The Roger Stone Trial

[Hunerwadel]

I guess he'll soon be whining that the other 11 are Democrats.

 

[lawgator1]

What do you think about that biased jury foreman? You think that was fair?

First, I honestly do not know all the circumstances. The coverage has seemed very vague to me. I happened to see some Fox coverage today and they were claiming that the juror was posting about the trial on social media during the trial. And then there was discussion of how it was she got selected.

So that raises several questions in my mind. First, what was she asked in order to be picked? Trumpsters seem to be saying that the juror did not disclose that she does not like Trump and that disqualifies her. That is a bad argument because that would mean that opinions about Trump, good or bad, can automatically render you unqualified.

The way it typically works is that a prospective juror is asked generally if they have any biases that would make them unable to be fair. If they answer yes, that gets delved into further. If she answered no because she believed that she could be fair, then there is no problem. It happens all the time.

Its a tall order to get a new trial based on that kind of thing because you have to prove they were actually biased, and that they were untruthful in jury selection. And it is a high bar for good reason because post trial the losing party can almost always go back and find something in a given juror's past that had the potential for meaningful bias, but was not checked into at the time.

Another question is, what exactly did she post during the trial? That she had made up her mind on Stone? Or just anti-Trump reposts or commentary? The latter is not enough to alter the trial result. The former could be but only if it can be shown to have violated court orders and to have had an effect.

It wasn't within the sentencing guidelines so far as I can tell. They had to argue it up in severity way beyond analogous cases. Clearly the judge didn't think 7-9 was in the sentencing guidelines since she went for less than half that.

7 - 9 puts it at severity of 29; judge sentenced at a level of 20. That's a lot of stacking to get to 29. Judge clearly wasn't buying it.

From what I hear the judge thinks Stone is uber guilty and a conman. But she has the discretion to do what she did. That doesn't mean that what Stone did is any less abhorrent.

 

[RockyTop85]

Probably no need for a pardon this year. Surely he will appeal and wouldn’t he be a candidate to remain free during appeals?

Truthfully, I have no idea. I would assume it’s something like the test for whether somebody is a good candidate for release on bail, balanced with the length of sentence and likelihood of success on appeal, which would probably be informed by the motion for new trial hearing.

He was released on bond and is remaining out for the MFNT so... maybe?

 

[RockyTop85]

First, I honestly do not know all the circumstances. The coverage has seemed very vague to me. I happened to see some Fox coverage today and they were claiming that the juror was posting about the trial on social media during the trial. And then there was discussion of how it was she got selected.

So that raises several questions in my mind. First, what was she asked in order to be picked? Trumpsters seem to be saying that the juror did not disclose that she does not like Trump and that disqualifies her. That is a bad argument because that would mean that opinions about Trump, good or bad, can automatically render you unqualified.

The way it typically works is that a prospective juror is asked generally if they have any biases that would make them unable to be fair. If they answer yes, that gets delved into further. If she answered no because she believed that she could be fair, then there is no problem. It happens all the time.

Its a tall order to get a new trial based on that kind of thing because you have to prove they were actually biased, and that they were untruthful in jury selection. And it is a high bar for good reason because post trial the losing party can almost always go back and find something in a given juror's past that had the potential for meaningful bias, but was not checked into at the time.

Another question is, what exactly did she post during the trial? That she had made up her mind on Stone? Or just anti-Trump reposts or commentary? The latter is not enough to alter the trial result. The former could be but only if it can be shown to have violated court orders and to have had an effect.






From what I hear the judge thinks Stone is uber guilty and a conman. But she has the discretion to do what she did. That doesn't mean that what Stone did is any less abhorrent.

From what I understand, she was asked about any biases or information about the case. She admitted she had run for congress, might run for local office on the future, admitted she had heard of Stone and his connection with Trump but could not recall anything specific. She gave the magic “it would not impair my ability to judge the case fully” and I’ve heard conflicting things about whether or not there was a motion made to strike her for cause. I also don’t know how many peremptory challenges the defense used. Apparently they had 10 available. They did make nearly 50 successful for-cause challenges.

My belief is that there were no issues with the voir dire that would warrant reversal. If she was tweeting during the trial, that might change things, depending on what she was tweeting.

JMO.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

From what I understand, she was asked about any biases or information about the case. She admitted she had run for congress, might run for local office on the future, admitted she had heard of Stone and his connection with Trump but could not recall anything specific. She gave the magic “it would not impair my ability to judge the case fully” and I’ve heard conflicting things about whether or not there was a motion made to strike her for cause. I also don’t know how many peremptory challenges the defense used. Apparently they had 10 available. They did make nearly 50 successful for-cause challenges.

My belief is that there were no issues with the voir dire that would warrant reversal. If she was tweeting during the trial, that might change things, depending on what she was tweeting.

JMO.

Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) on Twitter


Float through her Twitter and tell me she should've been a juror.

 

[lawgator1]

From what I understand, she was asked about any biases or information about the case. She admitted she had run for congress, might run for local office on the future, admitted she had heard of Stone and his connection with Trump but could not recall anything specific. She gave the magic “it would not impair my ability to judge the case fully” and I’ve heard conflicting things about whether or not there was a motion made to strike her for cause. I also don’t know how many peremptory challenges the defense used. Apparently they had 10 available. They did make nearly 50 successful for-cause challenges.

My belief is that there were no issues with the voir dire that would warrant reversal. If she was tweeting during the trial, that might change things, depending on what she was tweeting.

JMO.

OK, very good information there.

And if so that would confirm a few things for me. First, it would mean a new trial is highly unlikely because it would be difficult to prove a preexisting bias against Stone that meant she was lying when she answered the voir dire questions. Second, and related, it would more be an issue of calling into question the competence of Stone's lawyers. If she admits she is politically active and has run for office, not delving DEEPLY into that at the time is really pretty bad.

Now, in federal court typically we do not get to ask questions directly. But I wonder if the lawyers asked the judge to go into it further, and what they wanted asked. And if they did not do so, again, that would be pretty weak on their part. I mean, the guy is on trial for lying to Congress in connection with Trump and you let someone on who is so active they have run for Congress? WTF?

 

[lawgator1]

Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) on Twitter


Float through her Twitter and tell me she should've been a juror.

I looked over it and shoe does not like Trump, clearly, but did not see anything going back aways about Stone. Can you point to any? And any about Stone actually during trial, as Fox claimed today (without showing it)?

As I said earlier, Trump and his associates cannot screen out any potential juror just because they are a Dem, or even just don't like Trump. The question isn't simply whether they are biased for or against Trump, its whether that bias would prevent them from being fair. Otherwise, each side would always be able to strike every potential juror.

 

[Orange defense]

There must be a pardon for no crimes committed. If you want to go this route, then here it is: No Obama administration arrests. No Trump administration arrest. Fair is fair.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I looked over it and shoe does not like Trump, clearly, but did not see anything going back aways about Stone. Can you point to any? And any about Stone actually during trial, as Fox claimed today (without showing it)?

As I said earlier, Trump and his associates cannot screen out any potential juror just because they are a Dem, or even just don't like Trump. The question isn't simply whether they are biased for or against Trump, its whether that bias would prevent them from being fair. Otherwise, each side would always be able to strike every potential juror.

No I don't have time to go through the hacks twitter. What you seen is enough to say she had no buisness being on there.

 

[volinbham]

From what I hear the judge thinks Stone is uber guilty and a conman. But she has the discretion to do what she did. That doesn't mean that what Stone did is any less abhorrent.

Uber guilty?

Are you suggesting she went significantly below the sentencing guidelines?

 

[volinbham]

I looked over it and shoe does not like Trump, clearly, but did not see anything going back aways about Stone. Can you point to any? And any about Stone actually during trial, as Fox claimed today (without showing it)?

As I said earlier, Trump and his associates cannot screen out any potential juror just because they are a Dem, or even just don't like Trump. The question isn't simply whether they are biased for or against Trump, its whether that bias would prevent them from being fair. Otherwise, each side would always be able to strike every potential juror.

I believe she had some celebrating Stone's arrest and basically suggesting he's a horrible person (pre-trial). Stone's lawyers should have done better research but it does suggest she wasn't an impartial juror. Courts will sort it out.

 

[Septic]

I believe she had some celebrating Stone's arrest and basically suggesting he's a horrible person (pre-trial). Stone's lawyers should have done better research but it does suggest she wasn't an impartial juror. Courts will sort it out.

Who amongst us would be an impartial juror? Is that even possible? Sounds like Stone's attorney's should have done a better job during voir dire.

The irony is that the same people grousing about Stone being found guilty are the same one snickering about guys like Lindsay Graham thumbing his nose at the Senate impeachment "trial".

 

[volinbham]

Who amongst us would be an impartial juror? Is that even possible? Sounds like Stone's attorney's should have done a better job during voir dire.

The irony is that the same people grousing about Stone being found guilty are the same one snickering about guys like Lindsay Graham thumbing his nose at the Senate impeachment "trial".

There are degrees of impartiality no? As I say, the courts will sort it out.

 

[RockyTop85]

OK, very good information there.

And if so that would confirm a few things for me. First, it would mean a new trial is highly unlikely because it would be difficult to prove a preexisting bias against Stone that meant she was lying when she answered the voir dire questions. Second, and related, it would more be an issue of calling into question the competence of Stone's lawyers. If she admits she is politically active and has run for office, not delving DEEPLY into that at the time is really pretty bad.

Now, in federal court typically we do not get to ask questions directly. But I wonder if the lawyers asked the judge to go into it further, and what they wanted asked. And if they did not do so, again, that would be pretty weak on their part. I mean, the guy is on trial for lying to Congress in connection with Trump and you let someone on who is so active they have run for Congress? WTF?

Is there a Stone Jury Scandal? Not So Fast ...

 

[lawgator1]

Uber guilty?

Are you suggesting she went significantly below the sentencing guidelines?

No, she has wide discretion on sentencing and from what I understand she went through a lengthy explanation as to why she decided on 40 months.

I don't see the problem. I for sure do not see this as some sort of statement by the judge that what Stone did was "not a big deal," or "minor." She said quite the opposite, especially as to witness tampering.

 

[lawgator1]

Is there a Stone Jury Scandal? Not So Fast ...

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that people read that article you posted. It has the transcript of the exact questions and answers of her. Excellent find and very informative, thank you. Lays out very clearly why the claims of bias are probably not legally sufficient to result in a new trial.

 

[BigOrangeD]

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Trump says he won't pardon Roger Stone now because he believes he will get a cleared on a retrial | Daily Mail Online

 

[Orangeburst]

.

 

[lawgator1]

Trump says he won't pardon Roger Stone now because he believes he will get a cleared on a retrial | Daily Mail Online

Trump is wrong for two related reasons. One, the odds of a retrial are remote here. Second, even if there was one, its very likely he will be convicted again.

Trump is going to end up pardoning him sooner than later. He will say he is confident that Stone was ultimately going to win, but its very stressful and expensive so he decided to pardon him as the appeals go on.

 

[volinbham]

No, she has wide discretion on sentencing and from what I understand she went through a lengthy explanation as to why she decided on 40 months.

I don't see the problem. I for sure do not see this as some sort of statement by the judge that what Stone did was "not a big deal," or "minor." She said quite the opposite, especially as to witness tampering.

Who's claiming it's not a big deal - I was just saying that the original recommendation for 7 - 9 was over the top and her ruling being so much lower than that recommendation indicates as much. Particularly if she thought he was "uber" guilty.

The 7 - 9 for a first time criminal comes in about a 29 on the sentencing guidelines. For reference, armed robbery where the fire arm is discharged is a 27.

 

[37L1]

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that people read that article you posted. It has the transcript of the exact questions and answers of her. Excellent find and very informative, thank you. Lays out very clearly why the claims of bias are probably not legally sufficient to result in a new trial.

I read the whole thing. There is some good information in it as well as some real clear cut bias, particularly when the author wanders away from the main topic of Stone's case. You know what I'm talking about.

Question: Is Donald Trump abusing his power with his public tirades against his enemies?
Answer: Certainly.

Trump’s latest comments and criticisms about the Stone sentencing recommendation are but the latest of hundreds of violations by Trump of the norm.

Until the Stone episode, however, one could make a plausible case that the Justice Department had ignored or deflected the president's norm-violating attempts at influence. But soon after Trump’s tweet attack on the prosecutors and the judge involved in the Stone case, the Justice Department announced it was course, overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors, and recommended a lighter sentence. The Justice Department denied that political considerations went into the reversal. But that was very hard to believe since the reversal was announced in light of Trump’s comments and pressure.

I'm not so sure that the decision by the DOJ and the President's tweets are put in the proper order as I have read information that would seem to contradict that but the author makes no such distinction.

Then there's this as well:

Yes indeed. The president is rewarding his (criminal) friend with special attention and advocacy and targeting his (law-abiding) enemy with threats of criminal reprisal. This is yet another abuse of presidential power, and the abuses will no doubt continue until the moment his presidency ends.

It may just be my own prejudicial leanings, but I would say, based upon the above and some others that are not included, that the author of this piece has his own prejudicial paradigm that taints his article from being accepted as an unbiased and totally factual document.

Having said all that, there is still good information provided as to why Stone may not get anywhere with an appeal and it is pretty well explained why, if that should come to pass. He should have just stuck with that, IMO.

 

[lawgator1]

Who's claiming it's not a big deal - I was just saying that the original recommendation for 7 - 9 was over the top and her ruling being so much lower than that recommendation indicates as much. Particularly if she thought he was "uber" guilty.

The 7 - 9 for a first time criminal comes in about a 29 on the sentencing guidelines. For reference, armed robbery where the fire arm is discharged is a 27.

That is simply wrong. If it were, then that would mean that any time a judge did not simply follow a prosecutor's reccomendaton, then the recommendation was somehow bad.

 

[volinbham]

That is simply wrong. If it were, then that would mean that any time a judge did not simply follow a prosecutor's reccomendaton, then the recommendation was somehow bad.

She wasn't just under; she was less than 1/2 the recommended sentence.

Let's try it this way - do you think lying to Congress and a verbal threat to a witness is a worse offense than armed robbery with a discharge of the weapon?

 

[lawgator1]

I read the whole thing. There is some good information in it as well as some real clear cut bias, particularly when the author wanders away from the main topic of Stone's case. You know what I'm talking about.

Question: Is Donald Trump abusing his power with his public tirades against his enemies?
Answer: Certainly.

Trump’s latest comments and criticisms about the Stone sentencing recommendation are but the latest of hundreds of violations by Trump of the norm.

Until the Stone episode, however, one could make a plausible case that the Justice Department had ignored or deflected the president's norm-violating attempts at influence. But soon after Trump’s tweet attack on the prosecutors and the judge involved in the Stone case, the Justice Department announced it was course, overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors, and recommended a lighter sentence. The Justice Department denied that political considerations went into the reversal. But that was very hard to believe since the reversal was announced in light of Trump’s comments and pressure.

I'm not so sure that the decision by the DOJ and the President's tweets are put in the proper order as I have read information that would seem to contradict that but the author makes no such distinction.

Then there's this as well:

Yes indeed. The president is rewarding his (criminal) friend with special attention and advocacy and targeting his (law-abiding) enemy with threats of criminal reprisal. This is yet another abuse of presidential power, and the abuses will no doubt continue until the moment his presidency ends.

It may just be my own prejudicial leanings, but I would say, based upon the above and some others that are not included, that the author of this piece has his own prejudicial paradigm that taints his article from being accepted as an unbiased and totally factual document.

Having said all that, there is still good information provided as to why Stone may not get anywhere with an appeal and it is pretty well explained why, if that should come to pass. He should have just stuck with that, IMO.

Okay, that's fine. You can certainly ignore the commentary. But if you read the questioning of the juror at issue, I can tell you that is not going to be enough to get her disqualified, retroactively. It is ALWAYS the case in a trial that a juror will recount sources of potential bias, but if when asked will this cause you to be biased and they say no, then that's it. This is especially so when your lawyers quesiton them a bit more and cannot establish that there is a problem. You can use a preemptive strike, but that did not happen here because the defense apparently accepted her answers.