Libby Judge: Valerie Plame Status Irrelevant
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, January 23, 2007 |
Judge Walton has instructed the jury that Valerie Plame’s actual status with the CIA or the degree to which any revelations made by Scooter Libby put her in danger are totally irrelevant to the facts of this case. The only issue is whether the statements he made before the grand jury were factual and his state of mind in making these statements.
This is huge, as it would seem to undermine the defense’s quite reasonable stance that misstatements about something which is not a crime is not in fact perjury, since they would not be material to the case at hand.
Update: Later in the instructions, he was more specific about the definition of “material facts” as related to the perjury charge: Those which have a “natural tendency to influence the exercise of the grand jury’s decision-making process.” It must relate to “important fact” with “capacity to influence or effect” the grand jury. “Not necessary for government to prove that the grand jury was in fact misled.”
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
- Republican Purity and Conservatism
- SNL Obama China Skit
- Journalistic Ethics and Illegally Acquired Documents
- National Debt Hysteria?
- Educating Illegal Immigrants
- Caption Contest
- Nathalie Blanchard Facebook Smile Leaves Her Depressed
- We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident linked with The Hindsight Factor
You're right--that is very important.
Equally important will be whether the judge puts a mens re (intention) requirement in the obstruction section. There is none in the federal law which makes it a plaything for runaway prosecutors but in Arthur Anderson the SCOTUS said intention must be read into the law (too late to save a fine accounting firm, unfortunately).
Interesting point. It might be helpful to remember here that that is exactly why, legally, Clinton did not perjure himself.
This point of law I always thought worth defending.
Comments are Closed
