Libby Folds Cards, Drops Appeal
* I’ve spent much of my career working on behalf of the American people and for the safety of our citizens. I have conducted my responsibilities honorably and truthfully, including with respect to this investigation. I am confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated - Scooter Libby (October 28, 2005)
* Mr. Libby has pled not guilty to each and every count in the indictment. In pleading not guilty, he has declared to the world that he is innocent. He has declared that he intends to fight the charges in the indictment and he has declared that he wants to clear his good name and he wants a jury trial. We do not intend to try this case in the press. Mr. Libby intends to clear his good name by using the judicial process - Theodore Wells (November 4, 2005)
* We intend to file a motion for a new trial and, if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction, and we have every confidence that ultimately Mr. Libby will be vindicated - Theodore Wells (March 7, 2007)
* Right now, Scooter Libby and his attorneys have made clear that they're going to try to get a retrial and if they don't get that, they're going to get an appeal - Tony Snow (March 7, 2007)
* Mr. Libby has made the decision to discontinue his appeal in recognition that success on the appeal would lead only to a retrial - Theodore Wells (December 10, 2007)
Today, Scooter Libby's lawyer, Theodore Wells, has announced that Libby will drop the appeal of his conviction (see Washington Post story here). It is just the latest in an odd line of behaviors which belie deep friction between adamant public declarations of innocence and actions which appear to be premised on the assumption of failure, if not actual guilt.
President Bush, for example, could have easily spared Libby the embarrassment of prison without granting a commutation of sentence - which would, of course, be constantly confused with a pardon. If Bush felt the original sentence was too harsh, and had any degree of confidence in Libby's innocence (and appeal), he could have simply delayed the execution of the sentence until after the appeal (with a respite or reprieve - see my commentary here). Libby's sentence would not have been modified in any significant way, only delayed. Instead, Bush granted the commutation of the prison sentence on the front end, before the appeal could run its course. It is easy enough to speculate that the decision was, at least in part, based on the sense that the appeal was going nowhere. So, no need to delay the inevitable.
Likewise, Libby turned in his $250,000 fine (just after the commutation of sentence). If he and his lawyers were confident of the strength of the appeal, why pay the fine in its entirety? Why not challenge Judge Walton's demand that the fine (and costs) be submitted "immediately?" Libby and his lawyer were surely aware of Supreme Court precedent which dictates that any such money could not be returned. The behavior, again, seemed to suggest something less than full confidence in the appeal.
Today, Libby's lawyer declares, "We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence." But the appeal has been dropped. Why? An official statement mentions time, costs, stress, etc., which are all truly reasonable considerations for the average person (or what Marc Galanter calls "one-shotters"). But no one could possibly have been more aware of the laborious nature of appeals than Libby, who is widely considered an excellent lawyer. Time, costs and stress were all in the mix when the appeal was filed. They did not suddenly appear, in December. As for a new trial ... wasn't that was the explicit goal from the beginning?
For other links related to this story: USA Today , CNN
* Mr. Libby has pled not guilty to each and every count in the indictment. In pleading not guilty, he has declared to the world that he is innocent. He has declared that he intends to fight the charges in the indictment and he has declared that he wants to clear his good name and he wants a jury trial. We do not intend to try this case in the press. Mr. Libby intends to clear his good name by using the judicial process - Theodore Wells (November 4, 2005)
* We intend to file a motion for a new trial and, if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction, and we have every confidence that ultimately Mr. Libby will be vindicated - Theodore Wells (March 7, 2007)
* Right now, Scooter Libby and his attorneys have made clear that they're going to try to get a retrial and if they don't get that, they're going to get an appeal - Tony Snow (March 7, 2007)
* Mr. Libby has made the decision to discontinue his appeal in recognition that success on the appeal would lead only to a retrial - Theodore Wells (December 10, 2007)
Today, Scooter Libby's lawyer, Theodore Wells, has announced that Libby will drop the appeal of his conviction (see Washington Post story here). It is just the latest in an odd line of behaviors which belie deep friction between adamant public declarations of innocence and actions which appear to be premised on the assumption of failure, if not actual guilt.
President Bush, for example, could have easily spared Libby the embarrassment of prison without granting a commutation of sentence - which would, of course, be constantly confused with a pardon. If Bush felt the original sentence was too harsh, and had any degree of confidence in Libby's innocence (and appeal), he could have simply delayed the execution of the sentence until after the appeal (with a respite or reprieve - see my commentary here). Libby's sentence would not have been modified in any significant way, only delayed. Instead, Bush granted the commutation of the prison sentence on the front end, before the appeal could run its course. It is easy enough to speculate that the decision was, at least in part, based on the sense that the appeal was going nowhere. So, no need to delay the inevitable.
Likewise, Libby turned in his $250,000 fine (just after the commutation of sentence). If he and his lawyers were confident of the strength of the appeal, why pay the fine in its entirety? Why not challenge Judge Walton's demand that the fine (and costs) be submitted "immediately?" Libby and his lawyer were surely aware of Supreme Court precedent which dictates that any such money could not be returned. The behavior, again, seemed to suggest something less than full confidence in the appeal.
Today, Libby's lawyer declares, "We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby's innocence." But the appeal has been dropped. Why? An official statement mentions time, costs, stress, etc., which are all truly reasonable considerations for the average person (or what Marc Galanter calls "one-shotters"). But no one could possibly have been more aware of the laborious nature of appeals than Libby, who is widely considered an excellent lawyer. Time, costs and stress were all in the mix when the appeal was filed. They did not suddenly appear, in December. As for a new trial ... wasn't that was the explicit goal from the beginning?
For other links related to this story: USA Today , CNN
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 9:48 AM
<< Home