Posted on 11/24/2019 6:37:14 PM PST by bitt
The left-wing juror gave large amounts to Beto O’Rourke and Jill Stein, spent years working under liberal donor Bill Gates at Microsoft.
Seth Cousins, juror number 3 in Roger Stone’s recent trial, just couldn’t resist the limelight. In an op-ed published by the Washington Post, Cousins claimed that the jury, who handed down a guilty verdict on all counts against Stone, acted independently and with no bias towards Mr. Stone for his previous political activities or the fact that he is one of President Trump’s most ardent defenders and longtime friends.
Reading Mr. Cousins op-ed is like reading a summation of the trial as if it were prepared by the left-wing team of prosecutors. The op-ed drips with self-righteous indignation against Roger Stone and accepts the premise of every allegation made by the federal prosecutors as if those allegations were as legitimate and solid as the Ten Commandments.
Before we review who Seth Cousins is, and what likely formed his pre-determined stance on Roger Stone and the allegations made against him by politically motivated prosecutors, we should address some of the dubious claims Mr. Cousins made in his op-ed published by the Washington Post. After that we will delve into the ethical and moral violations of profiteering from your jury service.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
p
This Seth Cousins had to have lied during jury selection and mislead Roger Stone’s lawyers.
That’s a crime.
I recall a story about a leftist witness being challenged and the judge allowed him to stay. Don’t have it handy though.
For the judge to do this was to embolden a biased juror. The whole case should be thrown out.
Did Stone, the defendant, ask for a jury trial? Was the option of a trial by a judge not possible? Would’t he have had a better chance with a judge, than a jury? Could he have demanded a change of venue, to a different court?
Is that a cause of mistrial?
I definitely remember reading something about it a week or so back.
Depends what the lawyers asked. Federal voir dire is a different animal than most state courts.
Pretty sure it was the same day as jury selection.
Why is anyone surprised? Libtards have been lying in the entire Justice Dept and court system like with the FISA abuse. Everything is corrupted. The Rule of Law is dead and the core rotting. Only a purge is going to reset things right and re-establish the republic.
No, I think the judge was well aware of his bias and decided that he could serve as a juror anyway. She was openly biassed herself.
Those are irrelevant questions.
The question is: should a defendant in our justice system expect a fair trial?
In almost all cases, a poisoned jury is a failure of the defense counsel to adequately screen before the trial.
The obvious charge would be that the juror perjured himself when being asked screening questions.
However, just one juror cannot convict. So unless the defense can prove jury packing, which is very hard, the conviction will likely stand.
It is much easier to prove procedural, judicial or prosecutorial misconduct.
A biased judge? The judge who put Manfort in solitary? Amy Bernstein Jackman? Biased. There are no biased judges. Didn't Roberts tell us so. It's all just a tax.
This trial reminds me of nothing so much as the “trial” in “Birth of a Nation” where a black man, accused of raping a white woman, was given a “fair trial” before a Klavern of the Klan and, SURPRISE!!, he was found guilty.
Jury nullification? That invalidates the whole thing.
“Is that a cause of mistrial?”
It’s a cause to include in an appeal.
And the judge should be subject to disciplinary action especially
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.