'Trump calls Stone juror ‘totally biased’ while prosecutors, defense attorneys are debating new trial' diff viewer (3/4)

This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on February 25, 2020 19:42 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/roger-stone-allegation-of-juror-misconduct-and-demand-for-new-trial-to-be-heard-in-semi-public-hearing-tuesday/2020/02/25/2ad48758-5729-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next version

Version 3	Version 4
Trump calls Stone juror ‘totally biased’ as prosecutors, defense attorneys debate new trial	Trump calls Stone juror ‘totally biased’ as prosecutors, defense attorneys debate new trial
2020-02-25 21:58:14 UTC	2020-02-25 22:30:13 UTC (32 minutes later)
President Trump on Tuesday injected new political drama into the legal debate over whether Roger Stone deserves a new trial, tweeting as a hearing in the matter was ongoing that the jury forewoman who voted to convict his longtime friend and confidante was “totally biased.”	President Trump on Tuesday injected new political drama into the legal debate over whether Roger Stone deserves a new trial, tweeting as a hearing in the matter was ongoing that the jury forewoman who voted to convict his longtime friend and confidante was “totally biased.”
Trump’s comments came just as the judge in the case had rebuked him and others over their attacks on the juror, and it seemed to put the president at odds with his own Justice Department.	Trump’s comments came just as the judge in the case had rebuked him and others over their attacks on the juror, and it seemed to put the president at odds with his own Justice Department.
As the president fumed on social media, federal prosecutors were in court arguing against Stone’s bid for a new trial based on the alleged political bias of the jury forewoman. Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, has warned him publicly and privately to stop tweeting about Justice Department criminal cases and told people close to Trump he was considering quitting over the matter.	As the president fumed on social media, federal prosecutors were in court arguing against Stone’s bid for a new trial based on the alleged political bias of the jury forewoman. Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, has warned him publicly and privately to stop tweeting about Justice Department criminal cases and told people close to Trump he was considering quitting over the matter.
“There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case,” Trump wrote. “Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”	“There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case,” Trump wrote. “Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of ‘Trump’ and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!”
Minutes later, he seemed to add an attack on the judge, re-tweeting a link that Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano had tweeted with the headline, “Roger Stone judge’s bias may have jeopardized entire trial: former Democratic Party lawyer.”	Minutes later, he seemed to add an attack on the judge, re-tweeting a link that Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano had tweeted with the headline, “Roger Stone judge’s bias may have jeopardized entire trial: former Democratic Party lawyer.”
“A total miscarriage of justice!” Trump added in his own voice.	“A total miscarriage of justice!” Trump added in his own voice.
As of 4:30 p.m., the hearing remained ongoing, and it was unclear what U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson would decide. She seemed to question aggressively Stone’s defense team over the jury forewoman’s social media, and ultimately said they and prosecutors would be allow to asked a limited set of questions to two members of the jury. Those jurors, a man and a woman, both said no outside social media posts had been brought to their attention during deliberations, and they debated each count carefully. The woman said the forewoman insisted they “slow down,” even as some in the group were ready to decide.	As of 4:30 p.m., the hearing remained ongoing, and it was unclear what U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson would decide. She seemed to question aggressively Stone’s defense team over the jury forewoman’s social media, and ultimately said they and prosecutors would be allow to asked a limited set of questions to two members of the jury. Those jurors, a man and a woman, both said no outside social media posts had been brought to their attention during deliberations, and they debated each count carefully. The woman said the forewoman insisted they “slow down,” even as some in the group were ready to decide.
No matter the outcome, the judge made clear she was concerned about attacks by Trump and others on jurors, even ordering the hearing partially closed to protect the safety and privacy of those on the panel. The jury last year convicted Stone of lying to lawmakers who were attempting to explore possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.	No matter the outcome, the judge made clear she was concerned about attacks by Trump and others on jurors, even ordering the hearing partially closed to protect the safety and privacy of those on the panel. The jury last year convicted Stone of lying to lawmakers who were attempting to explore possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Citing the risk of harassment and intimidation jurors might face, Jackson decided that observers should be able to only listen to an audio feed — rather than see in person — arguments over Stone’s request for a new trial. She also barred the parties from naming jurors during the proceeding.	Citing the risk of harassment and intimidation jurors might face, Jackson decided that observers should be able to only listen to an audio feed — rather than see in person — arguments over Stone’s request for a new trial. She also barred the parties from naming jurors during the proceeding.
Jackson noted the president himself had “used his Twitter platform to present his opinion about the foreperson” of the jury, and that Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson had displayed the foreperson’s Twitter handle and called her an “Anti-Trump zealot.” Carlson’s show reaches millions of viewers.	Jackson noted the president himself had “used his Twitter platform to present his opinion about the foreperson” of the jury, and that Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson had displayed the foreperson’s Twitter handle and called her an “Anti-Trump zealot.” Carlson’s show reaches millions of viewers.
A day before Stone requested the new trial, Trump suggested on Twitter the forewoman of the jury in Stone’s case had “significant bias.”	A day before Stone requested the new trial, Trump suggested on Twitter the forewoman of the jury in Stone’s case had “significant bias.”
There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of “Trump” and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!	There has rarely been a juror so tainted as the forewoman in the Roger Stone case. Look at her background. She never revealed her hatred of “Trump” and Stone. She was totally biased, as is the judge. Roger wasn’t even working on my campaign. Miscarriage of justice. Sad to watch!
“This is indisputably a highly publicized case in which the president himself shone a spotlight on the jury,” Jackson said, adding, “Any attempt to harass or intimidate jurors is completely antithetical to our system of justice.”	“This is indisputably a highly publicized case in which the president himself shone a spotlight on the jury,” Jackson said, adding, “Any attempt to harass or intimidate jurors is completely antithetical to our system of justice.”
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Trump’s tweets.	A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Trump’s tweets.
Jackson has signaled the likelihood of a swift ruling and could decide as early as Tuesday whether to toss out Stone’s convictions and order a retrial, or finalize the jury’s guilty verdicts for defense appeal.	Jackson has signaled the likelihood of a swift ruling and could decide as early as Tuesday whether to toss out Stone’s convictions and order a retrial, or finalize the jury’s guilty verdicts for defense appeal.
Stone filed his request for a new trial on February 14 — the day after Trump repeatedly attacked the forewoman of the jury, who ran for Congress as a Democrat.	Stone filed his request for a new trial on February 14 — the day after Trump repeatedly attacked the forewoman of the jury, who ran for Congress as a Democrat.
Though he did not name her, his comment referred to Tomeka Hart, a former president of the Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners and unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress. Hart had identified herself as the forewoman of the jury in a Facebook post, saying she couldn’t “keep quiet any longer” in the wake of the Justice Department move to reduce its sentencing recommendation for Stone from the seven to nine years recommended by front-line prosecutors.	Though he did not name her, his comment referred to Tomeka Hart, a former president of the Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners and unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress. Hart had identified herself as the forewoman of the jury in a Facebook post, saying she couldn’t “keep quiet any longer” in the wake of the Justice Department move to reduce its sentencing recommendation for Stone from the seven to nine years recommended by front-line prosecutors.
The change came after Trump called the initial request “horrible and very unfair.”	The change came after Trump called the initial request “horrible and very unfair.”
“It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors,” Hart said in the post. “They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”	“It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors,” Hart said in the post. “They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”
Barr pushes back against Trump’s criticism of Justice Dept., says tweets ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’	Barr pushes back against Trump’s criticism of Justice Dept., says tweets ‘make it impossible for me to do my job’
Stone defense attorney Seth Ginsberg alleged that the forewoman answered falsely when she said on a jury questionnaire that she had no opinions about the FBI, Justice Department or special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election that would affect her impartiality.	Stone defense attorney Seth Ginsberg alleged that the forewoman answered falsely when she said on a jury questionnaire that she had no opinions about the FBI, Justice Department or special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election that would affect her impartiality.
“Based on the social media posts, it appears to me they are misleading, intentionally,” Ginsberg said.	“Based on the social media posts, it appears to me they are misleading, intentionally,” Ginsberg said.
Ginsberg also said the forewoman was not truthful when she denied recalling commenting publicly on Stone’s case, citing her retweet of a news article about Stone’s arrest and indictment, with the comment, “Brought to you by the lock her up peanut gallery.” He also singled out an August 2, 2019 post in which, he said, “the foreperson equated being a supporter of Trump with being a racist.”	Ginsberg also said the forewoman was not truthful when she denied recalling commenting publicly on Stone’s case, citing her retweet of a news article about Stone’s arrest and indictment, with the comment, “Brought to you by the lock her up peanut gallery.” He also singled out an August 2, 2019 post in which, he said, “the foreperson equated being a supporter of Trump with being a racist.”
“She failed to disclose evidence regarding her strong views of Mr. Stone and the political issues in this case,” Ginsberg said.	“She failed to disclose evidence regarding her strong views of Mr. Stone and the political issues in this case,” Ginsberg said.
The judge, though, did not seem entirely receptive to the arguments of Stone’s team — in particular that the forewoman was so biased that she could have tainted the jury.	The judge, though, did not seem entirely receptive to the arguments of Stone’s team — in particular that the forewoman was so biased that she could have tainted the jury.
She seemed to draw a distinction between animus against Stone and commentary on other political topics, and noted that the forewoman did not hide in her questionnaire that she had views on Trump.	She seemed to draw a distinction between animus against Stone and commentary on other political topics, and noted that the forewoman did not hide in her questionnaire that she had views on Trump.
“Do you think there’s a legal or factual basis that these posts show that there is an anti-president opinion that means she was necessary explicitly or implicitly biased against Mr. Stone?,” Jackson pressed.	“Do you think there’s a legal or factual basis that these posts show that there is an anti-president opinion that means she was necessary explicitly or implicitly biased against Mr. Stone?,” Jackson pressed.
Growing heated at one point, Jackson pointed out that it was she, the judge, who pressed the potential ~~juro~~ about her ability to remain impartial, and that Stone’s defense attorney said he had no questions. The defense attorney, Robert C. Buschel, said “Thank you” and sat down, never investigating or challenging the juror’s selection, Jackson asserted.	Growing heated at one point, Jackson pointed out that it was she, the judge, who pressed the potential juror about her ability to remain impartial, and that Stone’s defense attorney said he had no questions. The defense attorney, Robert C. Buschel, said “Thank you” and sat down, never investigating or challenging the juror’s selection, Jackson asserted.
Buschel also conceded during the hearing that he had not run a Google search on the juror.	Buschel also conceded during the hearing that he had not run a Google search on the juror.
Prosecutors’ contention seemed to be that Stone’s defense attorneys had ample time to review her and other jurors questionnaires, which they were given on Sept. 13, and did not raise an objection in real time.	Prosecutors’ contention seemed to be that Stone’s defense attorneys had ample time to review her and other jurors questionnaires, which they were given on Sept. 13, and did not raise an objection in real time.
Prosecutor J.P. Cooney said none of the postings made by the juror during the trial, from Nov. 6 through Nov. 15, were related to Stone’s case when he and another prosecutor examined them two or three days after Stone’s Feb. 14 filing.	Prosecutor J.P. Cooney said none of the postings made by the juror during the trial, from Nov. 6 through Nov. 15, were related to Stone’s case when he and another prosecutor examined them two or three days after Stone’s Feb. 14 filing.
He added however, that some of links have subsequently been disabled.	He added however, that some of links have subsequently been disabled.
In an unusual twist, the government on Tuesday called as a witness one of the prosecutors who brought the case against Stone at trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Marando.	In an unusual twist, the government on Tuesday called as a witness one of the prosecutors who brought the case against Stone at trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Marando.
Marando quit the case only in recent weeks, after Justice Department leadership intervened to reduce the sentencing recommendation he and the other career prosecutors on the team made for Stone.	Marando quit the case only in recent weeks, after Justice Department leadership intervened to reduce the sentencing recommendation he and the other career prosecutors on the team made for Stone.
Marando testified that Stone’s defense was given a list five days before jury selection began of about 80 potential jurors in the order they would be questioned, meaning those at the top would be likeliest to be selected.	Marando testified that Stone’s defense was given a list five days before jury selection began of about 80 potential jurors in the order they would be questioned, meaning those at the top would be likeliest to be selected.
“It’s coming back to me now. A lot has happened since them,” Marando said.	“It’s coming back to me now. A lot has happened since them,” Marando said.
Stone also made a separate, failed bid to disqualify Jackson after Thursday’s sentencing hearing, asserting that she showed bias by referring to “the jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”	Stone also made a separate, failed bid to disqualify Jackson after Thursday’s sentencing hearing, asserting that she showed bias by referring to “the jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances.”
Jackson slapped down that claim as a baseless smear, saying no law required a postponement and that she had agreed to delay execution of Stone’s sentence until his motion is resolved.	Jackson slapped down that claim as a baseless smear, saying no law required a postponement and that she had agreed to delay execution of Stone’s sentence until his motion is resolved.