A Travesty

It sounds to me as though the Libby trial jurors were discussing a number of things that had nothing to do with the narrow confines of what they were supposed to be doing: following the judge's instructions on the law to decide whether the prosecution had proven its case.

Something that particularly caught my eye was that in my experience -- I proofread trial transcripts for a living -- jurors are usually told not to speculate about the absence of any witnesses who were not called by the prosecution to testify. So what were they doing speculating on "Where is Rove and all these other guys?"

I'd be curious to know if they were considering and discussing other things regarding the case which may not have been appropriate for the jury to consider.

Update: Andy McCarthy is more sympathetic toward the jury considering Rove's absence, inasmuch as Libby's lawyer said that Libby was a scapegoat for Rove, but nonetheless says, "The juror's remarks may be helpful to Libby down the road... There is a lot in what the juror said for the defense to work with."

Mark Levin thinks "Where's Rove?" indicates the jury was interested in convicting those who weren't charged. He also zeroes in on the point I raised above, saying "The jury instructions had nothing to do with Rove." He says the juror's statement "suggests to me that they weren't solely focused on the evidence."

Victoria Toensing on issues that may be raised in Libby's appeal.