Juror 1261: Was Justice Undone In The Trial Of Roger Stone

Twitter Photo

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy surrounding the foreperson on the Stone trial and the discovery of biased public comments made before she was called as a juror. The comments raise very serious questions about not just the inclusion of Tomeka Hart on the jury but the legitimacy of the conviction in light of her participation. Courts are extremely reluctant to set aside verdicts and often deny motions for new trials like the two filed by Stone. However, such disclosures make a mockery of the process — and ultimately the court — if undisclosed bias does not have a remedy for a defendant. No defendant can prove conclusively that such bias made the difference, but no prosecutor can prove that it did not. What remains is a dangerous element of doubt in a criminal trial.

Here is the column:

She was Juror No. 1261, and her examination by the federal court and counsel before the trial was anything but notable. And that is precisely the problem.

Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.” 

That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.

I have previously written about how I believe that the DOJ was correct in its rejection of the absurdly high recommendation of seven to nine years in prison for Stone. However, there are legitimate questions that must still be addressed on how the Justice Department came to that decision. Yet while cable shows exhaustively cover that story, there is an equally serious question as to whether the conviction itself, rather than the sentencing recommendation, should be reevaluated.


Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

In addition to her prior statements about Trump, his associates and this case, Hart is a lawyer. That only magnifies concerns that any bias on her part may have had a more pronounced influence on her fellow jurors.

In fact, except for a jury pool composed entirely of House impeachment managers, Hart would appear to be a standout for a peremptory challenge by the defense team over bias. That is why the most surprising aspect of this story is not the review of her public statements but the review of her examination before trial. The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not. 

While Hart’s answers on the jury questionnaire remain sealed, Judge Jackson noted, “You’ve also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media, including about political things?” Hart does not volunteer that she did far more than “pay attention to news and social media” and was, in fact, an anti-Trump protester and social media critic.

Jackson seemed unaware of anything more than Hart’s following the news and asked if anything that Hart saw would affect her views. Hart again did not mention her protesting or public commentary and said she could not think of anything that would cause bias — “nothing that I can recall specifically. 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 never mentioned that she specifically discussed Stone’s arrest and the objections to his treatment during that arrest as well as denouncing all of the associates of Trump as a virtual criminal enterprise.

Stone’s counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart’s actual political activism and commentary.

That lack of knowledge is not surprising since multiple questions on the jury questionnaire allowed her to reveal her past protests and postings. For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had “written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?” Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

The burden now is on Judge Jackson to hold a hearing on this matter and address the possible need for a mistrial. And one thing will be clear: Judge Jackson, in the words of Juror No. 1261, does not “gotta love” any of this.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

162 thoughts on “Juror 1261: Was Justice Undone In The Trial Of Roger Stone”

  1. If a conviction can be set aside because excess publicity may have tainted the jury pool it is beyond imagining that it would not be set aside when the jurors come to court with the baggage these jurors have.

    Meanwhile the federal judiciary is looking pretty shabby these days . I am beginning to think that instead of being hoodwinked the FISA court went along with a wink and a nod, and I wonder that district court judges can take over national executive policy with nationwide injunctions. As for Judge Berman, she seems to be the type of People’s Court judge the Stasi or Red Guard would have chosen. Chief Justice Roberts, what are you doing?

  2. This should be absolutely frightening to any American. But again the Democrats control the Press and have shut down any concept of unbias – which we’ve known since the Press revealed they vote 93% Democrat. Judge Jackson as well as this liar are both to blame and have permanently harmed US jurisprudence. Where is the ABA? Where is the ACLU? Hiding in their partisan caves.

  3. Nomenklatura

    A clinical dissection of the Soviet system, in which a group of managers and bureaucrats (some 1.5 percent of the population) are engaged in ceaseless political maneuvering among themselves while maintaining total power, as a privileged class, over all the others.

        1. She said she had no bias during voir dire. Her social media accounts reek and drip with bias and hatred. Should have been disclosed it and, as a lawyer, she knew that. That is likely why she attempted to scrub those accounts. They are damning evidence. It is an issue.

    1. Who is responsible for the failure and why the system failed is independent of whether there was a failure.

      Hart should not have been on the jury, Stone is entitled to a new trial. PERIOD.

      As a rule of thumb pretty much all failures in a criminal trial are attributed to the defense attorney. I have a problem with this. It absolves prosecutors and judges of the responsibility to seek justice rather than convictions.

      Ultimately the responsibility to ensure that the Trial is fair belongs to the JUDGE not the defense attorney.

      Regardless Stone should not pay for it, whether the failure was that of his attorney’s the prosecutor or the judge.

      Frankly this case never should have been tried.

      It certainly never should have been tried in Alexandria.

      Judge Jackson should not have allowed most of the charges to go to the jury – the alleged threats do not overcome the constitutions bar to Free Speech restrictions – Elonis Vs. US.

      1. Anonymous:
        I agree.
        I practiced law for over 35 years and over 20 years with my own firm and lawyers.
        This included representing defendants and plaintiffs in professional malpractice actions.
        Firm lawyers and I, as a standard or best practiced, hired entities to do background investigations of potential jurors, with less, far less, potential risk or harm to our client(s) than to which Mr. Stone was exposed.
        Consequently, I am reasonably confident Mr. Stone’s counsel and his law firm’s conduct fell below, far below the standard of care.
        [ On a purely personal note: I had an initial and high bar against letting a lawyer sit on any juror trial where I was counsel of record. This was true even when I was reasonably confident based on juror investigation or voir dire that the lawyer was favorable to my/our client.]
        A trial judge’s responsibility first, last and always must be to justice, reasonableness and fairness.
        Therefore, a new trial must be the only decision of the trial judge or appellate court.
        dennis hanna

        1. I practiced law for over 35 years and over 20 years with my own firm and lawyers.

          Yeah, and Natacha was your law partner.

        2. dennis hanna:

          “Firm lawyers and I, as a standard or best practiced, hired entities to do background investigations of potential jurors, with less, far less, potential risk or harm to our client(s) than to which Mr. Stone was exposed.”

          That was my take, too:

          mespo727272 says:
          February 14, 2020 at 1:30 PM

          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!

          1. Was the defense ever given the name of the juror?

            If so, an investigation should have been done by the defense and the issue brought to the court’s attention when it was discovered, even if the trial had started. In my view that shouldn’t be fatal to the request for a new trial but should be another basis on which to grant one (and in a separate proceeding, sanction the defense (and as noted above, the prosecution and the court should share that sanction) for not working to ensuring a fair jury).

        3. I agree that it does appear that Stone’s lawyers may have been incompetent in missing so much, though that would raise another reason for vacating the judgment. Easy to speculate from here. I am not sure what extra walls were put in their way by the judge. It might look like a malpractice case now, but a closer examination could lead to a different conclusion. In that district and with that judge I might be tempted to let the judge pressure me into accepting this juror so I could try to vacate the conviction on appeal and drag the thing out until the climate is more favorable. Dangerous game, though.

  4. How Odd..!!

    We’ve Been Told Blacks Love Trump

    Professor Turley tells us Foreperson Hart was using the hashtag #klanpresident. Doesnt she know Blacks love Donald Trump? Has she not heard about the ‘Democratic plantation and ‘Walkaway movement”.

    Perhaps Foreperson Hart isnt following rightwing media. That could explain why she’s so unenlightened. Her hostility towards Donald Trump could just be a fluke and not representative of Blacks in general.

  5. JT exhibits an amazing lack of understanding for legal principle for a law professor and self appointed commentator. The most important is that justice is blind, meaning not applied unequally to presidential cronies.Another is that jurors are not required to have no political opinions, but that they are able to put those opinions aside when judging the facts presented (she revealed both her party and the fact she had run for Congress during voice dire). JT has offered nothing indicating that this juror failed that standard, while he demonstrates his inability to do the same. He also approves mistakenly of having the AG intervene in sentencing guidelines for a presidential crony when that practice is UNPRECEDENTED in any type case, the prosecutors followed federal guidelines, and the judge is not compelled to accept those recommendations. The damage to our system of justice which both Trump and Barr are busy applying is being aided and abetted by JT, and to his lasting shame.

    1. STRONG POLITICAL BIAS which are RELEVANT to the nucleus of fact, which was at the heart of the charges against Stone, would have been valid reason to disqualify her as juror

      the apparent failure to screen her in voir dire does not mean that a “do over” is forfeit. we all know bias can be concealed.

      there is no shame in wishing a fair trial for Stone. there is shame in only wishing a fair trial for your friends and not your rivals. which is all this recent whining from the progs and anti trump factions are all about.

      PS a lot of lawyers follow a simple rule which is STRIKE ALL LAWYERS NO MATTER WHAT
      this event shows the “Why” of that one
      out here in flyover it still gets played that way on a regular basis
      almost none of my lawyer peers has ever acutally sat on a jury
      but most of my lawyer peers actually practice law for a living

      but i doubt Ms Tomeka actually practiced law working at the bill gates foundation

      1. there is no shame in wishing a fair trial for Stone. there is shame in only wishing a fair trial for your friends and not your rivals.

        Your assuming a partisan Democrat is emotionally capable of formulating and adhering to a set of procedural principles rather than strike poses and play Calvinball all the time. Well, they’re not anymore.

        1. i am not sure that is a sign of immaturity. the average Dem shill is immature and self delusional.

          however, i believe the Democrat strategists and operators are actually full well capable of procedural fairness, they just intend to try and deny that to their adversaries right now, because they believe all they need to do is break Trump and then their schemes will all fall into place and it will be all downhill for the resistors after that. then they will ride on to the sunset of a favorable retirement in secure premises based on thew endless inside favors that they anticipate receiving if they prevail. This is their thinking. It is purely opportunistic. They have shucked off all the internal restraints which typically linger on in the minds of conservatives. They are to the general population as a sociopath is to the rest. They fully understand their deceptions and are intent to ply them with glee.

          They think Trump as a belligerent selfish obstructor. Essentially, a stiff necked fuddy duddy, a capitalist roader, is what they Chicoms called insufficiently radical people during the Cultural revolution, he is considered the “last gasp” of the legacy American population which is stuck in “reactionary habits.”

          They might be correct. But the outcome is not sure; the last gasp may be sufficient to revive the aging patient and bring it back from the brink.

          1. Can you do that in English Kurtz? We don’t all speak wingnu here, even if most do. I was particularly curious about the self delusional part, what with most poster here defending Trump, Barr, and JTs attack on our system of blind justice, Maybe I missed it, but was Stone railroaded in a way DNA testing will resolve, or represented by a public defender handling 50 other cases, or maybe had sentencing recommendations outside of federal guidelines? Help me out.

            1. basically i was responding to what he said about “procedural fairness” which is the essence of liberalism. like, not in a bad way, but a good way

              Procedural fairness has died on the Left. that’s why the censorship of anybody who disagrees with you. that’s why a biased juror like this is ok, but a biased juror who convicts a black man in an Emmet Till posture is an outrage.

              he suggested this was due to emotional immaturity, if i understood him right

              i said no, it is fully understood and deliberate.

              individualism used to unite Americans but now it is gone

              one the Left it means the freedom of the individual to be gay or what have you

              on the right individualism mostly means the right to be a businessman and keep your earnings. but there is a lingering respect for fair process in trials and such.

              individual rights as a unifying political value, which was an essential of American liberal order across 2 centuries, is dying.

              i do not believe the Left misunderstands this. Marxism rejected liberal order of individual rights explicitly. so procedural fairness is out the window, in favor of politically correct results.

              example. Here, it was patently unfair. but, you like the result. so it’s ok by you! You are not troubled by the hobgoblin of petty minds that wants consistently fair trials. that’s a conservative, bourgeois fancy!

              See I think the “Right” or the legacy of Americanism represented by Conservatives, traditional sorts of folks, populism, is operating under a sort of emotional individualism that like “social compact” theory in politics, is dated, from a bygone era. those who oppose the Left in America, have to either shuck off the vestiges of individualism which restrain them from acting decisively, or they will be crushed. Maybe not now, but once Trump ages out, at the least. This result could come in the form of resurgent populist socialism a la bernie, but it could just as well come from a bureaucratic leviathan as well. That’s where it was going under Obama and Hillary. Who knows where things will be 4 years from now!

              I hope that explains what i was trying to say. Im sure you don’t agree with aspects of what i said but maybe there is something in there to discuss. you can say.

              1. Kurtz, you mistatencertainly what I feel about this event and I’m pretty sure the 1100 DOJ lawyers and others object to. I don’t GAF what Stone gets sentenced to. If he gets 3 months or 10years. I don’t care. What I do care about is the bleeding hearts exposed for a presidential crony and our outlaw AG bending procedure in an UNPRECEDENTED manner to pacify our infantile and lawless dictator wanna be president. JT has joined in on this assault on our system of Justice and should hold his head in shame. There are no conservatives on this blog, so I have no idea harboured talking about. There are Trump supporters who have jettisoned every principle they might have previously held to defend him. How are you different?

                1. Well for starters I am biased in favor of Roger Stone. Surely you have not missed me posting his defense fund link here about a hundred times. I make no bones that I like the guy. I followed his trial. I personally feel that the charges were bogus long before the current chapter in the long flap.

                  So I don’t pretend to be fair about this. What i was trying to say above, was that fairness is considered by the left to be a bourgeois convention. And I am willing to dispense with it as much as a communist is, in certain situations. at least. As the low intensity conflict heats up, those situations will occur more frequently, and necessity will point the way.

                  I also believe that the supposed corruption and banana republic stuff has been going on for a long time under various preceding administrations. I can’t prove it, mostly this is just suspicion, because, I am not privy to such decisions, I have strictly been in private practice. And I have been involved in some federal prosecutions but only tangentially as they related to interrelated civil matters.

                  No question, they have been careful in the past about the appearance politicizing things, etc etc, even as there have been some very unfair prosecutorial choices made over 2 past decades here and there. So I think they were just careful about hiding it. I will say this, the US system has been more fair than others in history and others around the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if certain European venues were more fair than ours. However, I am not sure that is always in the best interests of society. Fairness is not the supreme value. In this respect I can’t call myself liberal. I am a little too nationalistic to be called liberal I think. I respect liberal norms as a professional but my personal feelings are much more tribal.

                  Now Trump comes along and speaks his mind. Was AG Barr influenced? I dont know and personally, i don’t care. Maybe or maybe not. That part doesnt trouble me. I already thought we were at banana republic phase, at least to a degree. Stone knew full well that he would be persecuted, and he was. The conservatives holding on to fairness in these conflicts are wishing for a bygone era. I dont have the expectation of fairness. It’s a worthy ideal but in a political trial it goes out the window.

                  To some degree, the government is always acting to protect itself. Every inmate knows this in his gut. People outside the system have a lot of rosy fantasies about it. The left has less idealistic notions than the general public. This is postmodernism operating. I have been influenced by the Left, but I apply the lessons learned in a different direction.

                  The thing that Republicans and conservatives need to learn, is how to organize and operate with greater collective purpose. The Left from the moderate Democrats onwards all have better tribal instincts. We are seeing however a sort of awakening of the legacy population of America to its real interests and an increasing power to act accordingly.

                  1. @Mr. Kurtz- you are raising many thought provoking points. One of them- government’s inherent interest in its own self-preservation and the preservation of the governing class – is the most dangerous.

                    In other contexts, they call it the agency problem. In the corporate context it tends to be self-correcting because customers and investors have clear metrics and choices and can vote with their wallets. The incentives in politics and government are perverse, especially with a sprawling and opaque national bureaucracy, a complicated web of laws and regulations, and the ability to enforce them through a legal monopoly on violence.

                    Which brings us back full circle to why it is so important that people like Roger Stone receive a fair trial. Is there any reasonable doubt that Mr. Stone is a pawn in the larger effort to expel Mr. Trump and his supporters from the body politic?

        2. Modern Democrats have adopted the right-wing values of Dirty Harry to pursue their agenda without troublesome “technicalities” like civil rights (reference this trial, #meToo). Modern Democrats have taken up the torch in symbolically burning books (cancel culture, deplatforming). Modern Democrats have taken McCarthyist positions related to Russia (Russia never hurt me and nobody knows election rigging like the DNCt). Modern Democrats never met a war they didn’t love or a wedding they couldn’t bomb. Modern Democrats approve of and reward financial crimes, at least those of their friends on Wall Street (no prosecutions out of the meltdown in contrast to 1000s in the far smaller S&L crisis).

          I used to be a Democrat but I’m just done with them. I’ve been content to vote third party as a protest, but as time goes on, I feel more like voting for Republicans out of vengeance for their betrayal.

      2. That’s some funny s..t Kurtz. As Molly pointed out yesterday, generally conservatives have no problem with sentencing guidelines, and if anything, want harsher ones. You, JT, absurd, etc all are quiet on the question until a TruMp crony faces them and then support an UNPRECEDENTED overruling of prosecutors for a Trump pal. The recommendation was within the guidelines and the judge is not compelled to follow them. The convicted was non cooperative and found guilty of lying and witness tampering. Are you a babe in the woods that you don’t understand what prosecutors typically do with that kind of a convicted?

        1. I only speak for myself. i am net positive on sentencing guidelines but there are problems. this is not the issue with stone

          the internal process for recommending sentences is opaque to me. unlike all these other experts running around, I don’t pretend to know how the DOJ comes up with their recommendations over the decades

          One aspect of the USG i don’t like is the big discount for “cooperation” and the excessive power that gives to prosecutors to railroad guilty pleas. I have no been “quiet” about that, actually I have mentioned that numerous times on this blog.

          However, again, this was not the issue for Stone and how the jurors were seated, rather, the sentencing is besides the point. these issues are being conflated by everyone including Big Don

    2. The professor’s demonstrated understanding of legal principle is superb. Yours, on the other hand, is suspect. By the way, ‘voice’ dire is actually voir dire. I won’t even trouble with your other errors.

  6. So I guess justice really isn’t blind. She’s a lawyer, isn’t she some kind of a court officer? Shouldn’t she have stepped down do to a conflict of interest?

    1. If she did not answer truthfully on her juror questionnaire isn’t she guilty of at least as egregious a crime as the one for whichStone was convicted?
      If the DOJ prosecutes and asks for 7-9 years, any bets as to the reaction from the same folk calling for Stone to rot in jail?
      Lies about a non crime, while serious, strike me as less a threat to the Rule of Law than corrupting the jury process.

    2. She was required to respond to questions put to her honestly, and ethically should disclose something not asked which might reasonably be expected to affect the attorneys’ evaluation of her as a potential juror. However, a potential juror does not have the authority to step down or otherwise take himself off the panel. He must be excused by the judge based on a determination that the law permits or requires him to be excused.

      1. While Hart can’t excuse herself, I believe the judge would have excused Hart if the facts were present during selection. Look at juror 0265, she was asked if she could be fair in spite of negative opinions on Trump. There was then a very long pause, and 0265 finally said she could. Regardless of that testimony, the defense asked that she be struck for cause and the judge agreed:

        “THE COURT: Yes, I think she hesitated for a considerable period of time in answering the question about whether she could put her views of the President aside and so she’ll be excused.”

        Given that the judge would excuse a juror for merely hesitating on impartiality, there’s absolutely no question the judge would have excused Hart if she knew the content of Hart’s social media.

    3. She is an officer of the court and it is more egregious for a lawyer to lie to the court. If she did she should be prosecuted and disbarred. Ethics used to be a big deal in law school. Apparently not so much these days. The behavior of the lawyers and judges in these political cases has shocked and disgusted me.

  7. Not only was she biased, but her position as a lawyer gave her authority over the rest of the jurors. Oh look, another activist abusing her position of authority for political purposes. How ordinary this is becoming.

    It should be declared a mistrial and tried anew.

    1. That they seated a lawyer on the jury is bizarre right there. I knew a law librarian who ended up in a jury pool. He worked at the court house. At one point during voir dire, the question was addressed to the whole prospective panel whether or not they were acquainted with any of the parties. He pointed out every member of the bar in the room with whom he was acquainted (“well, you, your honor; counsel for the prosecution; counsel for the defense…). Fun times.

    2. I personally know an attorney chosen to be on a jury. Eager to not be chosen, he immediately disclosed this fact during voire dire. There is no ban on attorneys serving on juries. Maybe JT isn’t aware of this, or perhaps he’s so busy carrying Trump/Barr water in their attempts to corrupt our justice system, he’s forgotten.

      1. JT knows it full well I’m sure.

        Every time I get called i Just call the clerk and they know me and take me off the list
        Last time they’re like oh, you’r supposed to show up ya know… I’m like can we just not waste time on this? they’re like ha, yeah ok.

    3. Another example of just how far Trumpsers will go to defend him and anyone in league with him. Now, Karen just knows that the foreperson used “her authority over the rest of the jurors.” What “authority” are you talking about?

      Karen, please stop writing about stuff you don’t know much about. The foreperson on a jury does not sway the jurors one way or the other. The jurors vote for the one of their number they want to serve as foreperson. All jurors freely speak their minds about the evidence as they deliberate. All the foreperson does is ask whether the jurors are ready to vote, she tabulates their votes and reports them to the Court. Typically, either the judge or counsel for one of the parties polls the jury to verify that the vote was unanimous and that each juror agrees. I’ve been a jury foreperson.

      And, what about the evidence? You keep ignoring the evidence. Stone was a liar. That was proven. He engaged in witness tampering. That was proven, too. What is “political” about finding Stone guilty of lying, regardless of this juror’s personal feelings about Trump, since he did, in fact, lie? And, it would be hard to find anyone to serve on a jury that doesn’t have feelings about Trump. That does not make them unfit to serve or prove that their vote to convict Stone was not politically motivated.

      See, Fox is concocting this narrative that poor little Trumpy bear is getting a raw deal: the mainstream media lie about him, the Democrats just constantly investigate him, the “Deep State” keeps arresting his campaign officials for nothing, and it’s all lies, politically motivated. Too bad for you Trumpsters that most Americans see this crap for what it is. Trump has been a cheat and liar his entire life, and his campaign officials are crooks, too. Trump does not belong in the White House.

  8. She could be just another part of transference of guilt from the FBI and CIA in their ridiculous botched attempt to snare the President in the Russia Hoax. After all CNN was there before dawn with the SWAT team from the FBI to arrest him ( for lying under oath) with his wife the only other person in the house. These are senior citizens caught up in a government lie.
    This foreperson on the jury could easily have been planted. The swamp gets swampier after they’ve been caught.

    1. Phyllis: Good God, are you deep into Trump worship. You can’t even come up with your own spin, so you use Trump vocabulary: “Russia Hoax”. Phyllis: the only HOAX is Trump: he cheated his way into the White House. Russian hackers helped him do it using directions they got from the Trump campaign on where to direct false social media posts telling lies about Hillary Clinton that would do the most good. That was proven. Trump would be gone by now if he hadn’t refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation. Trump did try to leverage foreign aid appropriated by Congress to benefit Ukraine. Even Republican Senators know this to be true, but they are patriots second and Republicans first. Talk about a swamp?

      Now, you’re willing to believe that this woman “could easily have been planted’? Do you have any idea how difficult this could be and how unlikely it is that this could have happened? That you could even believe such a fantastic lie if was suggested by someone else would be disappointing, but you’ve dreamed this up all on your own. People at Trump News Network, a/k/a Fox News, just love it when they realize how successful their indoctrination efforts have been. They don’t even have to make up stuff like this–you do it for them. You haven’t even read the Mueller Report, and you wouldn’t believe what it says if you did.

  9. This may be a blessing in disguise for the administration…

    …this is EXACTLY the pretense needed for a full pardon should a retrial not be granted…

    Still this is an additional constitutional blemish on the less than stellar reputation of the Amy Berman Jackson court…

  10. It is beyond my comprehension that an attorney picking a jury today would fail to research the public record of all prospective jurors. This juror may have failed to answer fully and completely the questions put to her on the questionnaire and during voir dire, but it should be attorney malpractice not to look at social media for information indicating bias.

    1. Judge Jackson refused to strike a different juror who’d held a patronage appointment in a Democratic administration. It’s a reasonable wager she’d have refused to strike this broad as well, had the woman’s political involvements been exposed.

      1. Even if you believed that, as a competent attorney you do your research and make your record for future proceedings. Otherwise you potentially waive legitimate objections your client may have to errors in the proceedings.

    2. Correct. And, as I previously stated, the incompetence of Stone’s attorneys forms the basis for a motion for a new trial because of incompetence of counsel.

        1. Doing basic internet research is pretty standard in cases far less significant than this. In a case like this, you would have expected significant resources to be expended in looking at the potential jurors once the attorneys had the names.

          1. de novo review is the usual standard for juror misconduct and bias cases. look it up

            that means we don’t just let the unfair trial stand because they lawyer’s didn’t catch the mischief

    3. well blogfen you may not be aware that lawyers only have so much time and resources to do their job and catch lying biased jurors

      Tomeka violated RPC 8.4 at the least and should be investigated on her license

      dont try and shift the blame onto the people who she fooled with her lies

  11. I have a suspicion that the party responsible is one Amy Berman Jackson, and that an improvement in the quality of the federal bench could be had by booting her off it and picking a member of the local bar out of a hat.

  12. “That statement led many people to Google her name”

    Why isn’t each juror’s name put through an Internet search during the jury selection process?

  13. She’s a black woman, and black women are notorious for this kind of stuff. I can’t recall the case, but one sticks out in my mind where an obviously guilty black murderer was not convicted because a black female juror said something like, “no more black men should go to jail.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. The “black woman” disclosed her ties to the Democratic Party according to the article and said she could be fair. Perhaps black women should be excluded from juries altogether? Are you suggesting at all that Stone is innocent? The juror didn’t have anything to do with the sentencing recommendation. I have political views but that wouldn’t mean I couldn’t listen to the evidence and come to an impartial verdict. Turley suggests the judge should have kept her off the case, is that how it works now? Stone’s lawyers bear any responsibility for not being more thorough, but let’s just blame her for being black.

      1. Jonathan Turley explains in this article:

        “The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.”

        Justice should not preclude the defendant, the judge, the legal counsels, the jury or any inferred biases.

        Due process, regardless within the adjudication must be respected.

        1. Her responsibility is to honestly answer the questions put to her. There is nothing to suggest she did not. Squeeky would exclude her because of her race. That seems to me to be the problem.

      2. Works for me! Her relationship is far deeper than just “I am a Democrat.” That is the problem. And I believe you know full well how hard it is to change a black woman’s mind about anything first hand because you are married to one.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. Is it fair to benefit from unconstitutional “Affirmative Action Privilege” and “Generational Welfare?”

        Is it fair to demand that the playing field be tilted in your favor?

        1. What your (expletive deletive) ass will never understand is that Affirmative Action was much more of a cap, set at lower than the popuation rate, guaranteeing a perpetual underrepresentation, which is still better than the near total exclusion that took place before. Somehow youn feel cheated because you feel entitled to the whole pie, excluding those unlike yourself.

          1. What you will never understand is that affirmative action is unconstitutional just as generational welfare is unconstitutional just as your artificial status is unconstitutional. Congress has no authority to interfere with private property and no authority to possess or dispose of or claim or exercise dominion over private property; the right to which is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute. Congress has power to tax only for “…general Welfare…” not individual welfare. You are “fake” – a false construct. A beggar. You have no concept, no grasp, of America and American freedom. Whatever you, as a “have not,” have is not actually yours and was taken from someone else to be gifted to you as favor. You are the fraudulent beneficiary of imposed, unconstitutional, communist dictatorship. Whatever will you do left to your own devices, if and when the principles of the Communist Manifesto are cleansed from America and the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution is re-implemented as it was when written; the genius document that it is?

            1. You said it all in, “taken from someone else.” You do have a concept of American freedom, not necessarily different from what your precious founders intended, where the only ones with rights were landholding white men, that’s what you mean isn’t it?

          2. I wouldn’t worry about George, he still owes me one (1) single, heterosexual man between his 30s-40s who can take care of me 100 %, as well as take care of 2-5 kids 100% (that’s 2 kids for the city life, and up to 4+ kids for the rural life, b/c it’s obstensibly, cheaper there), all on his salary, without having a mental breakdown, or worse (death by stress).

            George does not think “us” women should be in the work force. I said, “Great! Where is my man, and his pile of cash?” Lol. But I can tell you, I don’t think this man is going to be happy with me, “kicking it” all day while he busts himself….Besides, it takes two incomes, at least where I live….in the city. I can already see this guy getting peeved that I am not working like he is.

            In sum, his traditionalist approach, does not account for the realities of life. The reality being kids are super expensive today, no matter where you live, b/c salary is relative to your location. Not to mention, child-care…..outrageous where I live….you might as well have the mom, or dad, depending on who has the better salary just stay home, bc child-care cost is no joke here….you would be lucky to have a grandparent who wants to do it for free….

            And then, salaries are not keeping up with the cost of rent (which is getting close to that of a mortgage) and even houses (e.g., the median home in my neighborhood, is above ~ 600,000.00 here in Los Angeles).

            If you know any guys mid-30s + to mid-40s who have that sort of funding on them, let me know. The only men I know who have houses in the age range of 30-40s, had the down payments paid for by their baby boomer parents. In fact, some baby boomer parents, just paid the whole house outright as a gift, b/c well, “keeping up with the Jones/appearances.” Can’t have junior be the only one without a house!

            Shoot, my cousin just bought a house with her husband, both mid-30s….he was an only child, and upon his mother’s death (father was already deceased), he inherited a large lump sum. On top of that, they lived in my Uncle’s amazing house for 10 years, RENT FREE, and saved up all their money, from 22-32 yo……So, thus, hello….LA house.

            Shoot, I have another cousin, in a different state, just got a house, she and her husband are both 32 yo….The father bought the house, and the son is an only child….I was like he is unemployed, and she is a teacher….how did they even get a mortgage? But there you go….it’s a lot cheaper in that state than here.

            But that is not the norm, or the status quo…..And she does work, and so does he….no one is staying home hanging out….I still believe they have a mortgage on the place too….

            But if he can find me one (and I wish him Good Luck!), I can’t wait to hit up yoga in the mid-a.m., lunch w/ the gfs, and mani/pedi in the afternoon before 5 p.m., when I would usually be in an office doing emails/taking calls….

          3. “Cap?” That’s not how it operated. It was precisely aiming for a minimum and not a cap. I don’t quite understand your comment but let me see if I can explore the notion.

            AA was essentially a selection process (usually for jobs but also conceivably for things like university admissions) that was almost always was implemented by counting heads and races, and applying a comparison to the general pool of qualified applications, using spreadsheets, identifying “under-representation,” and then making adjustments to raise the number of nonwhite position-holders

            the selection process adjustments could only be made, by favoring nonwhites and disadvantaging whites, in one way or another.

            Keep in mind, it was always a comparison between a number of applications versus a pool of “qualified” applications. And yet when the pool of qualified applicants was too small, so, often the definition of “qualified” was monkeyed with too, to fit the desired results.

            another interesting thing was identified very quickly which did not square with the whole “white racist” propaganda, which is that businesses and universities were selecting certain groups of nonwhite applications at higher than proportionate representation– Asians, in most instances.

            This lead to a sort of troubled situation for the HR and applications bureaucrats. Here is where there actually was a consideration of capping whites and asians, that is to say, handicapping the qualified applications from those pools, in favor of, usually, blacks, but also often women and hispanics, sometimes native americans. The “caps” if any were imposed on qualified male, white, and asian hires.

            Systems varied– some had weighting processes that would for example, give a double boost to a black woman over a black man perhaps.

            Also push-back from whites against AA programs grew. Different systems (today we call such systems “algorithms”) were developed to try and boost nonwhite, non-asian utilization in sneakier ways. Which is still where it is today.

            So, Enigma, you comment is an enigma to me. I am not sure in what circles it would have operated as a “cap.,” unless you were referring to the supposedly over represented legacy population of whites and the newly over represented population of asians. I would like to know exactly where and when it operated in such a way. I will check back later and see if you can identify precisely what context would support your claim, if any. But thank you for your comment.

            1. i hypothesize that the backing away from AA by the Democratic establishment was a calculated ploy to keep Asian American voters “in the fold.” They were perfectly capable of seeing that their interests diverged strongly from blacks where AA programs were concerned, most acutely in universities. Look at the lawsuits if you disbelieve me, I can prove my point that way.

              But the Dems are smart. In general Asian Americans are often higher earners than blacks, and so it was important to keep them in the fold. So explicit support for AA went by the wayside, perhaps, i speculate, just to keep peace in the diverse Democratic fold.

              Even more important to the future of the Dem party, was to grip the swelling ranks of the self identified Gay Liberation voters. Now we know that “Double income no kids” gay couples have tons of disposable income hence a better donor profile. So the rise of the “Pete Buttigieg” type candidate.

              Oh, and some black folks in the Midwest have noticed that last point, and don’t really like it. But I can’t speak for them. You won’t find their voices being heard in the mass media, in general, but, you can find it on the internet I’m sure.

              When the mass media does take notice and says blacks dont like Pete, it’s usually blamed on him firing the black police chief. However, I’ll say this because I’ve heard it in person, some black folks just dont like him because he’s gay. And all the gay lib stuff is considered a white issue, not one they like.

              But again, I’m not black and I don’t presume to speak for them. And of course they are not a monolithic community. Each person has his own opinion. I’m interested to hear if any black democrat voters want to comment on that.

            2. You won’t accept anything I tell you so I’ll direct you to the answer. Start with a specific situation where there was an affirmative action goal. Pick a public institution or municipality where the numbers will be public. In the case of University admissions, look at the goal and compare it to actual admissions. You’ll discover that if they met the goal which many didn’t, they never exceeded it by more than a percentage point. You’ll also find that the goal was a figure lower than the population, guaranteeing a permanent representation. In the case of municipalities setting contracting goals. They typically set MWBE goals lumping together minorities and woman. This led to a great deal of fraud which included fromt companies set up by the majority contractor and more often, women-owned companies helmed by spouses/daughters/mistresses or other extensions of the original owners.
              Yes, there’s plenty of push-back against Affirmative Action. It starts from the same sources that never wanted to admit/hire/contract with them in the first place. The cap on whites which only allows them to have 85% of the admissions/jobs/contracts isn’t injustice, it’s perpetuation of the same racial injustice that always existed.

  14. I’m not reading P Turley’s story time on this.

    Nothing else matters in the Stone case then all those Illegal FISA Warrants!

    All the cases that started from those illegal DOJ/FBI/Fed Courts’ FISA Warrants should have never been in court or if they did should be thrown out.

    The DOJ/FBI/Fed Courts should be the ones up on criminal charges over these issues!

    I would like to hear what that would be judge will be saying tomorrow.

    Public Shame will be shown to her for the rest of her years & she’s pretty young.

  15. Mistrial will be declared at least at the appellate level.

    Well it seems this juror’s plan is about to backfire on her. If she would have simply kept her mouth shut she would have accomplished what she sought out as soon as she realized who the defendant was. But her ego could not be kept in check, she just had to portray herself as a hero and a person of great virtue. She is neither.

    1. OK, I took a fast look at what Turley wrote from a galloping horse & I saw not a word about the keystone piece to Stone/Flynn cases, all those illegal FISA Warrants.

      Darren like you warned way back, Stone & his lawyers were Ignorant for not having Stone plead the 5th as there wasn’t anything he could have said to help himself in the rigged system he found himself in.

      At this point why would he & his lawyers be so stupid to ask for a new trail in front the same biased Fed Judge that would only allow the likely corrupt prosecutors do-overs in which now they know what works in front of a jury & what doesn’t.

      Stone & his lawyers should be, I think, demanding Stones case should be thrown out completely.

      1. Stone couldn’t plead the fifth, he refused to do it that way, he took the risk, because he can do the time

        He will relax in prison, exercise, catch up on his correspondence, maybe write another book, get more donations, ride this horse to greater fame, and enjoy it all the way, whether he gets a new trial or not

        Stone is a fighter and fighters aren’t afraid to do some time. He’s a political solider. for further reading, see Carl Schmitt, “theory of the partisan”

        1. The Trump criminals will nod see the inside of a prison The fact that they face financial ruin and their assets have been transferred to attorneys is some type of justice

  16. Judge Jackson should never have allowed such a person to be on the Jury. Judge Jackson is well known as a partisan Dem. It will be interesting what she does. Does she do the right thing and call a mistrial? or declare no problem, which is her Dem credentials showing? We shall see?

Leave a Reply