can see David Corn gesticulating wildly holding forth with other journalists in the court room.
Now Jeffress has joined the laughing Libby. Wells still blackberrying (hey Ted! You reading along??–waves). And the prosecution is still huddling.
We just got the language in. Jeffress reviews, Now Fitz reviews. We're going to have a little chat. (Walton is not in the courtroom–it is just Team Libby and Team Fitz discussing at this point.) One of the Defense associates ran over to join the huddle, and Libby tried to walk over there, but got headed off. someone stopped him to occupy him with a chat.
10:49 am ET
Well, Defense must have been happy. Wells is back to his blackberry. Prosecution seems to be out of their huddle. We seem to bewaiting for Walton.
Walton in.
Fitz: Thank you for your indulgence. Where it now says, I do not understand what you're asking me, we'd change it to "I do not understand what you mean by humanly possible." If they said not to a scientific certainly. If we don't tell the jury what's unclear, we have little chance to have them clarify such that we ca understand. We should clue the jury into where the ambiguity is.
Jeffress: I think this is going to be absolutely clear to the jury. You've said I don't understand what you mean. In a way it's nitpicking for the govt to want to clarify this. We think this is perfectly clear to the jury and good to go as it is.
Walton: I'll make the suggested change.
We still haven't adjourned. Don't know whether we're going to send this to the jury or whether we're waiting for their answer. Fitz is now discussing something with the Defense.
10:55 am ET
Walton in.
Fitz: Thank you for your indulgence. Where it now says, I do not understand what you're asking me, we'd change it to "I do not understand what you mean by humanly possible." If they said not to a scientific certainly. If we don't tell the jury what's unclear, we have little chance to have them clarify such that we ca understand. We should clue the jury into where the ambiguity is.
Jeffress: I think this is going to be absolutely clear to the jury. You've said I don't understand what you mean. In a way it's nitpicking for the govt to want to clarify this. We think this is perfectly clear to the jury and good to go as it is.
Walton: I'll make the suggested change.
We still haven't adjourned. Don't know whether we're going to send this to the jury or whether we're waiting for their answer. Fitz is now discussing something with the Defense.
10:55 am ET
Okay, we got new language back. Debra did a quick review. Jeffress up. Wells reviewing it.
I think we've sent it to the jury now, the media just got up and left.
We're going to put up Christy's long awaited Walton post. See you shortly.
I think we've sent it to the jury now, the media just got up and left.
We're going to put up Christy's long awaited Walton post. See you shortly.
No comments:
Post a Comment