Roger Stone Judge Refuses To Strike Anti-Trumper From Jury Pool

Daily Caller ^ | 11/05/2019 | Chuck Ross

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

At the beginning of jury selection, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, said that she would not remove potential jurors solely on the basis that they work for the federal government or because of their views of Trump.

That position was tested at the very start of jury selection at Stone’s trial, which recessed early after the longtime political operative fell ill.

The potential juror served as a press secretary in the Office of Management and Budget during the Obama administration, according to Politico and Reuters. She also admitted to having a negative view of Trump.

The potential juror’s husband also currently works in the Justice Department’s national security division, which was involved in the investigation of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates, including Stone.

[Ken H]

Good! (although the answer comes first, followed by the question:)

[G Larry]

At least he’s assured of an appeal.

[G Larry]

At least he’s assured of an appeal.

[HighSierra5]

If you looked up “travesty of justice” in the dictionary you’d see Roger’s face would be there.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

That would leave it up to Stone's lawyer to challenge those jurors. - Tom

So the Stone team was hoping to get the judge to strike the anti-Trump bureaucrat without using up one of "their" strikes.

[WKUHilltopper]

This is Banana Republic bull shit.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Is that her stance when an avowed racist is being considered as a juror for a black defendant?

[Bommer]

Let it go to trial, come back with a jury verdict and pardon him 2 mins after a jury finds him guilty.

[euclid216]

What are the restrictions on the prosecutors? Are they able to remove pro-Trump jurors?

What are the chances of any pro-Trump jurors in the D.C. area? The town is 90% anti-Trump.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Let it go to trial, come back with a jury verdict and pardon him 2 mins after a jury finds him guilty.

That would make the news before the election. I am guessing that Trump would rather try an appeal and then, if the appeal is rejected, pardon after the election.

[Lurking Libertarian]

If one juror votes not guilty and does not cave, does it go to mistrial or acquittal?

Mistrial.

[Michael.SF.]

HMMMMM -- May a diseased Yak have its way with your favorite pet!!!

;)

Yes it does, you are right, but I thought this way worked better.

[Candor7]

said that she would not remove potential jurors solely on the basis that they work for the federal government or because of their views of Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That’s a mistrial right there.

[Capt. Tom]

What are the restrictions on the prosecutors? Are they able to remove pro-Trump jurors?
If the prosecutors are allowed to remove pro Trump jurors while the defense cannot remove anti-Trump jurors then it is rigged.

From Legal Information Institute:-
(1) Capital Case. Each side has 20 peremptory challenges when the government seeks the death penalty.

(2) Other Felony Case. The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.

(3) Misdemeanor Case. Each side has 3 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment of one year or less, or both.

[Capt. Tom]

So the Stone team was hoping to get the judge to strike the anti-Trump bureaucrat without using up one of "their" strikes.

Stone's lawyers should try to get the judge to remove anti-Trump bureaucrats because the jury pool could be near 100 and challenges by Stone's defense would fall short if most of the pool was biased against Stone. - Tom

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

said that she would not remove potential jurors solely on the basis that they work for the federal government or because of their views of Trump. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s a mistrial right there.

I am not sure. In a federal court criminal case, can a judge deny a defense challenge in voir dire even if the defense insists on removing a juror?

When I first read this article, I thought the title meant that the judge was saying that the defense would have to use one of its voir dire strikes to remove such a juror.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Years ago I was in a jury pool in a civil case involving a construction company. In voir dire they asked me if I had any negative experiences with such companies and I told them that the workers, including me, were not paid. The workers thought the reason was because the boss has spent all the money on "wild women" and bragged about it openly. I was not selected for the jury.

How many strikes would Stone's defense get in a pool of 100?

[Cboldt]

The rules allow a certain number to be excluded without giving a reason - peremptory challenge. The lawyer didn't want to use up the freebee, and the judge was not going to allow "works for government" or "hates Trump" to be blanket causes for exclusion.

Voir dire is the term for the process used to select the jury from a pool of potential jurors.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks. So in a big jury pool, each side should have more strikes than they would in a smaller pool. Voir dire would be absolutely critical in the defense of a Trump ally in a DC criminal case.