[Valid Atom 1.0]

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Did the Jury Foreperson in the Roger Stone trial lie so as to get him convicted from the start?

Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court [in 1933], declared that a juror who lies his way into the jury room is not a juror at all. “If the answers to the questions are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only.” Cardozo continued, “His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.”
San Francisco Public Defender: When a Juror Lies During Voir Dire

Daily Caller: It sure looks like Tomeka Hart lied

Roger Stone's conviction looks less certain given these revelations about Jury Foreperson Tomeka Hart's bias. This seems like a pretty big deal--if true (even in part). How does this case hold up on appeal if this happened with the jury foreperson?  

This is a whole different thing than the prosecutors' recommendation for seven to nine years for Stone (which is on its face excessive given the facts in this case).  

AoSHQ: Full Speed Ahead on SentancingAG Barr blasts Trump over tweetsForewoman of Roger Stone Jury Criticizes Trump In FaceBook Post;People Discover She Has Long Been a Rabidly Anti-Trump, Anti-Republican Zealot Who Ran for Congress as a Democrat and Tweeted About Stone Before the Trial, and Morning Report 02.13.20

Rush Limbaugh: Trump is exactly right about Roger Stone and Bill Barr is blowing up the Mueller travesty

Instapundit: About William Barr criticizing Trump about his tweeting: We have this hand and the other!

TOM: BIAS: Roger Stone Jury Forewoman Is Partisan Anti-Trump Democrat

American Greatness: Head juror is a Dem activists who tweeted about case?

1 comment:

  1. In a perfect world, the conviction would be overturned and the tainted juror charged with contempt of court. After that, she should be sued for defamation and personal injury.


I welcome all legitimate comments. Keep it civil. Spam will be deleted. Thanks.