Are jurors to suspend their intellects?
To the editor:
Did "Scooter" Libby get a fair trial? U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton removed a female juror from the trial because she had seen or read something (in a newspaper?) about Libby's trial and allegedly became tainted. Evidently, Walton has seen or read something also, about the trial, and has become tainted.
Most cognizant residents know that a 12-member jury is more desirable than an 11-member jury in this kind of trial. Walton slyly increased the chance that Libby would be convicted (and he was on March 6).
The woman who was dismissed was a reasonably educated person. Why should judges have the authority to treat cognizant jurors as stooges? It is an insult by the courts that any jury is tainted because they have had innocent contact with outside information.
Are jurors to suspend their intellects during a trial?
What is the remedy for this judicial malfeasance? The jury as a whole should have asked that Walton recuse himself or had him removed for cause.
Barring that, the remaining 11 jurors should have walked out en masse, on the court. As long as there is no criminal intent in a jury, jury independence and power take precedent over judicial meddling, capricious judges and twisted rules.
Disclaimer: All of the above is my opinion, it is not meant to influence, reward or punish any present or future juror.
Charles D. Sullivan