Hitch, you are absolutely on the mark about the absurdity of the Libby trial. The man was convicted of obstructing the investigation of a non-crime. The perjury charge always struck me as rather weak; the evidence seemed capable of several reasonable constructions consistent with innocence.

But whatever D.C. attorney told you that Libby may win his appeal is nuts. The challenge to Fitzgerald's jurisdiction will survive constitutional scrutiny, and appellate courts give tremendous discretion to the trial judge's decisions regarding who and who doesn't testify. It should be noted that Libby's decision not to testify (a crucial error in hindsight) could fairly be considered by the judge in choosing to disallow a so-called memory expert, without it being a punishment for Libby's invoking his 5th Amendment right not to be a witness. Without Libby testifying about whether he remembered the Russert conversation and about why he may have forgotten details, then the memory expert may not have been relevant.

As far as the trial judge's infantile remarks about academics filing their briefs, that will certainly be beyond the scope of appellate review, and no Circuit Court of Appeals is going to reverse this case over such a silly issue as extrajudicial sarcasm.