What should happen to the Stone verdict because of jury foreman Tomeka Hart’s bias?
Jonathan Turley writes about the bias of jury foreman Tomeka Hart in the Roger Stone trial:
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.
This isn’t just an ordinary political preference. This is intense interest and extreme dislike, even hatred, of a candidate and anyone associated with him. Stone, the defendant, was an associate of Trump’s. This juror could not possibly be considered fit for serving on a jury to judge Stone, whether she asserted she could be impartial or not.
Turley goes on to discuss what Hart disclosed to the judge and the court, and the answer appears to be “not much.” She appeared to be only vaguely aware of Stone and never revealed her activist and extreme views:
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.
According to Turley – and I heartily agree – Hart should never have been a juror in this case and her participation (as foreman, no less!) invalidates the verdict:
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.
Once upon a time, this sort of bias would have been something liberals would have recognized as disqualifying. But now, since it hurt Trump and Stone, I predict that the judge, Obama appointee Amy Berman Jackson (who presided over the Manafort trial as well as the Stone trial) will not see it that way.
Note also that we would know absolutely nothing about Tomeka Hart’s bias had she not chosen to publish a spirited defense on social media of the Stone prosecutors, mentioning that she had been the foreman, and therefore giving the prosecution’s critics the opportunity to research her past social media activity. That’s when they found a motherlode of anti-Trump and even anti-Stone postings. But all of this would have remained a secret had Hart not outed herself.
When does her book come out detailing her heroic efforts to safeguard the public from the menace that is Roger Stone?
while its true that Müllers apostate feld hure Berman Freisler won’t care and was likely happy that Hart was on the jury, her rejection of any retrial will make Stone’s appeal or pardon much easier
I’m pretty sure that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding Federal Rules of Civil Procedures) as well as federal precedent in caselaw gives Judge Jackson very little choice in the matter. As Powerline noted, there are already motions on the docket referencing this very issue.
The ultra-virtuous have been known, on occasion, to put their respective feet deep, deep down their respective throats.
(But that’s A-OK…because they really are so very virtuous…)
Another TWANLOC moment …
Griffin – heroic?
I’d say “stunning and brave”.
POTUS’ greatest super power isn’t 4D chess or some quantity of “genius” for which he often draws accolades or “charging the ambush”.
It’s his ability to get his enemies to self-reveal. Every bloody time they stand up from deep cover & shoot the finger & it’s turkey shoot day for President Trump.
“But all of this would have remained a secret had Hart not outed herself.”
Exhibit #987…or something.
And Oh yeah…verdict should be vacated & all charges dropped.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson allowed the seating if (1) a lawyer who had run for Congress in West Tennessee and (2) a quondam patronage employee of a previous (Democratic) administration (who worked in the PR apparat of the Office of Management and Budget, IIUC). If the conventional resolution does not provide for the assignment of the case to a different judge, it’s necessary that the case be quashed tout court.
It’s amazing how readily some people get prosecuted for ‘lying’ and some skate entirely.
NB, about 20% of the local workforce in the Washington commuter belt is not employed by the federal government in any capacity, much less in a patronage job. Lawyers are abnormally common, but still < 1% of the local workforce. It shouldn't be that difficult to find people who are not lawyers or immersed in Democratic Party politics. They failed to do so twice in seating a 12 man jury. #underperformingtothepointoffraud.
I’m pretty sure that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (and the corresponding Federal Rules of Civil Procedures) as well as federal precedent in caselaw gives Judge Jackson very little choice in the matter. As Powerline noted, there are already motions on the docket referencing this very issue.
Betcha the b*tch tries every door.
The case should never have been tried in the D.C. circuit- full stop. It was literally impossible for Stone to get a fair jury there.
While I believe Stone’s case never ought to have been brought, he’s charged with making false statements to a Congressional committee, in DC. The Constitution requires cases to be brought where the offenses are committed. Prosecutors are limited (and take advantage of the limitations where possible) in this. I don’t see the choice to bring these charges elsewhere.
Mr. Stone was apparently not well served by his lawyers. In my firm it was standard practice to research the social media of the members of the jury panel.
sdferr,
The rights in the 6th Amendment belong to the defendant, not the prosecutors. Trials can be and have been moved when it is clear that the defendant can’t get an unbiased jury- the 6th Amendment is no barrier in that case. That clause of the amendment was specifically written to prevent the prosecution from cherry picking the venue, not to prevent the defendant from getting a fair trial.
That’s right, the defense can move to change venue where the prosecution cannot. So they move, both sides make arguments, the judge rules, and then if not changed the motion can be brought back on appeal, right? That’s my understanding anyway.
“…. the motion can be brought back on appeal, right? ”
The whole trial, if Jackson doesn’t dismiss.
So Edward, Yancy, or whoever knows and cares to jump in — suppose this trial is washed out and a new trial sought again, wouldn’t a new motion for change of venue be in order, and due to the prejudice now discovered be more likely to be granted? I assume the motion is kosher, or no? Possibly even a different judge to decide it? Is that too a possibility?
” judgment of an associate of the president ”
President Trump has denied that Rodger Stone was an associate of his. Why does the media keep calling him one?
What should happen vs. what did happen:
Judge Jackson held a public phone conference hearing this morning with Stone’s lawyers and the new prosecutors (replacing the 4 resignees), nominally addressing the new Stone team motion for a new trial in light of her determination to continue to a Thursday sentencing decision: should the motion be dealt with first, or can the motion be dealt with after the sentencing?
She decides to go ahead with sentencing Thursday (“deferring execution of the terms of the sentence pending the outstanding questions about a new trial”), and deal with the new trial motion in writing thereafter.
(Twt. Thread from Politico reporter): https://mobile.twitter.com/dsamuelsohn/status/1229779289773690882
She wants to sentence first, and then hear the motion for a new trial? Ass-backwards! This foreman would generate an automatic mistrial anywhere I’ve ever heard of. The judge must want to get her ticket punched as a real Trump-hater before she declares a mistrial.
I’m stunned at the news, although I suppose I shouldn’t be. All bets are off when the object of your hate is Donald J. Trump.
Hart is probably only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. Unfortunately, unless the other jurors self-identify as she did, Berman will never allow disclosure of their jury questionnaires. She will also not grant a new trial on this basis. After all, Berman is the source of the problem.
Stone’s lawyers filed a motion for change of venue pre-trial, arguing that no associate of Trump’s could get a fair trial in DC. How true.
Strelnikov:
Yes, it’s kind of like Catch-22, isn’t it? The DC courts are prejudiced against Trump, but it’s Judge Amy Berman Jackson (DC US District judge) who has the power to say no, they’re not prejudiced against Trump and the trial won’t be moved.
Fox guarding henhouse.
Can Stone sue this juror for rigging the trial and wasting all the money and time he poured into a futile defense? Seriously: the government (both prosecutors and court) may also have a cause of action for deception, corruption of the judicial process, etc, and certainly the defendant should have a strong claim.
Maybe Tameka should do Stone’s time: about 100 months, right?
AdVoc.
No. Otherwise no one to be a juror.
Stone’s remedy is a new trial, but this judge has either denied it or will deny it.