Text 27209, 118 rader
Skriven 2007-02-14 22:13:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Libby case
==================
A judge talking about a case he is presiding over outside of court with the
press.  $20 against the Clinton jail fund he is a democrat and if Scooter is
found guilty, a mistrial proceeding will occur.

==========================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/washington/14cnd-libby.html?ei=5094&en=b97547
177df9dab7&hp=&ex=1171515600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

February 14, 2007
Libbys Defense Rests Case in C.I.A. Leak Trial

By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14  The lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury
charges rested their case today, but not before suffering a series of defeats
in legal rulings by the presiding judge.

The judge, Reggie B. Walton, expressed in the strongest terms yet that he had
been misled by the defense team about whether Mr. Libby would take the stand in
his own defense.

Judge Walton said he believed all along in the process that Mr. Libby was going
to testify and that his lawyers were now playing games with the process.

He made his remarks out with the jury out of the courtroom as he ruled that the
defense would no longer be able to use some evidence, including something the
jury has already heard: a statement saying that Mr. Libby, as chief of staff
and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, worked long hours,
received daily intelligence briefings and attended many meetings concerning
important matters of national security.

Mr. Libby faces five felony charges that he lied to a grand jury and F.B.I.
agents investigating the leak of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie
Wilson, to reporters in the summer of 2003 .

Mr. Libby denied under oath that he had passed information to reporters about
Ms. Wilson, and his lawyers have put forward as a part of his defense that he
was too preoccupied with the crush of vital national security issues to have
remembered any conversation about Ms. Wilson or her husband, Joseph C. Wilson
IV, a former ambassador.

Judge Walton said his ruling meant that the chief defense lawyer, Theodore V.
Wells Jr., would not be able to make that argument to the jury. Mr. Wells will
be permitted to tell the jury that Mr. Libby had a lot on his plate, Judge
Walton said. But because Mr. Libby is not testifying, Mr. Wells cannot argue
that those issues were of greater importance in Mr. Libbys mind as compared to
the issue of Valerie Plame and Ambassador Wilson.

The identity of Ms. Wilson, who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie
Plame, first became public in July 2003 after The New York Times published an
op-ed article by Mr. Wilson asserting that the White House had distorted
intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

The conclusion of the defense case today means that jurors will hear closing
arguments when they return Tuesday and probably begin deliberating next
Wednesday after instructions from the judge.

Before the 14 jurors departed for a long break this afternoon, they filed into
the courtroom, with all but one wearing bright red T-shirts with a white
valentine heart over their clothes, to the uncertain laughter of many in the
courtroom.

But as one juror, a retired North Carolina schoolteacher, rose to speak aloud,
Judge Walton became visibly anxious that the juror might say something
inappropriate that would threaten the trial. Jurors are not supposed to speak
during court sessions and are supposed to make any concerns known through notes
to the bench.

The juror said that they were wearing the T-shirts to express their fondness
for the judge and the court staff on Valentines Day. He then added, to the
judges growing discomfort, that they were unanimous in this sentiment, but they
would all be independent in judging the evidence.

The one juror who apparently declined to don a T-shirt was a woman who had been
a curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In their presentation over three days that concluded today, defense lawyers
offered a spare and indirect attack on the prosecutions case. In addition to
keeping Mr. Libby off the stand, they also announced that they would not
present Mr. Cheney as a witness. The possibility of Mr. Cheney taking the stand
and undergoing cross-examination was strongly suggested by the Libby team as
well and was greatly anticipated as the first time a sitting vice president
would testify in a criminal trial.

The prosecution, beginning three weeks ago, presented testimony from Mr.
Cheneys former communications director, a senior state department officials and
two C.I.A. officials who said they had told Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson. They
also presented the testimony of two reporters who said Mr. Libby had discussed
Ms. Wilson with them.

The testimony of a third reporter, Tim Russert of NBC News, was a pivotal part
of the prosecution case and defense lawyers tried in vain today to persuade
Judge Walton to have him recalled in order to challenge his credibility.

Judge Walton ruled against Mr. Wells on two motions seeking Mr. Russerts
recall. Mr. Russert, in his testimony, denied that he had told Mr. Libby about
Ms. Wilson as Mr. Libby had claimed.

Mr. Wells argued that Mr. Russert may have been biased in favor of the
government because of an agreement his lawyer reached with prosecutors. Before
Mr. Russert agreed to testify for the government, he challenged the subpoena
from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the chief prosecutor, arguing that to do so would
violate deeply-held principles that a reporter should not discuss his
confidential conversations with investigators.

But at the time Mr. Russert had already discussed his conversation with Mr.
Libby with an F.B.I. agent and Mr. Wells asserted that Mr. Fitzgerald agreed
not to raise that matter because it would have exposed Mr. Russert as a
hypocrite and undercut his television statements that he was standing up for
the First Amendment and reporters rights.

Judge Walton took the unusual step of questioning Mr. Russerts lawyer, Lee
Levine. Mr. Levine said he never discussed with Mr. Russert the agreement with
the prosecutor not to raise the conversation with the F.B.I. agent. Judge
Walton then the issue ruled it was irrelevant to the case.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)