No Easy Answers


Thursday, April 26, 2007

Classification Review Extension [Doc 336]

None of the noted pleadings appears as a "fresh" entry on the docket sheet.


Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 336     Filed 04/16/2007     Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as "Scooter Libby" ) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW The government hereby moves to extend time for completion of the classification review of the remainder of the pleadings filed under seal in this matter. Pursuant to prior orders of the Court dated November 15, 2006, January 17, 2007, and March 1, 2007, the classification reviews of the sealed pleadings in this matter were to be completed by April 15, 2007. As of today, April 16, 2007, the classification review for a significant portion of the sealed pleadings has been completed by the relevant national security agencies, and the redacted versions of those pleadings are being filed with the Court today. The remainder of the sealed pleadings have been reviewed by one national security agency, but another agency's review is still pending. The agencies responsible for completing the review have informed the government that they are unable to complete the review of the remaining pages by today. The government respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for completion of the classification review of the remaining pleadings until May 1, 2007. Respectfully submitted, /s/ PATRICK J. FITZGERALD Special Counsel Office of the United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 353-5300 Dated: April 16, 2007


04/18/2007 [Doc 337] ORDER granting 336 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Classification Review as to I. LEWIS LIBBY (1). Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/17/07. (hsj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007)


Comments:
Is the request reasonable? Any inferences or opinions to add?
 
The request is no big deal, neither is the granting of it. Rather than argue that the nature of the evidence precluded a fair trial (which is the question that the redacted pleadings will illuminate), Libby is in a position to argue that the jury was prejudiced by the near complete exclusion of testimony regarding his preoccupation with the nation's business.
.
The timing of making the pleadings public is irrelevant to the defense, and the nature of the issue on appeal makes the contents of the pleadings interesting only for their own right, and not for their effect on the appeal.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Archives

March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   March 2009   April 2009  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?