Roger Stone requests new trial,one day after Trump intervention.

1. One day after Dirty Donald claimed the jury forewoman of the trial was biased his errand boy Roger Stone has requested a retrial, in a sealed motion.

 

What gall, demanding a fair trial. What will they think if next????

 

It seems at least two jurors were deeply involved in Democratic Party politics. The jury foreman (forewoman?) was a Democrat nominee for a seat in Congress.

Oops!

 

Good for him, he like all of us deserve fair trials

 

I have only ever been a juror at state trials never a Federal trial.Don't the attorney's get so many juror exclusions of all those they feel might be prejudiced in a Federal trial????

 

Yes. There is a jury selection process.
In this case there were interrogatories submitted to create a questionnaire for potential jurors and then an opportunity to interview them and then an opportunity to utilize peremptory strikes and then an opportunity to appeal any decision to seat a juror.

It’s a thorough process. Plus it’s been confirmed the juror in question disclosed DURING this process. The very reason the information is known.

This is precisely why these Trump media outlets are so insidious. Rather than seeking to inform their audience they misinform to sow doubt. Essentially they’re taking advantage of their audience in an attempt to undermine our system to maintain power.

If the Stone defense team takes this to the judge they’ll be admonished at best. It’s a bad faith move. They know it and she knows it.

 

The thing I also don't get is the woman they name is a Tennessee resident, yet the trial was in the Washington Federal district, how did she ever get called for a D.C.Federal trial??

 

Only the judge questioned and selected the jurors in this case.

 

And how do you know this?

 

I believe the law says that juror should be selected from the available pool within the Federal district.

 

Are you inferring that Democrats are unable to be fair on a jury that is judging a Republican. Do you believe that a Republican would be fair judging a Democrat?
Did you know that the lady in question explained her background in jury selection and Roger Stone's attorney accepted her?

 

OOPS!!!

 

Yeah, they might one day demand followers who aren't stupid.

 

Roger Stone’s attorney had no say. The judge picked the jurors. The defense had no veto.

Yes, I’m saying she had a political axe to grind.

 

Multiple media reports.

 

Where is 2.
3.
4. ?

 

Yes, heaven forbid you provide a citation.

 

Not true.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...ad-wrong-about-juror-bias-in-roger-stone-case

 

Ok. The multiple reports I heard were wrong. Or that report is wrong.

Even under that scenario, the judge chose what questions from the defense to ask potential jurors.

 

TV and radio. Sorry I didn't have it tape recorded.

 

They do. But in Stones trial, they didn't. The judge overruled most of them, including the very first one (which means it wasn't because they ran out).

Peremptory challenge is a common law practice in the US, but it isn't constitutionally protected, and thus judges can occassionally get away with restricting it. As Stone's judge did, to apparently allow the jury to be stacked with Trump- (and thus Stone-) haters.

 

The jury foreman is a Democratic Party activist. She posted anti-Trump ramblings about “Russia-Trump” before, during, and after the trial.

She was impartial?!?!

 

Not what this one says. Do you have a source?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...ad-wrong-about-juror-bias-in-roger-stone-case

 

"Jury selection got off to a slow start, with the judge denying most of the requests by defense lawyers to exclude potential jurors they fear could be biased against Stone."

...

"At the outset of Tuesday's proceedings, Jackson said she would not agree to strike prospective jurors just because they work for the federal government or because they have opinions about Trump.

That warning did not stop Stone's lawyers from trying to strike the very first one, a woman who once served as a communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget under Democratic President Barack Obama and whose husband is a Justice Department national security attorney.

"She said credibly she doesn't have an opinion on this case," Jackson said as she denied the motion."

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ill-during-jury-selection-for-trial/23853891/

 

Fantastic!

Let's hope all these charges get thrown out.