Rove: Let Me Tell You About A Jury I Served On

[ThomWV]

Several years ago I served on the jury at a trial in which a man was accused of over twenty counts of having sex with his two young daughters. This had taken place over the course of about 10 years. Depending on the age of each of the children at the time slightly different charges were levied (rape, incest, sex with a minor, something about a 4-year age difference that I no longer remember), but over 20 in total. The good fellow at trial even had a child by his youngest daughter, and she was good enough to bring the little one to court with her.

The Prosecutor had given us the story of years-long abuse by a father who in his incredible ignorance saw his daughters as an extension of his wife, put on earth to pleasure and service him. His wife was essentially worn out according to him (and she certainly appeared to be by my reckoning) and it was time for the girls to step up the the plate. When the older daughter grew up and married some idiot (he testified, believe me he was an idiot) at 17 the father just moved on to the next youngest, who was about 13 at the time if I recall correctly. The defense for this alleged behavior was that no one had actually seen them having sex and that no event could be tied to any specific date. The defense attorney was correct, or very nearly so. One described event was pegged in time close enough.

After three days of testimony the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney gave their closing arguments, the Judge read our charge, and off we went to the back room. Because I had been blessed with the good fortune to have been called to jury duty and had served on previous occasions, and none of my fellow panelists had, I was elected as Foreman of the Jury. I would take charge of the conduct our deliberations.

We settled down quickly and to begin our deliberations I asked the simple question, 'is there anyone here who does not think the guy out there is guilty as sin of all of it?' All but one guy chimed in that they did indeed think he had done everything charged and quite likely much much more too. The one guy who didn't agree completely simply said that it looked like one of the offenses was physically impossible to have been committed. I had lingering doubts about one of them myself and so I asked him to elaborate. It was just a matter of the timing being off. He explained the situation well and we all agreed that maybe he fellow at trial was working in Virginia about the time he was supposed to have been having sex with his 13-year old daughter back in West Virginia. OK, we'd give him that one. We came back with guilty verdicts on over 20 counts of various crimes but that one little not guilty tacked on the end. I do not know how the sentencing went but I would guess they guy is still in Jail.

So, what has this got to do with Karl Rove? Just this, if it ever gets to a jury don't worry too much about if Karl exposed Joe Wilson's wife by name or by reference to her relationship to him. The jury will not split that hair when the crime is so great, they will know what was intended. There is a whole lot of common sense in a common man or woman.

[Wickerman]

1. nice post

and I agree. I served on a jury some years ago that involved drug trafficking and an array of charges. It was clear he was guilty as could be of all but one charge. While that initial doubt was a sticking point we eventually got it on track and focused ont he other charges and sent a heroin dealer packing.

Should Rove go to trial I am hoping Rove will see some time in a similar prison, not a country club.

[tk2kewl]

2. As long as he doesn't get the trial moved to California.

[autorank]

3. I agree. The prosecutor drives the jury deliberations by presenting a ...

...good case. People like Jackson and OJ walk because of incredibly stupid prosecutors, incapable of seeing the need for a professional approach.

I'm sure that any jury in DC, VA, MD (the likely locations of a trial) will do it's job. Courts in this area are known for moving things along. Nobody should think that there will be any Judge Ito around to screw things up...no all day opening statements, no debates over minute issues.

This is Federal court, no fooling around, no grand standing, and lots of focus. I would not want to be KR.

[madrchsod]

4. he did face a jury- grand jury and it`s up to them to

what charges to bring against rove and others. i`ve faced a grand jury before-no lawyer and i had to answer every question. it will be interesting what these people bring back for an indictment against the actors in this play.

[Karmakaze]

5. If the jury follows the law..

the fact that he didnt "name" her will have NO BEARING on the verdict:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent"
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

"Wilson's wife" is MORE than enough information to be considered "identifying" and ANYONE can see that. After all, if Rove HADN'T identified her, then he would have had to say "A CIA agent sent Wilson to Niger", which would have been NO STORY AT ALL!