No Easy Answers

The referenced attachment of samples is about 140 pages in length. I haven't digested the contents for purposes of preparing a summary, but this defense action is essential to support the argument that Libby did not obtain an impartial jury. Building that case will take time.

• Exhibit A - Fitzgerald's press conference of October 28, 2005
  
• Exhibit B - Transcript of July 14, 2006 National Press Club - Wilson announces civil suit against VP Cheney and others
• Exhibit C - Transcript of July 17, 2006 Dianne Rhem Radio Show (American University Radio - WAMO 88.5 FM) Wilson and Toensing as guests
• Exhibit D - Transcript of PBS Frontline Program, "The Dark Side"
• Exhibit E - ABC News February 9, 2006 Report, "Libby: White House 'Superiors' OK'd Leaks"
• Exhibit F - Transcript of April 6, 2006 CNN Program, "Your World Today"
• Exhibit G - April 7, 2006 Washington Post page A09 story, "Testimony Adds New Element to Probe of CIA Leak"
• Exhibit H - April 9, 2006 Washington Post front page story, "A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic"
• Exhibit I - April 17, 2006 Newsweek article, "Leaker in Chief? Scooter Libby and George Bush"
• Exhibit J - April 13, 2006 Washington Post page A04 story, "Libby Wasn't Ordered to Leak Name, Papers Say"
• Exhibit K - January 12, 2007 Murray Waas article (online exclusive), "CIA Leak Probe, Inside the Grand Jury"
• Exhibit L - January 14, 2007 New York Times article, "Trial Is Set to Begin for Former Cheney Adviser"

Well, after digesting the 140 pages, some of which is repetitive (the July 14, 2006 National Press Club transcript appears twice), most of the "bulk" of the material represents television programming, not print media. But these are 12 discrete pieces of media presentation that are "of interest" to the defense. Note too, the defense refers to this list as a "sample," not an exhaustive list.

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 246 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 2

RECORD OF PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY

As previously noted by the defense, the pretrial publicity in this case has been significant and in many cases has included inaccurate and inflammatory statements and assertions that are unduly prejudicial to Mr. Libby. Therefore, in connection with the voir dire, the defense will need to ask certain venire members about their exposure to such publicity and probe whether that exposure has affected their ability to impartially judge the facts in this case. Such individualized voir dire is necessary to give the Court an adequate basis for determining whether the venire member will be able to render a verdict based on the evidence adduced at trial, and not incomplete facts and speculation circulating before trial. See United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 434-35 (D.C.Cir. 1974). Attached to this pleading are a sample of instances of publicity about which the defense may want to question jurors.

Dated: January 16, 2007

posted by cboldt  # 1/16/2007 10:15:00 AM