“Gotta love it!”: Major Controversy Erupts Over Undisclosed Alleged Bias Of Foreperson In Stone Trial [Updated]

YouTube Screenshot

There is an interesting new controversy developing around the trial of Roger Stone. This one does not focus on the sentencing of Stone but his trial. New information has emerged that the foreperson of the trial has a long history of highly critical postings against President Donald Trump and his administration. Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart recently went public with her support of the prosecutors who resigned from the case. However, there are now questions of why Hart was allowed on the jury, let alone made the foreperson given her highly critical view of Trump and his associates before being called for jury service. Not only has Hart called Trump supporters like Stone racists but she celebrated a protest that projected profanities on the Trump hotel with the words “Gotta Love It.”

Hart publicly identified herself as the foreperson is offering a full-throated defense of the prosecution against President Trump’s alleged intervention in the case: “I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial,” Hart wrote in the post. “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.” As I discussed in yesterday’s column, it is not clear that there was improper “interference” from Main Justice under the U.S. Attorneys Manual.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to bar witnesses due to their past political associations or viewpoints. This included a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget who admitted to having negative views of Trump and whose husband worked at the Justice Department division. However, she maintained the stand that she did not have strong views about Stone. That was enough for Jackson and one can understand the reluctance to striking jurors in a city filled with politically active people.

However, the social media postings of Hart raise troubling questions as to whether these views were known or disclosed. What is clear is that no defendant associated with Trump would want such a juror sitting in judgment. This included a posting about the Stone case where she retweeted mocking dismissals of objections to Stone’s treatment in a dawn raid. I was one of those raising such concerns. There is of course nothing wrong with holding the opposing view of that issue and Hart did nothing wrong in sitting on the jury absent some allegations of hiding or misrepresenting information.

Hart is a democratic activist who ran for Congress and referred to the President with a hashtag as “klanpresident.” More worrisome is her references directly to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, Bakari Sellers again raising racist associations and stating “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also called Trump supporters like Stone racists and Putin cronies. When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.”

She also, on March 24, 2019, shared a Facebook post calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

These and other postings have thus far been noted by Fox and more conservative sites but not many in the mainstream media. The question is why. What would be the response if an Obama associate was convicted on a jury with a foreperson who was a Republican activist with a long social media record criticizing not just Obama but supporting the prosecution of that associate?

This goes beyond political opposition and raises serious questions of bias, particularly the references to this defendant and his prosecution. It is not clear if the court was aware of these comments, but it would seem to raise disqualifying bias. What concerns me is that a high-profile case of this kind comes with the added burden for the court to assure both sides of a divided nation that the trial was conducted without even the hint of bias or animus from either the court or the jury. The selection of this juror clearly does not meet that burden.

Trump has already latched on to the controversy in tweets raising bias — a possible added rationale to be cited in his possible pardoning of Stone. He has also attacked the judge which, again, is highly inappropriate and entirely unwarranted.

I obviously come to these questions from the perspective of a criminal defense attorney. I would have been shocked if a court dismissed such commentary and required a defendant to be judged by someone who commented on his case before trial. The fact that Hart is also a lawyer would only magnify my concerns over her influence on the jury.

The new information raises a legitimate question for appeal, but the question is whether the district court will address the information. This case is still squarely before Jackson and would warrant a decision from the court. At a minimum, there should be a record for the appellate court in dealing with an obvious defense argument (assuming that the objection was preserved by the defense).

In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “the minimal standards of due process” demand a fair hearing before competent and impartial jurors. See also United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505, 507 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)(“constitutional standard of fairness requires that the criminally accused have ‘a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’”). In cases like Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court has held that statements in the jury room showing racial bias justifies reversal. The line is more blurry on political bias, but few cases involve a juror who previously discussed the defendant and his case.

What is missing is a transcript or record from the voir dire and what was asked and any objections made in the court. Under Rule 24, the government has six peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have ten peremptory challenges for crimes punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.

189 thoughts on ““Gotta love it!”: Major Controversy Erupts Over Undisclosed Alleged Bias Of Foreperson In Stone Trial [Updated]”

  1. The dirty little secret that I fear will not be addressed is that Stone is guilty under the letter of the law.

    So in the few “trial” cases where you have a jury anymore, the jury is already cornered as to what it can do.

    1. “…the jury is already cornered as to what it can do.”

      – SteveJ

      “You Commit Three Felonies a Day”

      Laws have become too vague and the concept of intent has disappeared.

      – L. Gordon Crovitz

      “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

      – Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s Head of Secret Police

      Was Orenthal James Simpson “…guilty under the letter of the law?”

      Was the Simpson jury “…cornered as to what it can do?”

      The last time I checked, it was very naughty to violently disarticulate two human beings with a military tactical combat knife.

      The “jury” of 9 blacks, 2 Hispanics and 1 Caucasian female set the black O.J. Simpson free. Well duuuuuh!!!

      Casey Anthony murdered her daughter and was found not guilty by the jury. No other party has ever been suspected or charged. The judge was

      quoted as saying that Casey “accidentally” killed her daughter through the improper administration of chloroform (that judge should have been

      immediately impeached and imprisoned).

      1. The Stone case and many others don’t involve not guilty verdicts with laws most people believe to be clearly thought out and not draconian.

        The Stone case involved a guilty verdict for felonies that were not well written and should not be tolerated.

        The Stone case and many others are therefore more of a threat to the Republic and our fellow citizens than the guilty person who goes free.

        1. I very much appreciate your righteous indignation over existential threats. How about the following examples? Obama has conducted a silent coup against a constitutional election. Hillary Clinton perpetrated a global pay-to-play scheme abusing the power of her status as the wife of a previous president and as Secretary of State under the criminal Obama who, incidentally, will NEVER be eligible for the office of president being, clearly, NOT a “natural born citizen,” the definition of which the Founders found and kept handy in the Law of Nations, 1758, and controverting the spirit of that fundamental law which is to keep foreign influence far afield from the commander-in-chief.

          To wit,

          To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

          From John Jay

          New York 25 July 1787

          Dear Sir

          I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

          Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

          Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

          which sailed Yesterday.

          Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

          provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

          administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

          of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

          Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

          Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

          I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

          John Jay

  2. I would like to know more about CNN being on the scene when the Swat team stormed Stone’s property to arrest him before dawn? Who notified them? Looks like the feds working via their media cronies to bias the jury pool and the American public. This should not be tolerated!

    And why is it rarely mentioned that Comey and Brennan, both, voted for a communist in the past?

    RE Roger Stone’s situation: People who been targeted by fed bureaucrats understand how their ultimate goal is ruination- reputation, financial etc., and legally. This strategy seems to apply across the board – even to low level matters. With impunity. The law doesn’t matter to them.

  3. The republicans have made it very clear THIS president is above the law. The chosen one and stable genius is free to do what he want when he wants.

        1. i dont know but i have been posting his defense fund link here for a couple years now.

          maybe he needs to fire the first team and get new ones


          I enjoyed many hours of stone on youtube. i think he’s very insightful and enjoy listening to a colorful figure speak. and they hardly get more colorful than roger stone. Nydia is his wife’s name. she’s a pretty lady, named after the blind girl of Pompeii, see the beautiful statute by Randolph Rogers


          1. I’m sure she’s fun. And Stone is indeed colorful with quite the track record of wild this’ and that’s. My sense from way in the cheap seats is he’s someone who tried to impress people here in a way that’s going to leave him holding the bag in a way unintended from the outset.

            1. He has a long history in politics, much hated, and still alive

              his candor is exceptional. i only like to waste my time listening to candid opinions not phonies and fakes. there is very little phony about roger, sincerity is of increasing value these days

              1. But when I coached basketball I used to have my pic taken with Coach K all the time. Doesn’t really mean nuthin’.

                1. I don’t know about that. Before they fired one of the greatest con-artists of American history, Morris Dees, I used to read the SPLC slander rag often. They loved “Guilt by association.” Sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander

                  but you can study up on it on your own and draw your own conclusions.


                  Tomeka Hart said Trump supporters were racists. Stone was a foremost Trump supporter, so she would have certainly been so biased against him. IMO this is a no brainer. But feel free to speculate as you like.

      1. Kurtz: how do you know that this woman didn’t vote based on the evidence and the judge’s instructions versus her biases? Every human being has biases, but those serving on a jury must agree that they can set them aside and decide the case based on the evidence presented and the judge’s instructions on the law. Are you trying to say Stone didn’t lie to Congress or threaten to kill a witness? If the verdict was the product of bias, then why wasn’t there a hung jury? The 11 other jurors didn’t feel he was innocent.

        What questions were asked at voir dire? Do you know? Did this woman lie? Do you know?

        You are a perfect example of a true Fox/Trump disciple. Any half-baked, deceitful argument to excuse Trump or a crony you will believe. You claim to be an attorney, and you should know better..

        1. Thank you for affirming my Trump Loyalty. Loyalty is my honor.

          As for being a lawyer, I go to court often but not for voir dire. But even out of my wheelhouse,I see a juror that should have easily been struck for cause, and why not? I am not informed as to the legitimate questions you ask about voir dire. I would like to love to see the transcript. Let us know if you find it please.

          If she lied at voir dire, there is miscarriage of justice. Easy call for a new trial.

          If she was not asked proper questions, there may at least be ineffective assistance of counsel.

          This is an egregiously biased juror, just look at the waybackmachine stuff from twitter. You will reveal your own extreme bias if you cant admit what’s clear and obvious


        2. She testified she had no specific recollection of Roger Stone even though she had numerous social media postings about the Russia investigation and even mocked Roger Stone’s arrest.

          1. then she lied, and it is an open and shut question. mistrial and he will receive a new trial.

            the sentencing complaints about trump are now moot

            the more people denounce Trump over his tweets about this, the better Trump looks

            the vendetta against Trump is failing badly

    1. Fishy, If no one is above the law, then what say you about Hillary Clinton being exonerated by one corrupt FBI chief named James Comey? He laid out the case and then said we won’t bring charges, even though there is plenty to charge her with, even though his job was to ‘investigate’ not make unilateral ‘prosecutorial’ decisions. How do you explain it? And that’s just one. We’ll get to McCabe and the rest of the corrupt coup cabal after you respond to the Hillary question. You know, since you like to keep saying “no one is above the law.” Turn off BSNBC Fishy, it is hurting your brain.

      1. Comey said there was no evidence of criminal intent, which is a requirement that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. She’s been investigated over and over and over again: Benghazi, the e-mail matter. She has committed no crime, other than being Trump’s opponent in 2016 who received more popular votes than he did.

        McCabe didn’t commit any crimes, either, but since the fat orange slob runs the DOJ now, who knows what’s to come. We now have a lying narcissist in the White House who weaponizes the DOJ and the U.S. budget to do his political bidding, plus an “Attorney General” who is nothing but a puppet. The ship of state is in dangerous waters now, but what’s most concerning is people like you, Anonymous, who support this conduct and don’t see it as the existential threat that it is.

        1. I know this is a frightful aside, but I can’t look at Barr and not think of the Ned Beatty character in Deliverance.

          1. Ned Beatty was a fine actor and it’s unfortunate that people seem to only remember one role. He was actually a very prolific actor over many decades, and won many awards for his work.


            It’s the sign of a true professional working actor that he will take roles that cast him in an unflattering light. Just like lawyers who take difficult cases or unpopular defendants, this is worthy of professional respect.

            People who do the dirty work are often unappreciated. Like the center on a football team, they’re indispensable to success.

            Which reminds me. Funeral homes do a difficult job which is necessary for the good of society. I find it remarkable that the mainstream media has not taken any attention of the ample exposes and reports exposing the fact that the 49 some Wuhan funeral homes have been working at maximum capacity for weeks now which implies a death toll probably 100 times more than what the Chinese government is reporting.

            1. Agreed on every point, Kurtz. Absolutely right about Ned Beatty. Saw him doing some summer stock well after the point he didn’t need to anymore and he was awesome.

              And, wow, truly gruesome the havoc being wreaked by the C virus. Way beyond estimates. Here’s hoping for a plateau real soon.

              1. it may have peaked. at least in Hubei. who knows why but that was part of the taped funeral home conversations I listened to yesterday.

                but the reporting by government is wildly understated. I speculate, that part of this is a lack of testing kits, part of that is asymptomatic carriers, part of that is all the corpses who are just getting processed without testing cause of death, who died at home

                and I’m afraid that another possible part is the shifty, cunning, deceitful way that the CPC sometimes fakes important statistics like public health things, to cover their own sense of shame over local incompetence!

                this is Xi’s moment to either bring about a new era of transparency in public health matters, or continue the failed policy of lying which has been the habit of the CPC in the past! It’s critical for not only the health of Chinese people but the entire world, that Xi exercises all the massive power of the state and party which he leads, in the interests of public health!

                disease outbreaks aren’t just contained by locking people up and squelching bad news.

                they’re contained by a rapid systemic response from public health authorities, who advise the people truthfully and transparently., who use public health assets in the best interests of the public. this is the proper protocol no matter where nor what form of government!

                not only should the CDC receive adequate funding, but all the local health departments on down to the smallest.

                assuming this one was not engineered, one day they could be engineered, it’s a matter of time before newfound technologies like CRISPR become misused. Public health competence, vigilance, transparency, and adequate funding are a matter of life and death

                1. public health is an integral, core component of “national security”
                  so there is a balance to be struck between the usual secrecy mentality of national security work, and the proven methods of sound public health which operate on truthful reporting and transparency.

                  now back on the ground: today i was at the drugstore. everything was in stock, except for masks. what does this tell you? a lot of things could be inferred from it, and none of them good

                  I’ll say this much for the officials in China. food prices are through the roof, but at least resupply into big cities is happening, and in general, people are not starving.


                2. Kurtz, the number of cases is climbing but the death rate is falling probably in part because more people that are less ill are being detected and they are less likely to die. It’s a 14 day quarantine so we should be able to graph the number of cases and make predictions though I haven’t seen any such graphs.

        2. Natacha – if “McCabe didn’t comit any crimes” then why was he fired from the FBI and why did federal prosecutors recommend seeking criminal charges against him? I’ll tell you why, because McCabe, the number two guy in command at the FBI, leaked about a federal investigation and then lied about it. That’s why.

          1. McCabe, the number two guy in command at the FBI, leaked about a federal investigation and then lied about it

            Yes it was one of several leaks that helped Trump get elected in 2016.

            The FBI repeatedly reminded voters that Clinton was the subject of FBI criminal investigations while at the same time kept quiet about investigations of Trump.

        3. Natacha — was it James Comey’s job to determine whether or not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton? No, it was not. And no, proving “intent” is not part of the statute.

        4. Natacha — you ARE correct though, when you suggest that Trump’s real ‘crime’ was beating Hillary fair and square in the election. And we all know that Roger Stone’s real ‘crime’ was helping Donald Trump get elected. But Hillary and her campaign didn’t do anything wrong. Not a thing. Right? Of course not.

            1. We know you do Snarky Anonymous. Why do you follow me around all day long and sh*t post like this Anonymous? Would you like to add something more than snark to the discussion? Of course not. But you keep doing you, Snarky Anon.

                1. Let’s repeat something of substance then, shall we?

                  Natacha – if “McCabe didn’t comit any crimes” then why was he fired from the FBI and why did federal prosecutors recommend seeking criminal charges against him? I’ll tell you why, because McCabe, the number two guy in command at the FBI, leaked about a federal investigation and then lied about it. That’s why.

              1. No one is following you around Anon @ 2:19. You might want to get some help, though, if you believe that someone is. (Who in the hell is ‘Snarky Anon’? I think you’re imagining things.)

      2. Fishy, If no one is above the law, then what say you about Hillary Clinton being exonerated by one corrupt FBI chief named James Comey? He laid out the case and then said we won’t bring charges,
        An “exoneration” would have been to say nothing. That is the legal and proper way to end an investigation where nothing to charge is found. Instead Comey chose to publicly slander Clinton and help Trump get reelected.
        And then as if that was not bad enough he repeated the same unprofessional and unethical process of damaging Clinton’s reputation just before the election.

        But for some reason we are asked to believe that the FBI was out to prevent Trump from being elected even though they never said anything about investigating Trump that would have damaged his reputation.

        1. Good point. And the real question remains: is the law being equally & consistently applied? And we all know the answer to that. Selective and politically motivated prosecutions is the issue.

        2. Shouldn’t every president have an excellent “wingman” as his AG? You know, like Eric Holder was for Barack Obama? Recall how friendly their wives were? Hanging out and socializing one on one together as best girlfriends? And then the families of Holder and Obama vacationing together on Marthas Vineyard while he was AG, all of them mixing and mingling socializing together each summer? What a nice and cozy relationship Barack Obama had with his “wingman” Attorney General. But AG Barr should be impeached? But of course he should.

          1. Shouldn’t every president have an excellent “wingman” as his AG? You know, like Eric Holder was for Barack Obama? Recall how friendly their wives were? Hanging out and socializing one on one together as best girlfriends?
            Mueller, Comey and Barr and their wives have a much longer history of being very close socially.

            1. Yes, and Barack Obama was president and Holder was his ‘wingman’ AG. They socialized together, summer vacationed together in the same inner circles and their wives are close friends. Holder didn’t just do his job, he protected his friend Barack Hussein Obama, and was even the first AG to be held in contempt for doing so. Because that what a “wingman” Attorney General does. Just what Eric Holder did.

  4. It’s actually not that difficult to locate people who are not ‘politically active’. Maybe 3-4% of the general public contributes to campaigns or volunteers on campaigns, much less runs for office. Years ago when I was involved in local politics in Monroe County, NY, I was told the local Democratic committee (which was responsible for circulating petitions in a section of the city that had a population of about 24,000) had 40-odd notional committeemen of which nine could be counted on to show up for a once a month meeting. Two of the nine were elected officials drawing a salary from local politics. A dear friend of mind ran into a chum of his circulating petitions ca. 1987. The old chum groused that they were relying on geezers like him because they couldn’t get anyone else to do the work. I had another friend who was a Republican committeeman. She was then nearly 80 years old. She tells my mother that she keeps telling them to take her name off the list and they keep failing to do it.

    Now, you do have a corps of people who don’t do much but who are obnoxiously opinionated and partisan. My guess is that such people might account for about 12% of the population. Judging from what comes over our Facebook wall, about 90% of these people are Democrats and the other 10% are palaeo / paulbot or NeverTrump. Normal people use Facebook to post pictures of their grandchildren or cat videos.

      1. I assume the same way they do any place else.

        Here’s a suggestion: redraw the boundaries of the court jurisdictions.

        Recall that 80% of those of the working population of the Washington commuter belt are not federal employees and that many of those who are are in uniform. Also, a great many civilian federal employees are ordinary wage earners. Greater Washington votes left, but that’s quite unremarkable for 1st tier cities, especially 1st tier cities with large black populations. The large population of federal employees adds some weight to that, but it’s not as pronounced as is commonly assumed. “Official Washington” – elected officials, congressional staff, patronage employees in the executive, judges and their clerks, lobbyists, political journalists, lawyers in firms with a ‘government relations practice’, public relations mavens, political consultants, party employees, miscellaneous federal grant recipients, foreign diplomats, and the households of same – might amount to 2% of the total population. Greater Washington has very little manufacturing, but otherwise the sectoral distribution of output outside the federal government is unremarkable (for a city; cities in general don’t have farms or oil wells).

        Have the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney and the federal district court encompass not only DC but also the two suburban counties in Maryland, the four suburban counties in Virginia, and the five-stand alone municipalities they envelop. You should get more of a cross-section of the public than you would with DC, which has a population skew common for core municipalities.

        1. DSS, I believe local rules prevail. I don’t trust our elections and I am not sure I trust jury selection in DC for political cases. In fact I think Disney World in Florida might have some protection from suits because of jury selection.

          Your suggestions seem sound.

  5. Roger Stone is a bloviator who likes to over inflate his role to anybody and everybody. He had no connections to WikiLeaks. And claiming his “backchannels” were mysterious and substantive is the height of hilarity. But he told the Trump campaign he had as he called it “a mysterious backchannel” to WikiLeaks and informed a Trump campaign operative.

    Since the conspiracy theory of the Trump campaign colluding with Russians was exactly that, the Trump campaign expressed interest in what WikiLeaks had and when they would release it. As Turley has stated there’s nothing illegal or remarkable about campaigns expressing interest on information about their opponents.

    Stone’s motivation in his testimony to Congress was, above all, to maintain his bloviated braggadocio about his “immense” importance to anything going on in Washington. And to that end made a bunch of silly contradictory statements in his testimony.

    How you get from that silly set of facts to seven felony counts is the height of hilarity if it weren’t so pathetic and another back eye for the Judicial system.

    1. The bad thing Stone did — otherwise the Democratic prosecutors would have dropped it after they found no evidence from the Gestapo raid on the Intercoastal — was threatening Credico’s dog. The Mueller Democratic prosecutors are all animal lovers

  6. The two most important rights of the many we enjoy in this great nation:

    1. Freedom of speech, and
    2. Due process of law/equal protection under the law.

    Mr. Stone has not received due process of law, equal protection under the law, or freedom of speech. The judge should immediately declare a mistrial, publicly apologize to Mr. Stone, and sanction the prosecutor.

    Mr. Stone’s legal rights violations represents a chilling trend unannounced and uncovered by the US mainstream media, the drift toward a totalitarian state. Obama’s DOJ repeatedly lied to the FISA court for the purpose of unlawful spying on US citizens, with Obama’s approval and direction.

    The hallmark of every totalitarian regime has been the unlawful spying of its citizens and prosecutorial misconduct. Obama’s deliberate actions in this area should frighten people, not Trump’s blatherings.

    1. “The two most important rights of the many we enjoy in this great nation:

      1. Freedom of speech, and
      2. Due process of law/equal protection under the law.”
      You forgot the right that got us the others and protects all the rest.

  7. IT SMELLS – Judge Amy Jackson is a hard core Dem activist as well. This all should be thrown out and a new trial. Yes, appeal. But don’t trust the Judge for her hard core views about Trump and others and her hard core Dem activism biased.

  8. Maybe this has already been covered in another thread, but I have two questions:
    1. Is Judge Jackson the one who will sentence Stone? If that is the case, her decision may not be influenced or impacted by the DOJ involvement and and the resignation of the prosecutors.
    I don’t see how she can be coerced or influenced by these other factors.
    2. Assuming that the defense tried to dismiss the jurors with an anti-Trump and/ or anti- Stone bias for cause, and Judge Jackson would not grant the defense’s request to dismiss them, is that a strong basis for an appeal? (Claiming an error by the judge).

  9. “U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to bar witnesses due to their past political associations or viewpoints. … However, she maintained the stand that she did not have strong views about Stone. That was enough for Jackson and one can understand the reluctance to striking jurors in a city filled with politically active people.”

    This statement of Professor Turley worries me in that ” one can understand the reluctance to striking jurors in a city filled with politically active people”. That tells me that our society accepts a politicized judiciary. A lot of people make up excuses to get out of jury duty but committed activists I would think would want to be on a trial of this nature so badly that their pretrial answers to questions would be devised to thwart a challenge of bias. Anyone hear of selection bias?

    This convinces me that Stone did not get a fair trial (not talking about the decision) with a jury of his peers

    1. Liberty 2nd, That section of the column that Allan quoted indicates that Judge Jackson knew about the potential biases of those jurors.
      That would have almost certainly have brought a defense request to dismiss them for cause; since Judge Jackson did not allow excluding those jurors, I wondered if there’s a strong case to be made for “judicial error” on appeal.

  10. How can you ask silly questions like this! You’re a lawyer. She was left on because the attorneys ON BOTH SIDES decided she could be fail and impartial. Remember VOIR DIRE, Mr Turley?

    1. JB, I agree with you – unless the prosecutors knew this stuff about Hart and concealed it. If the defense lawyer(s) knew about Hart but failed to vigorously object to her being seated as a juror, then Stone might have an appeal based on incompetence of his counsel.

  11. All the hoopla about Barr and the President and Roger Stone is just that, hoopla. Judge Jackson has the final word on sentencing. Barr and the President’s vues are just opinions. That being said, the hateful rhetoric exhibited by the jury foreperson should compel Jackson to give Stone a new trial and dismiss the verdict.

  12. Why do the leftists hate fine patriots like Roger “Nixxon on my back” Stone? And what he does at those wife-swapping events is his/her business. FREE Roger Rabbitt.

    1. Word. I bet at the swinger parties Rog refused to do coke so he could still function. A point of pride for him and the cause perhaps?

Leave a Reply