Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Advisor

You progressives will hate this

When you've lost the Judge you know it's bad.


Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano argued Thursday that Roger Stone should get a new trial after unearthed tweets appear to show an “inherent bias” from a juror who voted to convict the longtime friend of President Trump.

“[Stone is] absolutely entitled to a new trial with a member of a jury making these types of revelations about the politics involved in the decisions to prosecute him,” Napolitano said on “Fox & Friends." 

“It is the duty of the judge to ensure that both the government and defendant get a fair trial, and if the judge discovers afterward that there was a built-in inherent bias on the part of a member of a jury against the defendant, that is an automatic trigger for a new trial,” he later explained. “[U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is] going to have to call those jurors back in and interrogate them or make a decision on the spot."

34 Replies
Senior Contributor

Re: You progressives will hate this

If the trial is judged to have been biased, give him a new one. This is true irony since Stone was tampering with a trial. Heck yeah, let's do it again.


Re: You progressives will hate this

No problem whatsoever with that. Napolitano only expressing what would be considered a legal norm.  That being if a verdict is tainted by inadvisable conduct the accused should be allowed a new trial

Careful what you wish for however. The first trial was held back when only a small % of the public was aware or paying any attention, even less having the first clue as to who Stone was.  The new one would be held under considerably more attention. And the evidence and testimony would essentially be the same.  Unless, of course, the defense missed something. Smiley Happy

Veteran Advisor

Re: You progressives will hate this

I agree with Bruce and Knapper.

Although trying to imagine the caterwauling if the shoe was on the other foot regarding "unearthed tweets."

Veteran Advisor

Re: You progressives will hate this

After reading the article, I disagree.

The fact that the juror opposed Trump doesn't mean that she can't serve on matters of witnesses tampering, perjury etc.

Or I guess you can have a peremptory strike rule where the judge says "all persons in the jury pool who didn't vote for the POTUS are hereby excused?"

Veteran Advisor

Re: You progressives will hate this

The defense had the opportunity to strike potential jurors who they found objectionable. They get 10 peremptory strikes in a Federal felony trial.

I guess here is what the legal argument would come down to- if she clearly misrepresented herself in any questioning that was directed to her during jury selection then yes, that is a problem. Any of that would be in the court transcripts.

Otherwise it is just one of those unfortunate things- you commit a crime and you don't get to pick your jury 100%. Chance and the best efforts of your defense to strike the most objectionable are all you got.

Veteran Advisor

Re: You progressives will hate this

As far as "inherent bias" goes, it is pretty tough to overturn a conviction based on that. Unless, as I said, the juror in question clearly answered a direct question untruthfully. The general "do any of you have associations or pre-conceptions that would prevent you from hearing this trial fairly" is a pretty high bar.

If a prosecutor is trying o make a case against a kluxer who killed a civil rights worker and managed to get 10 members of the defendants Konklave struck but 7 get on and vote to acquit, it is pretty much tough luck. Can try the appeal route but unless there was a major flaw in legal process, unlikely.

That's actually how the concept of a Hate Crime came about- which is sort of unfortunate- but the idea being that in those sorts of cases the Feds could step in and try it in a different jurisdiction.

BTW, in this moment, try finding a jury anywhere without a bias if the case tangentially touches the POTUS.

Senior Contributor

Re: You progressives will hate this

First, let's start with the obvious: The jury was tainted which we now know; it contained a person who not only ran for office as a Democrat but the foreperson is both a hard-core Democrat activist and posted specifically about the Stone case before voting to convict him on social media!

In addition the Judge in the case denied a defense request to strike a second juror who was an Obama-era press official with known anti-trump views and who's husband worked for the division of the DOJ that prosecuted Stone................................

Then again so was the prosecution in the first place, never mind the sentencing "recommendation."  I remind you that Stone was convicted of obstructing something that wasn't criminal in the first place.  

In addition, since we're talking obstruction, can we talk about the apparent intentional obstruction of justice by the prosecutors in this regard?

Specifically, it appears that they briefed senior DOJ leadership and lied to them about their intended sentencing brief; they had led those officials to believe they were going to make a recommendation in line with other similar obstruction cases which would call for a recommendation of approximately one quarter of the recommendation actually made...............................

All of this amounts to grounds for mistrial.  The odds of the foreperson being biased to this degree and discussing the case on social while it is going on is enough standing alone.  If you've ever served on a jury to know damn well that's not permitted, nor is engaging in any sort of media (or personal) discussion of the case outside of the courtroom during the time you are serving. .....................................

The American Experiment is over; we now have hard, irrefutable proof that not only will the courts allow tampered juries to sit and hear cases and deny requests for relief when it comes to light but in addition the prosecutors will lie not only in court as we've seen all the way back to at least Miller at the Supremes but in addition they will lie to their superiors in a malicious fashion in an attempt to screw someone based on personal and political animus.

There is no reason for any American to have any respect for any aspect of the DOJ or the Federal Courts at this point. 


Veteran Advisor

Re: You progressives will hate this

As far as juror #1 goes, yes, if she answered untruthfully to any questions during selection or used undue influence during deliberations, that is a potential problem.

As far as #2 goes, merely having worked somewhere deep in the Obama Administration would potentially make him/her no more biased than say a bitter loser who writes a web page for a small audience of cranks. Perhaps move the venue to Neshoba County MS for an unbiased pool?

That's 2 of 12, and the defense had 10 peremptory strikes. Musta been a pretty tainted pool?

Not to mention that you're on a bad beach when you're taking it for Roger Stone. Although in a lot of ways he and Dennison are the same guy- he just didn't inherit a huge fortune.

Senior Contributor

Re: You progressives will hate this

"with known anti-trump views and who's husband worked for the division of the DOJ that prosecuted Stone"


And bitter loser?   The dudes a self made millionaire, who has appeared on all sorts of news shows, you sit on this site all day everyday for 40 views, waiting for the wife to get home from work and change your depends.