McDougal Trial Jurors Seek Clarification of Legal Term

Jurors in the Susan McDougal contempt trial began their deliberations Thursday, cutting quickly to the heart of the defense’s argument for acquittal.

Less than two hours after they were handed the case, jurors sent the judge two notes with detailed questions about legal terms--both focusing on the concept of an “innocent reason” defense.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos saw that as a positive sign for his high-profile client, because a key instruction that the jurors were given Thursday said that an “accident, mistake or other innocent reason” is a legitimate defense for violating a court order, as McDougal is charged with having done.

Seeking to interpret the meaning of the jurors’ notes, Geragos said: “There’s somebody there who understands the argument.” He added: “Nothing that I’ve seen today has been negative for us.”

But prosecutor Mark Barrett declined to read anything into the jurors’ questions. “They’re focusing on what they should be focusing on. That’s all we can ask for.”

Jurors asked for a definition of “innocent reason” and they wanted to know whether, under the law, a court order could be violated both “willfully and voluntarily” and by innocent reason.

But U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr., after consulting with the attorneys from both sides, declined to answer. Instead, he simply referred the jurors to his instructions.

McDougal, 44, is charged with two counts of contempt of court and one count of obstruction of justice for refusing to answer questions from a grand jury investigating the Whitewater matter, first in 1996 and again last year.

McDougal has said that she refused to cooperate because she feared that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s prosecutors wanted her to lie about her business dealings with President Clinton and would charge her with perjury if she did not.

Geragos maintains that McDougal’s concerns about telling the truth amounted to an “innocent reason” for refusing to cooperate, but prosecutors have mocked that argument. They have said that McDougal’s true intentions were to thwart the Whitewater investigation and generate publicity for herself.

Jurors deliberated Thursday for about 6 1/2 hours. They will resume their deliberations this morning, and they already have sent the judge a third note that will be discussed with the attorneys then.

On Wednesday, attorneys wrapped up their cases in the five-week-long trial, trading often-barbed accusations. Prosecutors portrayed McDougal as a manipulative, publicity-hungry woman, while the defense likened Starr’s operation to the Third Reich.