In the crush of news this week, one story was a bit buried. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial. It was an expected ruling but one that eviscerates the notion of an unbiased jury. I previously discussed the issue of the bias of the head juror and the need for a new trial. What is interesting is that Jackson does not seriously question her political bias but effectively gives a shrug and says “go to jail anyway.”
I have previously discussed the statements made by Tomeka Hart before she became the jury foreperson. She exhibited intense hostility against Trump and his associates and protested against the administration. She also expressed support for investigations of the administration and even discussed this case. Worse yet, the transcript of the voir dire hearing did not suggest that the defense counsel was aware of this history. Either she disclosed the information and defense counsel was less than effective, or Hart had withheld the information and was less than transparent.
As discussed in an earlier column, there were multiple points on the voir dire form where Hart could have revealed her prior statements and protests. This was not a small part of her life. 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.
As expected, the court simply brushed aside these clear examples of bias. Jackson wrote:
“The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected. Moreover, while the social media communications may suggest that the juror has strong opinions about certain people or issues, they do not reveal that she had an opinion about Roger Stone, which is the opinion that matters . . . To the extent one could consider any of the social media posts to be inconsistent with the juror’s questionnaire, they do not warrant a new trial because they do not meet the legal test for something that has been ‘newly discovered.’ [A] defendant seeking a new trial must establish that the information presented in his motion could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”
I do agree with Judge Jackson that there is question of whether this information “could …have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.” The court notes
“the foreperson’s views were certainly not hidden at the time of jury selection. The juror’s personal affiliation with Democratic politics was set forth in her written answers. She said straight out that she had opinions about the “officials” on the list of people who might be mentioned in the case, and Donald Trump was the most prominent, if not the only, ‘official’ named.”
This was publicly available on social media and the question remains why the defense was not aware of the past expressions of political bias by Hart. One would have thought that Hart’s political past would have caused greater scrutiny of her past statements but, as I discussed previously, the transcript shows only a brief and matter-of-fact examination.
Yet, the opinion seems to work hard to avoid the obvious. It clearly demonstrates that even the failure to answer voir dire questions fully and truthfully will not be a barrier to service. Jackson has confirmed for future jurors that they can hide bias or past statements without fear of repercussions or a new trial. Even though Hart conveyed intense opposition to both Trump and his associates, Jackson dismisses the concern. Moreover, Hart’s answers seem clearly unresponsive and misleading on the questionnaire but Jackson again categorically and conclusorily dismisses the objections to her incomplete answers.
If there is a due process right to an unbiased jury, then there should be a presumption in favor of the defendant when bias is uncovered. In other words, Stone should have been given a new trial. Otherwise, as here, the result makes a mockery of due process.
Here is the opinion: Stone decision
Judge Amy Berman Jackson is an embarrassment to educated women like me. She shuts her eyes to obvious lies by a juror. That’s a travesty. She’s a vile partisan.
The judge specifically shoots down “she lied”. Maybe as a “well educated woman” you should read the ruling.
SGB, perhaps you’d like to elaborate on your educational and professional background and why you’re so shocked by Judge Berman’s ruling.
She just set Stone up for a pardon.
Because the lawyer blundered, the citizen goes to jail. Now that’s leftwing justice at its worst. ABJ needs to remember she’s the referee here and the fairness of the process is her only concern. That means keeping the lawyer’s foibles out of the way and stopping even the appearance of politics in the jury’s decisions.
Dude, he was found guilty on the facts of the case and there is no evidence of a corrupted trial.
Case closed.
btb:
You have your usual keen misunderstanding of procedural and substantive due process. Leave law to the lawyers and we’ll leave whatever you’re good at (there must be something but that’s optimistic) to you.
Mespo, I understand the principles and facts better than either your or JT, and I admit, that is a shame. The law fortunately isn’t difficult – though you are the most undeservedly self important tradesmen in our society – it’s the BS and tricks that is.
btb:
Mespo, I understand the principles and facts better than either your or JT, and I admit, that is a shame. The law fortunately isn’t difficult ”
********************************
Yeah Walter, you’re a legal wizard. I bet you and Mrs. Mitty talk about that all the time.
The principles are not difficult and I note your inability to discuss them and JT’s avoidance of the Judges points which are well covered in the ruling.
btb:
“I note your inability to discuss them ..,”
**************
I don’t discuss them with my Schnauzer either though the discussions we do have are more fruitful than with you.
Well mespo you could show off that big lawyer brain to the rest of the board and put me in place at the same time.
Probably not. No whiplash involved.
Mespo, we keep noticing that Trumpers on these threads are more concerned with dissing liberals than making real arguments. Book has given you the opportunity to show off your legal skills, yet you clearly decline to make a case.
Is that what you usually send insurance lawyers to impress them?
btb:
“Is that what you usually send insurance lawyers to impress them?”
***************
No that was for you! Typically, I just remind there are nincompoops like you out there that can get on juries due to jurists like ABJ. That scares the daylights out of them. And it will continue to do that.
And week noticing that Trumpers prefer posting silly videos to making real arguments.
Seth:
No we prefer smackdowns but you clowns are too remote, so utter disdain will have to do.
BTB– “The law isn’t difficult.”
Yet you argued with me and others for days that Congress had no say in the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
That ended when you were given a direct quote from a federal court information manual that Congress decides what cases the courts will hear.
Apparently the law was a little more difficult for you than you pretend.
not corrupted, no, nobody is saying there were bribes.
just BIAS and a juror bias is a grounds for reversal due to an unfair trial
Stone will have an excellent appeal
Roger is strong, no worries for him.
Just worry about certain lifetime tenure petty federal tyrants in blackrobes. they get to decide all the serious questions that the system wants settled by dictate, like desegregation or abortion or ‘gay marriage” for example. and who wanted those things? capitalism did, the plutocracy
let me ask, did this judge ever stand for election? no of course not. they’re article III judges thats why
this lifetime tenure of federal judges is the bastion of capitalism and plutocracy in the US, by design from 1787, and it’s sad and funny all at once that the people who think they are on the left can’t see this reality
federal judges are there to protect the system, they know it,
the global capitalist plutocracy also hates trump and they have been pressuring everyone they can to stick it to him ever since.
there’s a small fragment of global capitalists who see that the PRC is a problem however so they are backing Trump because they’re smart enough to see where continuing their alliance with the PRC is going to lead about ten years out. if not sooner. or has lead already if you consider how utterly pathetic it is that the POTUS has to command private enterprise to make glorified qtips in dire current need
Un-noted in JT’s one sided Trump review is the information on page 8 of the ruling. Another juror is questioned about deliberations and he states that they were ready to go, guilty on all counts when the foreman – the juror in question – asked the rest to reconsider charge #3 and be sure they got it right before they vote. They did before proceeding. Sounds ;like a duty bound conscientious juror to me, the kind an innocent defendant would want on their jury.
I looked at the evidence in the Stone and it seems pretty obvious to me that if there had been one single Trump voter on that jury Stone would have walked. The laws of probability make that close to impossible.
Conclusion: Stone’s lawyers went to great length to make sure no Trump voters got on that Jury (of course the prosecution did worked towards the same goal) There is just no way there could not be a single empathetic juror without the assistance of the defense.
And notice that Stone himself made some lame excuse as to why he could not be there for jury selection. He could have easily picked a jury that would have found him innocent.
Stone’s lawyers had 3 entire business days to research every potential juror on a 60 name list. Stone’s lawyers even hired extra staff to conduct said research. There was no excuse for them not to Zero in on Hart’s affiliations.
Judge Jackson has noted in her most recent ruling that Stone’s lawyers had every possible chance to bump Hart off the jury. But Stone’s lawyers completely dropped the ball. Now Professor Turley tell us that Stone’s lawyers deserve a second chance to rectify their error. That’s not how it works and Turley knows better.
I agree that Stone’s lawyers dropped the ball. But apparently the judge did not use that as a reason to deny the request for a new trial.
Its not a good reason. If you make that a good reason for a retrial then every defense team would make sure they have one ringer on the jury so that the defense gets a do-over if their client is convicted.
It depends on how “ineffectual” counsel were.
It depends on how “ineffectual” counsel were.
_________________________________________________
Is that a claim being made by the defense or is that something you think the judge is supposed to raise on behalf of the defense?
Indeed. The judge would have to find purposeful deceit on the part of the juror or proof of her failing to weigh the evidence without prejudice or deceit. The question before the jury was not “Do you like people work for Donald Trump. It was, did the defendant commit a criminal act. Of course a competent lawyer would have thrown her out in voire dire and he doesn’t have to justify doing that beyond the defendant’s right to reject a certain number. The judge does not have that luxury and JT is supposed to know that.
Judge Jackson is a full blown Left Wing radical Trump hater DEM who is biased herself. She should have never been on this case. Stone deserves are retrial and not with this Judge.
Appeal?
Full Pardon?
Go to Jail and then be let out, like Michael Cohen due to Coronavirus.
In any case, Stone is going to either Walk free, in the end, or spend very very very little time in Jail/Prison.
Judge Jackson will be the loooooooser in the end.
The DEM”s and the SOROS/Left Wing Nut Job Judges are ruining the courts forever.
This guy is a law professor? First off, he misrepresents the Judges finding that the juror did not dishonestly present herself during jury selection.
Most importantly, it is not required that jurors have no political opinions, just like it is also true that FBI agents can and probably hold them as well. We ask both to deal fairly with their legal obligations regardless of those opinions. Given that Trump elicits strong opinions, JT must be arguing that only those who approve of him or don’t pay attention to politics may be chosen for a jury considering criminal violations of an associate of his.
Read the Constitution sometime JT. The 1st amemdent grants all citizens, including prospective jurors the right to free speech.
Clearly your law practice is limited to your time in the shower in the morning. You are not even L Woods.
Zeus wr never met you before. And here you pop out of nowhere with a show-stopping zinger.
Seth, why are you insulting everyone on this website?
Because he’s gone of the rails?
Because he has nothing better to do?
Who knows. Who cares.
I wondered that too. He has so little confidence in his own positions that he seems compelled to lead or end each one with a gratuitous insult.
I am betting he didn’t get that style of argument from a book on How to Win Friends and Influence People.
STFU, Seth.
btb:
“This guy is a law professor? ”
********************
Yeah, and you’re not so go pontificate where someone might believe you — like a nursery school. Wait … what I am saying! Those kids are sharp. Try a DNC national meeting.
Justice is not a result, but a process.
This is, was and always will be my interpretation of the “result” by “this” judge.
Indeed, the result of any judge or jury.
Assuming for a moment Mr. Stone’s counsel were totally and completely incompetent, the responsibility, the duty, of a judge must be interpret the law in a reasonable, fair and justice manner.
Mr. Stone and, perhaps, most importantly, justice demands a new trial.
Whether a new trial will be granted on an appeal, if any, only time will tell.
As civil trial lawyer for over 35 years, I understand and accept, although I do not agree, the history of the law is not reason, logic or common sense. It is experience.
Sometimes … people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.
dennis hanna
If the judge’s decision is as horrendous as JT makes it appear, the appellate court will readily overturn it.
Dennis–As you undoubtedly know–but others here do not–the Civil Law is sometimes praised as ‘written reason’ and perhaps it is to some degree. By contrast our common law system places a greater emphasis om experience and it grows organically on a case by case basis.
Very good arguments can be made for both systems, but history has shown that the Civil Law, with roots in Roman law, is less resistant to authoritarianism than is common law.
I prefer our system.
Again, as you know, the door to an appeal was not going to open until Stone first applied for and was denied a new trial. His lawyers had to make the motion even if they had no expectation she would rule in their favor.
She does seem a rather sorry example of a judge.
There are jury questionnaires; voir dire; inspection of social media prior to jury selection; jury consultants; background investigations. The lawyers did not do their jobs. Her ruling is legally correct. The controversy is just the wail of a downtrodden frail singing the blues.
Chuck–From your remarks I take it that if your attorneys were substandard and you were convicted by a blatantly biased jury that prejudged the case you would be content with your prison sentence?
Don’t bother to answer. Whatever you say I know you would protest rather than going quietly.
But you seem to expect others to accept a miscarriage of justice.
OT:
Jonathan, I hope that Benjamin is doing well.
‘Delusional,’ ‘Absolutely false’: Governors cry foul on Trump testing claims
NBC News
ALLAN SMITH
Apr 19th 2020 1:50PM
Excerpt:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/04/19/delusional-absolutely-false-governors-cry-foul-on-trump-testing-claims/24037748/
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, told CNN that the “lack of testing” is “probably the number one problem in America, and has been from the beginning of this crisis.”
“And I have repeatedly made this argument to the leaders in Washington on behalf of the rest of the governors in America,” Hogan said. “And I can tell you, I talk to governors on both sides of the aisle nearly every single day. The administration, I think, is trying to ramp up testing, and trying — they are doing some things with respect to private labs. But to try to push this off to say that the governors have plenty of testing, and they should just get to work on testing, somehow we aren’t doing our job, is just absolutely false.”
He added that governors have been “fighting and clawing to get more tests” from both the federal government and private labs, and are continuing to do so. He echoed Northam in saying there are shortages of swabs needed to conduct the tests, among other necessities. -NBC. via AOL
“He echoed Northam in saying there are shortages of swabs needed to conduct the tests, among other necessities. ”
**********************
Yeah, Gov. Jolson gave them all to the abortion clinics which as we all know are essential life-saving services to all but the kid.
An aside:
Funny, mespo. Your gravatar looks nothing like you. A clown would be a better choice.
When the Judge croaks and gets an interview at the Pearly Gates, the judge ( Saint Peter) will not listen to her and will send her straight to Hell in e hand basket.
Berman is a prime and glaring example of why we need and have a Second Amendment.
JT: “the result makes a mockery of due process”
Everything that came from the Russia Hoax is a mockery of due process. All of it is fruit of the poisoned tree.
At least we’ll finally get a pardon from Trump and some kind words for the judge and prosecutors.
Our Country is sick unto death.
The pathology in this country is very grave. It started with Roe v Wade
Out problems began long before Roe v Wade.
Does America need another “show trial” in a “kangaroo court” to prove its hysteria and incoherence?
America couldn’t keep its slaves, wives, babies, orientation, restricted-vote republic, freedom, free enterprise or nation.
Ben Franklin was right.
__________________
We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
________________
America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.
President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”
President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”
What a piece of crap judge. She deserves an Irish Poem. What irritates me the most is how she got all preachy towards Stone while she was sitting there denying his motion.
Vermin in Ermine???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a bad judge named Berman –
With a tendency to pre-determine!
She screwed Roger Stone,
But before he was gone,
She made poor Stone sit thru her sermon!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – very good, very tight on the rhyme, though. 😉
Squeeky:
“She made poor Stone sit thru her sermon!”
*************************
Well she is more of a divine than decider, you have to admit.
I presume her decision will be appealed? This is insanity. How much longer will these injustices be tolerated by Republicans?
Clapper and Brennan lied before congress and are free. Stone gets arrested at his house by FBI swat and CNN was forewarned and had cameras rolling. And the democrats are afraid Trump will turn the US into a “bannana” republic?
“Clapper and Brennan lied…”
_______________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama, James E. Boasberg et al.
This is a shocking decision but not unexpected with this judge.
There could hardly be a clearer case for a new trial.
I doubt it can survive appeal.
She’s a bad judge and Tomeka Hart is a bad juror. Neither one will ever be sanctioned, because justice is an odd accident in this country whenever there is enough ambiguity for a trial.
Of course, we might do something sensible and establish retention-in-office referenda and recalls for federal judges and U.S. Attorneys, provide for mixed panels of lawyers and laymen to brutally sanction judges and prosecutors, scarify the federal criminal code, and amend the territorial boundaries of federal trial jurisdiction. (For starters, have the jurisdiction which includes the federal capital include all counties in the commuter belt, not just DC). We could do all of these things. We will do none of them.
From your lips to God’s ears . . . only something like this can thwart the amoeba-like swarm of the George Soros-funded anti-American left.