Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on February 15, 2020, 07:59:29 PM
-
Prospective jurors lie. (Or commit lies of omission.) Case in point -- the chairperson of the Roger Stone jury:
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone
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.
...
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.
-
Google U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
She is an activist Judge who has been a deep state player against Trump all along.
She allowed this Democrat operative to not only serve on the jury but be foreman.
Here, I'll do it for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Berman_Jackson
-
Interesting take on what happened.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/did_the_dirty_cops_of_the_roger_stone_case_step_into_a_barr_trap.html?fbclid=IwAR2xyuM7UZGZOkdtJpqTQp6EKPDc_xyfb4vqFF5gjdIIZ0zromqVxPkkwpE
Now it looks as though the dirty cops - the four prosecutors who lied to the Department of Justice about Stone's sentencing recommendations, and the far-left judge who allowed a nakedly Trump-hating partisan to serve as Stone's jury forewoman again - might just have been trapped themselves by none other than U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
-
Can President Trump pardon him after all is said and done?
https://youtu.be/3eGAGSXIw5A (0:44)
Railroaded.
v. rail·road·ed, rail·road·ing, rail·roads
v.tr.
1. To transport by railroad.
2. To supply (an area) with railroads.
3. Informal
a. To rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction: railroad a special-interest bill through Congress.
b. To convict (an accused person) without a fair trial or on trumped-up charges.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/railroaded
Terry
-
I'll believe the dirty DOJ people get what they deserve when I see it.
-
Got themselves stuck in a Barr trap? Yeah, right. Ain't no such thing. ;/
-
Regarding the thread title, that can certainly be true.
My gun club had their annual meeting last week. It was a Texas Law Shield (US Law Shield) affiliated lawyer. One of the things he mentioned is that even when the law is black and white, sometimes jurors do what they want anyway. He mentioned he knew of a case where an elderly man who couldn't move very well shot and killed a younger man who was coming at him unarmed. Even though Texas law says the guy has no duty to retreat and the jury should not consider that, they still went for guilty based on that. I am sure there was more to the case, but it is something to consider.
-
Trial by jury and democracy are the worst way of doing things other than all the alternatives.
-
I think a defendant in a criminal trial retains the option of waiving the jury and allowing the judge to decide. That wouldn't have helped Roger Stone, though, because the judge is just as anti-trump as the jury chairwoman is.
-
Hart is getting a lot of publicity now and yet...
The under-oath examination of the potential jurors, known as voir dire, shows Stone’s lawyers did not make a motion to strike Hart from the pool when given the chance.
According to a court ruling released Wednesday, Stone’s defense did move, unsuccessfully, to seek a new trial alleging bias by another juror, but not Hart.
???
-
Hart is getting a lot of publicity now and yet... ???
How did she answer her juror questionnaire and during voir dire?
When did they move to seek a new trial? Before or after her alleged bias came to light?
-
How did she answer her juror questionnaire and during voir dire?
When did they move to seek a new trial? Before or after her alleged bias came to light?
They knew her name and they knew she was a Democratic congressional candidate before the trial started - they could have easily found her alleged bias before the rest of the internet did.
-
They knew her name and they knew she was a Democratic congressional candidate before the trial started - they could have easily found her alleged bias before the rest of the internet did.
Yes, and with the power of hindsight they definitely should have done so.
Again, though, how did she answer her juror questionnaire and during voir dire? If she lied when asked then that might explain why they didn't dig into her social media. If she was honest then it would be shocking that they would let her get through voir dire at all.
-
Yes, and with the power of hindsight they definitely should have done so.
And the court made note of that in denying their previous motion for retrial over a biased juror:
The defense could have easily conducted the same internet research included in the instant motion and could have raised concerns at that time. But the defendant as not prejudiced by his failure to do so; the defense was provided with a full opportunity during the individual voir dire "to expose biases or prejudice on the part of the veniremen." [Case Cite]. And, it was counsel, not the Court, who brought his questioning of Juror [Blank] to an end.
-
And the court made note of that in denying their previous motion for retrial over a biased juror:
That is a great answer to not my question.
In the separate decision you referenced, the defense asked after the fact that the juror be struck based on his/her employment as an IRS attorney. The "internet research" in question was determining that the office that juror worked in was involved in conducted criminal trials, and thus would be subject to inherent bias. It did not include digging into social media posting.
Again, how did Hart answer her juror questionnaire and during voir dire? Was she honest or did she lie?
-
Again, how did Hart answer her juror questionnaire and during voir dire? Was she honest or did she lie?
I don't believe the written questionnaire answers are available, however the oral portion is. She starts on page 39.
https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019
-
I don't believe the written questionnaire answers are available, however the oral portion is. She starts on page 39.
https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019
Nice. So not much to her oral testimony except that she repeatedly assured the court that she was totally not biased at all.
-
she repeatedly assured the court that she was totally not biased at all.
You must have read a different transcript.
They asked her in multiple ways if she could set aside any bias and judge only based upon the facts of the case.
Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?
is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations alone would make it hard for you to be fair?
Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?
She said she could be fair. It's going to be hard to prove that as a lie.
Now, she could have lied/omitted something in her written responses and that would be pretty solid grounds for retrial.
But I still think that since they knew she ran for congress as a democrat and didn't question her any further, it was Stone's lawyers who dropped the ball if they want to come back and claim bias now.
-
I find it odd that in a criminal trial, juror bias is dismissed as "well, your lawyer should have done a better job". I guess actual guilt or misconduct in the trial doesn't matter. If your lawyer didn't find out about it, sucks to be you.
-
I agree, they should have addressed it more fully there.
I'm still curious if she was honest in the written questionnaire.
-
I agree, they should have addressed it more fully there.
I'm still curious if she was honest in the written questionnaire.
She's a democrat with an agenda, are they capable of honesty?
-
If your lawyer didn't find out about it, sucks to be you.
Well, not entirely. In a case such as this your best shot might be claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
-
Well, not entirely. In a case such as this your best shot might be claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
His original counsel might as well have been working for the prosecution.
Between the judge and the forewoman the case should be tossed.
If anyone thinks justice was done here they're a moron. The leftists are shoving our faces in their putrid corruption.
-
Well, not entirely. In a case such as this your best shot might be claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
My point is this undermines the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept. If the integrity of the trial is suspect, the doubt should go in the defendant's favor.