Final arguments heard in Libby trial

[JURIST] Lawyers made their final arguments in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense website; JURIST news archive] Tuesday, with the defense arguing that Libby was a scapegoat for presidential aide Karl Rove's disclosures. In its final remarks, the prosecution argued that Libby was merely trying to a cover up a potentially illegal intelligence leak. In response, the defense said the government's witnesses were not credible and to accept the testimony of Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert [profile] as truth "would just be fundamentally unfair."

Libby's defense team rested [JURIST report] last week, one week after the prosecution finished presenting [JURIST report] its evidence against Libby. Also last week, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak testified [JURIST report] that Libby did not leak Plame's identity to him. It was Novak's July 2003 column that publicly outed Plame, thus igniting the CIA leak scandal [JURIST news archive]. Libby is not charged with leaking Plame's identity, but instead faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges [indictment, PDF; JURIST report] in connection with the investigation into the leak. The Los Angeles Times has more.



 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.