The Daily Background

It’s day 7.

The conventional wisdom with trials like the Libby trial is that the longer jury deliberations continue, the better it is for the defendant. The reasoning behind this is that long jury deliberations signal that the prosecution’s charges aren’t “slam dunks,” there’s doubt among some jury members, and the jury is having difficulty reaching a verdict and may eventually give up and become a “hung jury.”

Like I said, that’s the conventional wisdom. Here’s why I don’t buy it in this case.

1. The Libby trial is complicated. Very complicated. And there was some intense, sometimes-confusing testimony being given, with a lot of emphasis centered around conflicting timelines of events (i.e. when did Libby learn what he learned, and when did he tell who he told?). This is tricky stuff, and there’s a lot of evidence for the jury to digest. Every sign that we’ve gotten from the jury so far, such as asking for materials to create a timeline chart, indicates that they’re taking their time and doing a comprehensive study of the evidence in a very meticulous manner.

2. Absence of internal conflict. Nothing that has happened so far indicates that there is internal conflict or disagreement among jurors. Everyone in the deliberations room right now participated in the cute little stunt they pulled when they all wore red shirts with white hearts on them for Valentine’s Day (evidence, I think, that at least one of them has read John Grisham’s novel “The Runaway Jury” in which the jury pulls little stunts like this). There’s no evidence of internal rifts or of people not getting along, or fighting over evidence. They had a bit of minor confusion over one of the counts on Tuesday, but it was resolved internally by Wednesday without Judge Walton’s help or interference.

3. No quick verdict. Some suggest that because there wasn’t a quick verdict in this case, it means the prosecution didn’t have the slam-dunk case against Libby that they thought they had. The lack of a quick verdict doesn’t so much mean that the prosecution hasn’t presented compelling evidence and testimony, but rather that they presented a lot of thought-provoking evidence and testimony that the jury is taking their time to consider. Remember that the prosecution has the burden of proof in this case. If the prosecution had presented a non-compelling or non-thought-provoking case, Libby would have been given an easy acquittal by now.

4. The more time for evidence examination, the more evidence will be examined. This one might seem overly-simple, but it’s true. The more time that the jury spends going over the evidence and testimony, the more time that evidence and testimony will sink in. The defense was much shorter than the prosecution, and relied more on appealing emotionally to the jurors. They talked about what a good man Libby is, etc etc etc. And they also tried to bring in things that weren’t directly related to the case. The prosecution on the other hand, offered a mountain of solid evidence and testimony to back up their charges. The more time the jury has to look at both sets of arguments, the more they will separate like oil and water as far as substance is concerned.

Filed under: Plame Leak, Z-TDB Blog