 citizenbfk says: I've read dozens of articles about the question being presented by the jury in the Libby-CIA lead case -- but all they claim to do is 'summarize,' the question. What the heck WAS the actual question. Why can we read that? Why is that not part of the story? Why do we have to always get 'secondhand news.' Since this questions resulted in the judge and more than twenty lawyers thinking about it and discussing it -- with the judge finallly concluding he was sure what it meant! -- well, gosh, wouldn't it be informative to know the actual question, word by word, in quotes. If anybody can provide this info I'd be really grateful. It would give an insight, to me and maybe others, about the complexity of trials, legal issues and legal language, and the routine and yet unusual phenomenon that all these high-priced lawyers and legal Big theory thinkers have to cope with the reality of judgement by regular people. And, I say, the problem is not regular people, but over complex & 2ma Sorry, I don't know it either; but it sounds like a good idea to find out. Sounds like the jury's doing a proper job. I was on a jury once. Serious trial. It was hard to get all 12 of us to agree. One (1) personal didn't want to find the dude guilty. Considering the testimony and evidence against him this was really Hard to Believe. The guy was guilty as sin. And, although we were not suppose to consider it or 'disregard' certain statements...I mean, how do you disregard something someone cries out in courty...well, anyhow, if the guilty wasn't guilty now (and he was), he was sure guilty of the same thing in the past and got away with it. Well...the holdout eventually broke down, broke out in tears and said she couldn't take all the 'hostility,' we were directing towards here. So it was. &, you know, I t... Very interesting. Maybe just getting a vote of 9 out of 10 should be good enough? Or 11 out of 12? You're all under arrest. |
View the Top Clips from March 1, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
