Did Libby's Lawyers Botch His Case?

The jury's been locked away for eight days now, popping their heads out to make unsuccessful requests for dictionaries and even losing one of their number to the gaping jaws of "media exposure." In the meantime, CNN reports that presiding judge Reggie Walton has released a memorandum opinion clarifying for the record that he feels the defense has acted to mislead both himself and prosecutors. Specifically, he charges the Libby lawyers with fostering the idea that their client would take the stand during months of closed-door court hearings, and notes that this presumption figured strongly into his decisions to admit or deny classified material throughout the trial. The judge also suggests that Libby's team could have upped its chances of acquittal had it called Vice President Dick Cheney to the stand.

Click for more

CIA Leak Case Turned Over to Jury

WASHINGTON (AP) - Jurors began deliberating Wednesday in the perjury and obstruction trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is charged with lying and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

Jurors heard about an hour of legal instructions from U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Wednesday morning before beginning deliberations shortly before 11:30 a.m. They heard a full day of closing arguments Tuesday after a monthlong trial.

The jury of eight women and four men must be unanimous before returning a verdict on the five charges against Libby. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted, though he'd likely get far less under federal sentencing guidelines.

Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who emerged in mid-2003 as an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says Libby learned about Plame from Cheney and other officials in June 2003 and relayed it to reporters.

Click for more

In Closing Pleas, Clashing Views on Libby’s Role

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — Defense lawyers and prosecutors in the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. made their final summations on Tuesday, offering the jury two starkly different ways to evaluate the evidence presented over the last few weeks.

In their closing statements, the prosecutors presented a detailed and businesslike summing up of their case that Mr. Libby willfully lied to both a grand jury and F.B.I. agents investigating the leak in the summer of 2003 of the identity of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson.

Theodore V. Wells Jr., Mr. Libby’s chief defense lawyer, countered with an intensely emotional defense ending in a choked sob. He argued that Mr. Libby’s testimony to the grand jury and his interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have contained inaccuracies but that they were the result of innocent memory lapses explained by his pressing schedule of national security issues.

Click for more

Libby's 'conspiracy theory' never took root in court

The "conspiracy theory" hinted at by former White House aide I. Lewis Libby's lawyers at the start of his trial "never really took root in court," notes an article in Friday's L.A. Times.

"In his opening statement three weeks ago in the federal perjury trial of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, defense lawyer Theodore V. Wells Jr. dropped a bombshell," Richard B. Schmitt writes. "In dramatic tones, Wells declared that Libby had been the victim of a White House conspiracy to make Libby the fall guy for the CIA leak scandal."

Schmitt reports that "when the jury begins deliberating the fate of the former vice presidential aide next week, it will have seen virtually no evidence to back up the provocative claim."

"The difference between what Wells promised and delivered, and how it will play with the 12-member panel, is just one of the wild cards as the trial winds up," Schmitt continues.

"Endelivered promises" by defense attorneys may sometimes "backfire," because, as one former US Attorney tells the L.A. Times, it can potentially provide "the government an opportunity during closing arguments to cast doubt on the entire defense case."

Click