“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]”


    In an extraordinary rebuke of President Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr said on Thursday that Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department had made it “impossible for me to do my job” and asserted that “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.”

    Mr. Barr has been among the president’s most loyal allies and denigrated by Democrats as nothing more than his personal lawyer but publicly challenged Mr. Trump in a way that no other sitting cabinet member has.

    “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody,” Mr. Barr said in an interview with ABC News. “And I said, whether it’s Congress, newspaper editorial board, or the president, I’m going to do what I think is right. I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”

    Mr. Trump’s criticisms “make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity,” Mr. Barr said.

    He added, “It’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases.”

    People close to the president said they were caught off guard by the interview.

    Edited from: “After Barr’s Attack On Justice Department, Barr Says He Will Not Be Bullied”

    Today’s New York Times

    I realize this story is annoying to Trump supporters. But this is today’s big development of the Roger Sone story.

    1. “I realize this story is annoying to Trump supporters. But this is today’s big development of the Roger Sone story.”
      Yeah big news: Two Strong Men Disagree. Film at 11!

    2. Trump’s tweets obviously put Barr in an awkward position. However loyal Barr might be to Trump, the AG has to save face by publically denouncing the tweets. If Barr let’s it go the impression forms that he really is a ‘tool’.

    3. Barr says Trump (actually unnamed by Barr) has made it impossible for Barr to do his job. But is Barr resigning? It doesn’t appear that he is. He likes the power of the AG office. What Barr is cleverly doing is creating the appearance of his independence from Trump. We’ll see if Trump is intimidated by Barr and will stop criticizing the DOJ. My guess is that Tweety Bird will only be able to hold fire for a few weeks. When Trump complains about the DOJ again, we’ll see if Barr swallows it or resigns. I think that Barr will just swallow that Big Gulp.

  2. Late Breaking:

    GLADD, Human Rights Campaign, Drag Queens For Truth, and LGBTQIA&LMNOP, all defend Roger Stone as one of the best sissy queens this side of the Nile and demand all Heteros to kiss a queen’s queen for Valentines Day, starting with Seth / John Burgoyne/ Enoch Poor / Peter Shill / Shim who eats Paint Chips



    Queersluv🍆.org y

    1. Regarding Above:

      It’s no mystery why Trump supporters get a bad rap. This particular Trump supporter is hell-bent on making sure Trump supporters maintain that bad rap. Keep these posts in mind next time Professor Turley decries attacks on those in MAGA hats.

      1. Regarding Above:

        It’s no mystery why Biden supporters justifiably get a bad rap. This particular Biden supporter is hell-bent on making sure Biden supporters maintain that justifiably bad rap. Keep these posts in mind next time Her Royal Dreariness She Who Eats Paint Chips decries attacks on those in Biden skirts

  3. Late-Breaking News

    William Barr Gives Interview Condemning Trump Tweets

    In an interview with ABC News, Barr said presidential statements and tweets “about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending here, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”

    Edited from: “Barr Pushes Back Against Trump’s Criticism Of Justice Department”

    This afternoon’s Washington Post

    1. Barr describing Trump’s intellect:

      “Very smart – a very, very smart guy. I mean a super smart guy. But I think it wouldn’t surprise you to know he’s very strong. He’s very strong in terms of trade, taxes, business and he’s a quick study on everything else. He’s a pretty bright guy.”

        1. Don’t worry Peter. Sometime later Anonymous the Stupid and Fido will affirm what was said by providing the site like he almost always does. Shouldn’t be hard to find and you won’t find an anonymous name like you do at the Washington Post.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, I leave that link posting and spell check to you. That is mechanical and doesn’t require much intellect or thought. We have to be kind to you and provide you with some sustenance for that shriveled tiny pea sized brain inside your skull. Now you can find an insult to copy and throw back at me.

            I will respond to your next comment with a pleasant presidential video.

    2. Peter what are you babbling about? No one in their right mind sources Washingmachine Putz as reliable news. Get out of your left wing bubble

  4. “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’ve never understood why judges, as the government officials they are, are free from even mild criticism. No less a thinker than Thomas Jefferson said this:

    “No government ought to be without censors: and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth either in religion, law, or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know, nor notice, it’s sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter.”
    (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 24: 1 June-31 December 1792 )

  5. Both sets of lawyers had the opportunity to question and accept or not each prospective juror. In George Zimmerman’s case, he got at least one overtly racist juror with a lawyer husband who coached her and helped seek an outlet for a book that she planned to write about the trial. No do-over was contemplated.

    1. Thanks Olly, you saved me a lot of writing about why Trump should pardon them all Today because of all Obama/Hillary’s Russia Fraud crap that was known a Fraud Jan 2017, before Trump was Sworn in.

      Then there’s the Sen. Rand Paul comments, in the Well of the US Senate, being censored off of Google’s Youtube that dealt with the names of some of Obama’s agent’s in Ukrainian crimes… murders?

      That’s where we are at today, totally corrupt Obama courts, DOJ/FBI/CIA/ Big Tech/Old Media,NBC,CBS,ABC,NPR etc….

      Now that American Hating Traitorous Trash is doing everything they can to start violence & shut down/censor anywhere we can speak out against it!

      1. That’s where we are at today, totally corrupt Obama courts, DOJ/FBI/CIA/ Big Tech/Old Media,NBC,CBS,ABC,NPR etc….

        Heads have to roll or this shit we’ve been through for the last 3+ years will be for naught.

    2. BTW: Word is a pardon is coming for Stone within 2 weeks.

      The push is for Trump to do it before 2/20, Next Thursday before the Court Date.

      The whole SOB has been a complete Fraud against the people of the US anyone, the sooner the better.

      1. a pardon is the wrong political move at this juncture., let the judge do her job and order a new trial. good luck wining as easily second time around persecutors. roger is patient and a team player. a pardon can come later if necessary, and if it is not necessary, so much the better for all

        1. Wrong Mr K!

          Political it needs to happen Now. In 30 minutes it would be great!

          If the fools don’t know it’s all been a massive Fraud against the people of the US & Trump supporters to Phk’in bad they’ll just have to be shocked sober!

          I think there may be a good reason Trump is Prez & I’m not because I’d likely already would have a bunch of that American Hating Trash azzes cooling their heals in Gitmo on an indefinite National Security hold. Oh hell yes, with the Trump cameras rolling for the public to see. You know, the Optics, well let’s givem some Optics. The Criminals did when they raided Manaport & Stone. Goose/Gander…

          I was against that law when that passed, but it’s there now.

          L Graham, “You don’t Get a Lawyer, You’re an Enemy Combat!”

          John Lou, Turley’s friend’s famous: “The Tortured Memo” to GW Bush…. Phk Yeah you can Torture.

          LOL, And hell Trump all has the implementer of the Torture policy as head of the CIA. ( Dumb azz Trump???)

          Yes, I’m polly a lil over board wih the fantsy here, but I can dream can’t I? LOL;)

          Big Tech/Old media.

          All those aholes, Trump gave them all 3 years to get their sh*t straight, now is politically the time, impeachment Failed, time to Cook their azzes alive in public.

          I’ve liked the sound of that for a few years now…. this type biz, Monday morning, after everyone has had their coffee, 10:00 am EST.

          So everyone can see, it’s not hiden, it’s in everyone face so they can see Trump take complete ownership of it!

          Do It.

      2. The push is for Trump to do it before 2/20, Next Thursday before the Court Date.

        That would be a strategic mistake he won’t make. He holds the ultimate trump card. Let the court do their thing and then if necessary, play it.

        1. Trump & many already know it’s been total BS Sham, the Russia hoax. Known now it’s proven a hoax on the FISA court, that it’s judges, (John Roberts), to get a bad Warrant since before Trump was sworn in.

          That is the push for Trump to end this sham crap show now is to deny the Domestic Enemies any more benefit from their fraud, ie; a court sentencing Stone.

          The Enemy is going to b*tch & scream if Stone, the rest, are pardoned today or in 6 months.

          It makes no since to me to allow anyone else to be damaged by the DOJ/BI/Courts/etc., corruption.

          Trump should put the full spot light on them.

          Let them do the dancing for their crimes against the US & it’s people.

        2. Olly, let me explain it this way.

          I’m sure in the Navy you had some hand to hand combat training. And back in the day schools boys might have a few fist fights.

          I’ve been in a few dust ups.

          All I remember don’t let that rat b*stard kick my azz as it’s likely going to hurt.

          Trump now has those ahole back on their heals. It only makes sense to finish them, the fight now, right here we he holds the high ground before the Domestic Enemies get their to their feet & come up with the next round of Bullsh*t charges in congress.

          IE: Dem enemies: Trump can’t do X, he’s under another investigation for “Felonious Mopery”

  6. In my view it is more probable than not an appellate court will toss the conviction and order a retrial. The fact this woman sat as the forewoman on the jury takes on a greater degree of influence over the entire jury itself during deliberations. This was not just one ordinary juror, which might in itself be cause for appeal on impartial jury precedent. How this was not caught before trial is concerning.

    We had some recent cases before Washington State’s appellate level (I don’t have the citation available presently) where a jury impartiality question having a much lower degree of bias than this was cause for a retrial of a serious felony conviction. So if the sentencing controversy at present is alarming from a justice standpoint it would be almost moot if the bias gets the case tossed at the appellate level.

    1. juror bias cases are easy to find., most people aren’t aware of them.

      here’s a starting point


      in this case perhaps it’s a man bites dog story, because the usual scenario is a racist juror and a black defendant

      here we have a white defendant and a juror who said that all Trump supporters were racists ie bad which establishes on the face of it, clear bias against the defendant.

      it’s odd, in this reversal of the usual scenario, but not really a close call

      liberals may be having a problem with it because they are affected by identity politics which indicated that whites are bad and blacks are good and individual rights of presumed racists like Stone simply should be ignored.

      1. “it’s odd, in this reversal of the usual scenario, but not really a close call ”

        Not odd at all Mr K, just look at a the cases in Africa, S Africa & the nation of South Africa. Racist as hell against Whites, out of control & govt’s support it.

        Sorry for those who don’t like facts…. Whites came into areas where nothing was going on & there no blacks…… skip ahead they built it up, now the blacks decided to blame the whites, murder them steal their sh&t, now many, maybe not all, are in an unliveable hell.

        I know a lil about Tanzania, most is nowhere near that bad, but there is areas close. I wouldn’t set foot anywhere over without an army with me.

        Hell, at this point I wouldn’t set foot in your Chicago, LA, NY, Maryland, Houston, Portland, etc. LOL)

        Keep my candy azz down in Dixie.

        1. FYI:

          So no one confuses me being a racist.

          I ask you to just look at all the Whites, Hispanic , etc… that have been brainwashed into hating Trump.

          Or those brainwashed dumb bunnies that because they believe in Islam they must attack those of us that don’t.

          Just look at how well Brainwashing works on people, Black, White, Green or Red, no matter.

          Remember the Heavens Gate Religious Cult.

          The leaders literally talked them into cutting their balls off.

          So please, humor me, you guys 1st! LOL;)

    2. Darren, I disagree with you IF Stone’s lawyers were aware – or should have been aware – of Hart’s history and they did not object to her being seated on the jury. Also, the fact that she was the forewoman is irrelevant. The foreman or forewoman wields no more authority in jury considerations than any other juror. That person’s role is simply to be a traffic cop and keep order among the jurors.

      However, if Stone’s lawyers knew about Hart’s background and did not object to her, then Stone could file an appeal of his conviction based on incompetence of his lawyers.

        1. So what if Hart is a lawyer? Lawyers have a right to sit on juries, just like anyone else. Stone’s lawyers must have known that Hart was an attorney. They could have objected or made an automatic (peremptory) challenge to her.

          Again, if Stone’s lawyers were incompetent in any of this, he would have the basis for appealing his conviction based on incompetent or ineffective counsel..

  7. Juror Number 1261….. starting at page 39.


    “Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?” Jackson queried.

    “Absolutely not,” Hart answered.

    “What is it that you have read or heard about him?” asked Jackson.

    “So nothing that I can recall specifically,” Hart replied. “I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN.”

    “So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN,” she continued.




    1. I don’t do any Federal work, but in the rather simple civil trials I do in county courts, on the first day of trial we are given a sheaf of jury questionnaires — usually 30 to 60 — and then the pool is brought in jury selection. The amount of time we have to review the questionnaires is somewhere between zero and 30 minutes typically. There is no chance to do any sort of investigation of any type beyond whatever questions we ask right there in the court room.

      From the transcript, the defense did not raise an objection for cause based on the exchange with that juror, and in the vacuum of her testimony (she essentially said she could be fair), I don’t see a judge granting an objection for cause based on what she testified.

      My question: is voir dire in Federal trials conducted differently? Does the defense have sufficient time to do an investigation of the potential jurors’ social media or whatnot? If jury selection is conducted in the manner my trials are, the lack of objection is understandable and should not stand in the way of requesting a new trial based on a tainted jury. If not, and there is ample time to investigate, Stone should be livid at his defense team for missing this and filing for ineffective assistance of counsel in addition to requesting a new trial.

      I’d be interested in the experiences of people who do Federal cases or high profile cases elsewhere, about how the voir dire process goes in these.

      1. countryBumpkinLawyer:

        Love the name! Typically the questionnaire is pretty comprehensive and the lawyers can suggest questions here. We usually ferret out the snakes but not always.

        1. Mark,
          Is it true, that in federal trials, voir dire is handled by the presiding judge? I assume counsel can still object to a potential juror. How does this work, if you don’t mind?

          1. Olly:
            In the EDVa we submit questions for the judge who asks them. We can ask to question a potential juror if we disclose the question or something comes up. I like to ask open ended questions and let the venireman go on at length. Sometimes (like always) the judge doesn’t like my style.

            1. Olly:

              For example, I would have asked Juror 1261 in the Stone trial why she decided to run for public office and what wrongs did she see that she could correct in her role as a congressperson. I also would like to know who she hired as her campaign staff and any groups she solicited funds from as part of her campaign. But then again, I’m pretty nosy.

              1. Thank you Mark. I’m curious to know why they didn’t submit those questions. Were they unaware of her history? Would defense counsel risk leaving her on the jury, work for an acquittal, knowing if they lose they will have her history as a basis for tossing the verdict?

    1. Mr. K:

      She’s Juror 1261 and her testimony starts on p.92 and ends on p. 96. It’s pretty basic questioning and leaves something to be desired in terms of probing given her piece-meal disclosure of political affiliations and running for office. You needed a jury consultant here for sure. Too many red flags!

  8. Too bad Stone’s attorneys didn’t have a chance to challenge the juror before selection. Oh, wait. This happened in the old United States, when we had real trials with adversarial proceedings.

  9. You are essentially saying that people who believe Trump is corrupt, should not be allowed on juries. You’ve moved from apologist to perverse henchman.

  10. The opinions of NOW and SW’s are not the answer since they are the supporters of the chief victimizers of women and others added to their sloppy unacceptable language deficiences.

  11. I want to file a complaint for the use of the sexist term foreperson as if it was somehow more acceptable than foreman and forewoman. Foreper SON is their a Fore DAUGHTER. I don’t THINK So. Take you PC-rap and shove it it doesn’t work here any more. Now go try to find a gender neutral replacement such as Jury Leader Senior Juristician something anything that doesn’t make the speaker look ridiculously uneducated and sexually biased.

  12. Once the poisonous tree is fully dug up, then I believe there will be sufficient grounds for commuted sentences or outright pardons for those in the Trump orbit. Conversely, those affiliated with the poisonous tree should be treated as enemies of the state and prosecuted accordingly.

      1. Sem, I personally have no love for Napolitano but he has a point. I don’t think his point would or at least should differ in federal court.

      1. Elvis, the President didn’t tamper he Twittered when he shouldn’t have. However, he is facing a double standard because under Obama inappropriate actions with the AG happened all the time. I understand Trump’s frustration but he has to be twice as clean as his predecessors. There should be distinct lines drawn but those lines should be the same whether a Democrat or a Republican. Knowing some of your affinities I think you will totally agree.

        1. Agreed on the map. Not on the territory. To think Obama crossed lines with Justice but not Trump is missing a lot of what’s been going on.

          1. Elvis, it’s all in the proof but you are reluctant to provide those things in writing that Trump did while you wish to avoid those things that the Obama Administration did.

            Obama was worse in those areas than the left has accused Trump of being and Trump is innocent. After 4 years of investigations nothing has been found that is a significant abuse of power by the Trump administration. That cannot be said for the Obama Administration or Clinton.

            It must be nice not ever having to contemplate the shoe on the other foot. It’s that type of thinking that leads to the demise of a Constitutional Republic.

  13. A lot of assumptions here, but before we get to those, are you saying that Stone: 1. Didn’t lie to Congress? 2. Didn’t threaten to kill a witness who testified against him? 3. That the verdict would have been different if another juror had replaced this one? Can you say these things? In other words, was Stone really innocent and was there a miscarriage of justice? Of course not. You are saying that post-trial comments mean that the juror was biased when she sat on the jury, and that the verdict was the product of bias and prejudice. You have no evidence of this, nor any evidence that this juror didn’t set aside her feelings and comply with her oath to fairly decide the case based on the evidence. The evidence against Stone was solid. He was guilty. Implying otherwise based on speculation is beneath you, Turley. You are just trying to soften the impact of the pardon that is likely coming, which would be another abuse of power.

    Do you know: 1. what questions were asked on voir dire about potential prejudice, either by Judge Jackson or Stone’s counsel? 2. what answers were given? 3. Did this woman lie on voir dire? If she did, you might have a point, but if she didn’t, this is just more Trump bull; and 4. what efforts were made by Stone’s attorneys made to vet this woman? Lists of potential venire persons are available well in advance of trial. Social media posts, criminal histories, prior lawsuits, and information about venire persons’ affiliations are available to anyone looking for them. Any sensible lawyer does her homework. Juror questionnaires, which are required to be filled out under oath, and which are also available to the parties well in advance of voir dire also provide a wealth of background information.

    Another point: no matter what one’s feelings about politics and/or someone who isn’t a party, in this case, Trump, that does not mean that the juror could not be impartial, or that bias influenced her decision. In fact, unlike Trump, who has no idea what the truth means, many jurors bend over backward to be fair after admitting some tendency toward bias based on life experiences. No human being is completely free of bias–that’s impossible. In my experience, jurors take the process seriously, and after being encouraged to admit their feelings, do so freely. “Voir dire” means something like: “to tell the truth”. Jurors will admit that they might look more favorably on one party or another, or that they may have a view about an issue, like police brutality, for example, but if they testify that they can set these prejudices aside and decide the case solely on the evidence, guided by the judge’s instructions, they can’t be removed for cause. I’ve seen it many times, and I have served on a jury and was pleasantly surprised how fair and reasonable people can be. And, she is just one of 12 jurors, so if the others felt that Stone was innocent, there would have been a hung jury. There wasn’t.

    One universal and consistent thing here: the Trumpsters are crying foul, jumping over facts and immediately assuming that Stone didn’t get a fair trial. To the extent you contribute to this as one learned in the law, Turley, you should be ashamed.

    1. voir dire literally means “to see to say”

      she didn’t say, and when she did, she lied that she didnt know of the defendant

      mistrial, easy result, like arithmetic.

      you say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and this reveals your own bias, that’s all

      “To the extent you contribute to this as one learned in the law, Turley, you should be ashamed.”

      that preposterous insult is like some fat obnoxious dolt munching a hot dog in the stands yelling at a pitcher on the mound in the world series. get some humility, for once!

      1. It would be a delight to us all snarky Anon, if you would be kind enough to stop clutterinng up the comment section with your uselessness. Do you have something of substance to offer here other than your assinineness?

        1. P.S. But MY snarky comments are not clutter. Clutter is what I call clutter. It I say, it’s something of substance no matter how snarky. I say asinine things (and I really do know how to spell it), but they’re really not asinine because I’m saying them — not that other person I like to call Snarky Anonymous.

    2. If one opens this box of Pandoras, the political publications of all the jurors are required; and what about the judge’s political views/party? Turley frequently attempts coming to the middle from the right – not quite making it.

      1. Chuck, that’s false. The case was entirely about a political situation. it was suffused throughout all the facts.

        if political leanings were EVER a relevant basis for disqualification of a juror, it was THIS case.

        the failure to property vet this juror is a clear basis for mistrial.

        Either the judge rules that way or the appeals judges will. This one’s not even a close call.

Leave a Reply