• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

TheDoctorWasIn said:
This didn't actually happen. You know that, right? The voir dire transcripts have been posted numerous times.



During voir dire, the possibility of impropriety is sufficient reason to disqualify a juror. Each side can even challenge a certain number of jurors without any cause at all.

But the trial is over. The jury returned a verdict. It takes a much higher standard of proof to overturn that verdict than just the "possibility of impropriety".



It came out today in court that Stone's lawyers didn't even bother to Google the juror's names before starting voir dire.

I guess Stone could argue that his counsel was so incompetent that he was denied a fair trial.
Click to expand...

Or that jurors were not forthcoming with pertinent information, they "forgot".
 
OpportunityCost said:
Or that jurors were not forthcoming with pertinent information, they "forgot".
Click to expand...

Jurors are only obligated to truthfully answer the questions they are asked. That's it.

Again, the voir dire transcripts have been posted numerous times. If you think she lied, feel free to point out where.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I have no doubt that a new trial will be granted IF the matter cannot be otherwise dragged out until AFTER the November 2020 elections. AFTER the 2020 elections there will no longer be any need for a new trial.



Let me preface this with an apology for posting (previously) without a sufficient caffeine and nicotine blood level.

In federal trials that is, indeed, the case.

Your position appears to be that because 1 of the 12 persons who voted to convict might have been "biased against the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased for the defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to convict based solely on the facts) simply do not count.

By extension, that would mean in the case of an acquittal, where 1 of the 12 persons who voted to acquit might have been "biased for the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased against the Defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to acquit based solely on the facts) simply should not count and the Prosecution should be entitled - as of right - to a new trial.
Click to expand...

What?? OMG you are giving me a headache.
 
OpportunityCost said:
She didn't reveal pertinent information then claimed to have not remembered it.





Ethical considerations are largely about the possibility of impropriety. Something can be accidental but will look extremely bad and be considered ethically bad.





Again, if her voir dire has some things not revealed for whatever reason, it puts more scrutiny on her impartiality. An appeal of going to happen one way or the other, but this incident could be listed as one of the grounds for appeal. Which is why it serves everyone to be as truthful as possible about their foreknowledge of the case in question. I do not believe she was. I also think if she were biased the other direction you would have zero problems seeing it.
Click to expand...

Given the comments Judge Jackson made today Stone would be wise to have his affairs in order before the judge renders her decision. Stone's lawyers also admitted that they didn't Google the juror in question. Seems to me that he should've sought to disqualify his legal team rather than the judge.
 
OpportunityCost said:
She didn't reveal pertinent information then claimed to have not remembered it.
Click to expand...

I apologize for before - I had not caught up to all of the news of the day, and now I understand what you are referring to here.

But you're still wrong - about the timeline.

When asked if she had posted about Stone's trial on social media on the juror questionnaire, she indicated that she did not remember whether she had or not.

Her voir dire answers do not conflict, and there is no reason to believe that she lied about anything.

Keep in mind, Stone's lawyers had her name (and could have Googled it at any time) and her juror questionnaire for weeks prior to voir dire - and they chose to not challenger her.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
I apologize for before - I had not caught up to all of the news of the day, and now I understand what you are referring to here.

But you're still wrong - about the timeline.

When asked if she had posted about Stone's trial on social media on the juror questionnaire, she indicated that she did not remember whether she had or not.

Her voir dire answers do not conflict, and there is no reason to believe that she lied about anything.

Keep in mind, Stone's lawyers had her name (and could have Googled it at any time) and her juror questionnaire for weeks prior to voir dire - and they chose to not challenger her.
Click to expand...

Look at that language she used. Deliberately evasive, vague language that leaves her an out.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Look at that language she used. Deliberately evasive, vague language that leaves her an out.
Click to expand...
I think you are assuming bad faith where it doesn't exist.

It will be nearly impossible for Stone's legal team to argue the narrative you suggest.

If she was deliberatively evasive during voir dire, why didn't Stone's lawyers notice?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
I think you are assuming bad faith where it doesn't exist.

It will be nearly impossible for Stone's legal team to argue the narrative you suggest.

If she was deliberatively evasive during voir dire, why didn't Stone's lawyers notice?
Click to expand...

Because it wouldn't be apparent until knowing her social media posts that were questionable to her voir dire responses.
 
ludin said:
this will be appealed. this is a conflict of interest. there was a democrat legal analyst that said she ruined the case with her political rhetoric.

yes the deep state hates trump it has been proven.
Click to expand...

It hasn't yet been proven that the 'deep state' even exists. A lot of people and patriots really hate Trump though.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because it wouldn't be apparent until knowing her social media posts that were questionable to her voir dire responses.
Click to expand...
If Stone's lawyers had googled her name, they'd have known about all of her social media posts.

(I'm giving you a hint as to what the narrative will become. Puzzle!)
 
OpportunityCost said:
She didn't reveal pertinent information then claimed to have not remembered it.





Ethical considerations are largely about the possibility of impropriety. Something can be accidental but will look extremely bad and be considered ethically bad.





Again, if her voir dire has some things not revealed for whatever reason, it puts more scrutiny on her impartiality. An appeal of going to happen one way or the other, but this incident could be listed as one of the grounds for appeal. Which is why it serves everyone to be as truthful as possible about their foreknowledge of the case in question. I do not believe she was. I also think if she were biased the other direction you would have zero problems seeing it.
Click to expand...

Did she lie when filling out the questionnaire? The facts available say she didn't.

Did she answer truthfully all questions put to her during the voir dire? The available evidence says she did.

Did she carefully consider all the evidence presented during deliberations and before rendering a verdict? The available evidence, including the words of other jurors, says she did.

Did she (and all the other jurors) fulfill their civic duty while on jury duty? The available evidence says they did.

Now, after the verdict people are 'suggesting' she may not have been impartial, based on her social media words prior to the trial. They cannot point to a single shred of evidence that she did not behave appropriately while she was on jury duty.

She was accepted by the defense before and during the trial.

If they think something about her is grounds for appeal, they are entitled to present their evidence and arguments in appellate court. That is the way the system works.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Since Mr. Stone is 100% innocent
Click to expand...

The jurors disagree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4d7df0-0d46-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html

I was a juror in Roger Stone’s trial. I am proud of how we came to our decision.

Since we delivered that verdict, I have been taken aback by the accounts of pundits and politicians that our decision was somehow the product of a deeply polarized, partisan divide. Let me be clear: We did not convict Stone based on his political beliefs or his expression of those beliefs. We did not convict him of being intemperate or acting boorishly. We convicted him of obstructing a congressional investigation, of lying in five specific ways during his sworn congressional testimony and of tampering with a witness in that investigation.

The evidence in this case was substantial and almost entirely uncontested. Stone’s testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in September 2017 was a matter of record; both the prosecution and defense agreed on the facts. The real dispute was whether Stone had lied under oath and whether that mattered. The defense offered by Stone’s attorney can be summed up in to two words: So what?

Our unanimous conclusion was this: The truth matters. Telling the truth under oath matters. At a time when so much of our public discourse is based on deception or just lies, it is more important than ever that we still have places where the truth can be presented, examined and discerned. Congress is one of those places. That’s what the case was about.

I believe I speak for my fellow jurors when I say we are proud of our decision. We listened carefully to the testimony of a series of witnesses and carefully examined every element of every charge and its defense, and we unanimously agreed that each had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We came close to rejecting one charge that we believed was written ambiguously; our question was whether Stone had actually made a particular statement. In the end, we were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone had in fact made that statement. Almost half of our day-long deliberation was devoted to this single question.
.
Click to expand...
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Did she lie when filling out the questionnaire? The facts available say she didn't.

Did she answer truthfully all questions put to her during the voir dire? The available evidence says she did.

Did she carefully consider all the evidence presented during deliberations and before rendering a verdict? The available evidence, including the words of other jurors, says she did.

Did she (and all the other jurors) fulfill their civic duty while on jury duty? The available evidence says they did.

Now, after the verdict people are 'suggesting' she may not have been impartial, based on her social media words prior to the trial. They cannot point to a single shred of evidence that she did not behave appropriately while she was on jury duty.

She was accepted by the defense before and during the trial.

If they think something about her is grounds for appeal, they are entitled to present their evidence and arguments in appellate court. That is the way the system works.
Click to expand...

Spoiler alert---that's all I'm arguing and I have been getting pushback for pages and pages.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
If Stone's lawyers had googled her name, they'd have known about all of her social media posts.

(I'm giving you a hint as to what the narrative will become. Puzzle!)
Click to expand...

I'm giving you a hint as to how little of a **** I give about your opinion. Not a puzzle!
 
Mycroft said:
So. That was the first step. Now Stone can appeal this ruling to a higher court.

Also, if I remember correctly, that Judge also has to take up the issue about that juror. That was shelved by Jackson until after she passed sentence. I'm thinking that'll be another one that is appealed.

And yes...Trump will just sit back, bide his time...and when/if it becomes necessary, he'll pardon Stone.

Sorry about that, Trump haters.
Click to expand...

You mean people who dont defend criminals..all the rule of law does in the gop are gone.
 
ludin said:
this will be appealed. this is a conflict of interest. there was a democrat legal analyst that said she ruined the case with her political rhetoric.

yes the deep state hates trump it has been proven.
Click to expand...

So all 12 members of the jury were Democratic operatives?
 
Outlook said:
Stone should get a new trial.
First of all, the jury foreperson was biased. That should be enough for a new trial.
Stone’s attorney should request a new venue.
Secondly when the judge said Stone was involved in a cover up, doesn’t sound like she is nonpartisan.
Click to expand...

Every citizen in the US is biased politically...that alone isn't a disqualification
 
ClaraD said:
Every citizen in the US is biased politically...that alone isn't a disqualification
Click to expand...

It can be enough to disqualify someone.
A juror has to be impartial. Jurors and judges need to keep their political beliefs or other biases against either party to themselves.

If the juror in question hadn’t posted negative statements about Stone prior to her jury selection, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Once that fact came out her actions raised a question of impartiality.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Given the comments Judge Jackson made today Stone would be wise to have his affairs in order before the judge renders her decision. Stone's lawyers also admitted that they didn't Google the juror in question. Seems to me that he should've sought to disqualify his legal team rather than the judge.
Click to expand...

Oh I dunno. If he had disqualified her, the right-wing couldn't complain about here and defend this convicted felon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom