Site Meter

In Defense of the Scooter Libby Jury

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Anne Reed says:

    A really insightful post. All the speculation today on what the note must mean is fascinating, but you surely have it right that at the very least it means they are working hard to get it right, and that they don’t agree. The phrase “humanly possible” is especially interesting, because juries increasingly expect prosecutors to provide scientific proof. After TalkLeft posted what looks like the corresponding segment of Ted Wells’s closing, I posted today at Deliberations (http://jurylaw.typepad.com) about the striking “CSI Effect” tone of the jury’s note.

  2. CBH says:

    This is a fantastic post.

    I’m surprised to see that commenters are deriding a jury for taking its responsibility seriously.

    I’m also surprised to see a former prosecutor equating the question “what is reasonable doubt?” with “why is the sky blue?” The reasonable doubt standard has *some* meaning, and I think it is great that this jury isn’t assuming that they know what that meaning is. After all, a good portion of the first year of law school is devoted to discussing what the term “reasonable” means . . .