Libby
I became interested in the Libby trial about the time the case was given to the jury. I started reading previously published articles as the days in deliberation grew. The thing that began to dawn on me is that these high profile prosecutions often seem to create crimes rather than getting to the bottom of their original objectives.
President Clinton was taken to task about lying, so was the case with Martha Stewart and now the same with Libby. The Clinton case was, of course, the most notable because of the excessive time, extraordinary cost and the involvement of a sitting president. I get the sense that the prosecutors grow to think of themselves as more important than the tasks they were given. In all of these cases, the original charges disappeared and were replaced by a crime created during the investigation.
Jury interviews I’ve seen and read about following trials have been somewhat disturbing. From their own admissions, it would seem that the juries tend to go somewhat beyond the evidence when they deliberate. The first press conference following the Libby verdict was no different. Denis Collins referred to:
“…the defense "badgering" Judy Miller may have hurt them as some jurors developed "sympathy" for her. Even though she admitted having a "bad memory," the fact that she had notes counted a lot in her favor, he said. Despite the badgering, some jurors thought Miller was "nice."
He also made reference to the sympathy that the jury had for Libby and that they felt that he was a “fall guy” and so on.
It would seem to me that our justice system may no work very well during these high profile cases. It may be advisable to seek immunity from prosecution of lying before ever offering any information to investigators.
Technorati Tags:Libby, Martha Stewart, high profile prosecution, Clinton
2 comments:
2 comments. First of all, I have noticed that the jurors that talk to the press in high profile cases usually want some way to shed responsibility for what they have done. So they will make "wise" comments like the "fall guy" one, or they will be critical of the attorney who convinced them. I don't buy it. I think that leaving the cloister of the jury room, they feel "under attack" in some way, and just think they have to back pedal a little. In the jury room, they voted unanimously that the prosecution proved every element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. There's no reason to explain beyond that. That's all a jury is asked to do.
Second, you are right about high-profile prosecutors often pursuing these seemingly niggling crimes when they were reaching for something so much higher. But Libby really did commit these crimes. He didn't have to, but he did. Al Capone really did commit tax evasion. And so on.
Jeff Mullen
I largely agree with your comments. Based on the jury’s continuing comments and the recent Novack article* I do have some problems with the honesty of the jury’s conclusions and seriously doubt that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he lied.
Additionally, I think we should consider looking at prosecutorial misconduct. From Novack’s article, it seems that Fitzgerald new early on that there was no case to be pursued. Yet he was given free rain to go on a fishing expedition. This potentially puts all of us in danger.
*"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702045_pf.html"
Post a Comment