The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: rangerrebew on February 17, 2020, 01:03:12 pm
-
Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor — 02/15/20 10:30 AM EST
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would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone.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.â€
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.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone
-
FTA (emphasis added):
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.
@catfish1957
This quote goes to a point I was making with you yesterday, about how a single Juror can effect an unfair verdict. Hart wasn't just a Juror, she was the Foreman of the Jury. I've been a Foreman myself, and my job was to cobble together a decision that could be agreed upon by all 12 Jurors. That involves persuasion. For the Foreman to be that extremely biased is very troubling to me, I happen to think Stone probably did break the law and should be punished for it, but this revelation about the Jury throws even that into doubt.
I'll be interested to see the results of a telephonic hearing called by O'Bastard Judge Amy Jackson today. She might be calling a mistrial.
-
FTA (emphasis added):
@catfish1957
This quote goes to a point I was making with you yesterday, about how a single Juror can effect an unfair verdict. Hart wasn't just a Juror, she was the Foreman of the Jury. I've been a Foreman myself, and my job was to cobble together a decision that could be agreed upon by all 12 Jurors. That involves persuasion. For the Foreman to be that extremely biased is very troubling to me, I happen to think Stone probably did break the law and should be punished for it, but this revelation about the Jury throws even that into doubt.
I'll be interested to see the results of a telephonic hearing called by O'Bastard Judge Amy Jackson today. She might be calling a mistrial.
Stone probably did break the law, but by committing perjury on a detail that had no bearing on a bogus, politically inspired case that went nowhere anyway, and by making a silly threat not even the target of the threat took seriously.
You and I both agree he should be punished - but this particular 'crime' deserves a punishment measured by weeks, not years.
-
FTA (emphasis added):
@catfish1957
This quote goes to a point I was making with you yesterday, about how a single Juror can effect an unfair verdict. Hart wasn't just a Juror, she was the Foreman of the Jury. I've been a Foreman myself, and my job was to cobble together a decision that could be agreed upon by all 12 Jurors. That involves persuasion. For the Foreman to be that extremely biased is very troubling to me, I happen to think Stone probably did break the law and should be punished for it, but this revelation about the Jury throws even that into doubt.
I'll be interested to see the results of a telephonic hearing called by O'Bastard Judge Amy Jackson today. She might be calling a mistrial.
Stone's a sleazy low life who helped architect and orchestrator (with help from friends Stone and Pecker) the sleaziest primary campaigns in history in '16. He crossed lines, I thought never ever see in American politics. F__ him.
Why don't you have a circle jerk with him and his other friends, if so inclined.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0gq1CRoqcMc/TLhMsRek_dI/AAAAAAAAAN4/HOe4UPimo3U/s1600/NY+Gay+Parade.jpg)
-
Stone's a sleazy low life who helped architect and orchestrator (with help from friends Stone and Pecker) the sleaziest primary campaigns in history in '16. He crossed lines, I thought never ever see in American politics. F__ him.
Why don't you have a circle jerk with him and his other friends, if so inclined.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0gq1CRoqcMc/TLhMsRek_dI/AAAAAAAAAN4/HOe4UPimo3U/s1600/NY+Gay+Parade.jpg)
Why would I want to have a circle jerk with Roger Stone? I think he's skeezy, too.
-
Why would I want to have a circle jerk with Roger Stone? I think he's skeezy, too.
Frankly I don't understand your strange need to insult everyone who disagrees with you on this @catfish1957. Might it not be possible that we're concerned with the corruption of the legal system and not with Stone's personal well being?
-
Frankly I don't understand your strange need to insult everyone who disagrees with you on this @catfish1957. Might it not be possible that we're concerned with the corruption of the legal system and not with Stone's personal well being?
For me to be insulted, I would first have to respect the opinion. :shrug:
-
Here’s a thought. Maybe the American idea is that free citizens are free to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whether in life their choices conform to other citizens’ choices or not.
Sure, Roger Stone marches to a different drummer in his life style. But, as long as he supports the Right and is treated fairly and equally by law, all the rest is none of my business.