WASHINGTON -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pushed back Thursday against defense attorneys who have been weeding Bush administration critics out of the jury pool in the perjury trial of former White House aide "Scooter" Libby.
"The jury will not be asked to render a verdict on the war or what they think of the war," Fitzgerald said Thursday at the onset of the third day of jury selection.
<snip>
The makeup of the jury pool is a critical pretrial issue. Libby plans to tell jurors that despite what prosecutors say, he didn't lie to investigators. He says he was bogged down by national security issues and simply didn't remember the conversations about Plame correctly.
If jurors come to the trial already skeptical about the credibility of Libby or Cheney, attorneys say they won't get a fair trial.
Walton hopes to have 36 qualified jurors by Thursday afternoon. Attorneys for both sides can then eliminate jurors for any reason until 12 jurors and four alternates are seated.
By Thursday morning, 24 potential jurors were in the pool. Seven administration critics were allowed into the pool Wednesday after they said they could set their political feeling aside.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011800671.htmlfor background please see the
Nation's piece
The second day of the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was again devoted to selecting a jury. The task at hand remains finding eighteen Washington residents (twelve jurors and six alternates) who hold no harsh opinions about the credibility of the Bush administration--particularly that of Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been named by the defense as a possible witness for his former chief of staff. The quickest way off this jury has been to admit one possesses strong doubts about Bush crowd's honesty in selling the case for war in Iraq. Juror No. 1298 said that she liked "to think" she could be "mature enough" to allow her respect for the presumption of innocence to trump her concerns about the Bush administration. But when federal district court Judge Reggie Walton asked if a witness from the Bush administration would have a "strike against them," she replied, "Probably." He responded, "We appreciate you being here." In other words, you can go now. Juror No. 1980 bluntly said, "I cannot believe any statement from the Bush administration." She was told her services would no longer be needed.
. . .
One potential juror who handles information technology business development at Lockheed Martin noted that she respects the commander in chief and Bush's "reasons for going to Iraq." She explained that citizens outside the government are not privy to enough information to second-guess such presidential decision-making. Is that not a prejudice (perhaps an unhealthy one) in favor of Bush administration officials? She also said that she is currently chasing a billion dollars in federal contracts for Lockheed Martin. Might she have an interest in pleasing administration officials? She was not kicked out of the potential juror pool; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ought to take a closer look at her in the next round.
more
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=158370
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
