Home » What should happen to the Stone verdict because of jury foreman Tomeka Hart’s bias?

Comments

What should happen to the Stone verdict because of jury foreman Tomeka Hart’s bias? — 25 Comments

  1. When does her book come out detailing her heroic efforts to safeguard the public from the menace that is Roger Stone?

  2. while its true that Müllers apostate feld hure Berman Freisler won’t care and was likely happy that Hart was on the jury, her rejection of any retrial will make Stone’s appeal or pardon much easier

  3. I’m pretty sure that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding Federal Rules of Civil Procedures) as well as federal precedent in caselaw gives Judge Jackson very little choice in the matter. As Powerline noted, there are already motions on the docket referencing this very issue.

  4. The ultra-virtuous have been known, on occasion, to put their respective feet deep, deep down their respective throats.

    (But that’s A-OK…because they really are so very virtuous…)

  5. POTUS’ greatest super power isn’t 4D chess or some quantity of “genius” for which he often draws accolades or “charging the ambush”.

    It’s his ability to get his enemies to self-reveal. Every bloody time they stand up from deep cover & shoot the finger & it’s turkey shoot day for President Trump.

    “But all of this would have remained a secret had Hart not outed herself.”

    Exhibit #987…or something.

    And Oh yeah…verdict should be vacated & all charges dropped.

  6. Judge Amy Berman Jackson allowed the seating if (1) a lawyer who had run for Congress in West Tennessee and (2) a quondam patronage employee of a previous (Democratic) administration (who worked in the PR apparat of the Office of Management and Budget, IIUC). If the conventional resolution does not provide for the assignment of the case to a different judge, it’s necessary that the case be quashed tout court.

    It’s amazing how readily some people get prosecuted for ‘lying’ and some skate entirely.

  7. NB, about 20% of the local workforce in the Washington commuter belt is not employed by the federal government in any capacity, much less in a patronage job. Lawyers are abnormally common, but still < 1% of the local workforce. It shouldn't be that difficult to find people who are not lawyers or immersed in Democratic Party politics. They failed to do so twice in seating a 12 man jury. #underperformingtothepointoffraud.

  8. I’m pretty sure that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding Federal Rules of Civil Procedures) as well as federal precedent in caselaw gives Judge Jackson very little choice in the matter. As Powerline noted, there are already motions on the docket referencing this very issue.

    Betcha the b*tch tries every door.

  9. The case should never have been tried in the D.C. circuit- full stop. It was literally impossible for Stone to get a fair jury there.

  10. While I believe Stone’s case never ought to have been brought, he’s charged with making false statements to a Congressional committee, in DC. The Constitution requires cases to be brought where the offenses are committed. Prosecutors are limited (and take advantage of the limitations where possible) in this. I don’t see the choice to bring these charges elsewhere.

  11. Mr. Stone was apparently not well served by his lawyers. In my firm it was standard practice to research the social media of the members of the jury panel.

  12. sdferr,

    The rights in the 6th Amendment belong to the defendant, not the prosecutors. Trials can be and have been moved when it is clear that the defendant can’t get an unbiased jury- the 6th Amendment is no barrier in that case. That clause of the amendment was specifically written to prevent the prosecution from cherry picking the venue, not to prevent the defendant from getting a fair trial.

  13. That’s right, the defense can move to change venue where the prosecution cannot. So they move, both sides make arguments, the judge rules, and then if not changed the motion can be brought back on appeal, right? That’s my understanding anyway.

  14. So Edward, Yancy, or whoever knows and cares to jump in — suppose this trial is washed out and a new trial sought again, wouldn’t a new motion for change of venue be in order, and due to the prejudice now discovered be more likely to be granted? I assume the motion is kosher, or no? Possibly even a different judge to decide it? Is that too a possibility?

  15. ” judgment of an associate of the president ”
    President Trump has denied that Rodger Stone was an associate of his. Why does the media keep calling him one?

  16. What should happen vs. what did happen:

    Judge Jackson held a public phone conference hearing this morning with Stone’s lawyers and the new prosecutors (replacing the 4 resignees), nominally addressing the new Stone team motion for a new trial in light of her determination to continue to a Thursday sentencing decision: should the motion be dealt with first, or can the motion be dealt with after the sentencing?

    She decides to go ahead with sentencing Thursday (“deferring execution of the terms of the sentence pending the outstanding questions about a new trial”), and deal with the new trial motion in writing thereafter.

    (Twt. Thread from Politico reporter): https://mobile.twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1229779289773690882

  17. She wants to sentence first, and then hear the motion for a new trial? Ass-backwards! This foreman would generate an automatic mistrial anywhere I’ve ever heard of. The judge must want to get her ticket punched as a real Trump-hater before she declares a mistrial.

  18. I’m stunned at the news, although I suppose I shouldn’t be. All bets are off when the object of your hate is Donald J. Trump.

  19. Hart is probably only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. Unfortunately, unless the other jurors self-identify as she did, Berman will never allow disclosure of their jury questionnaires. She will also not grant a new trial on this basis. After all, Berman is the source of the problem.

    Stone’s lawyers filed a motion for change of venue pre-trial, arguing that no associate of Trump’s could get a fair trial in DC. How true.

  20. Strelnikov:

    Yes, it’s kind of like Catch-22, isn’t it? The DC courts are prejudiced against Trump, but it’s Judge Amy Berman Jackson (DC US District judge) who has the power to say no, they’re not prejudiced against Trump and the trial won’t be moved.

    Fox guarding henhouse.

  21. Can Stone sue this juror for rigging the trial and wasting all the money and time he poured into a futile defense? Seriously: the government (both prosecutors and court) may also have a cause of action for deception, corruption of the judicial process, etc, and certainly the defendant should have a strong claim.

    Maybe Tameka should do Stone’s time: about 100 months, right?

  22. AdVoc.

    No. Otherwise no one to be a juror.

    Stone’s remedy is a new trial, but this judge has either denied it or will deny it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>