Posted on 02/14/2020 2:49:17 PM PST by yesthatjallen
Attorneys for Roger Stone on Friday requested a new trial, just a day after saying they were looking at potential bias by a juror who voted to convict the longtime Trump aide of lying to Congress and witness tampering.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
True.
You cannot tell if Comey, McCabe and Brennan and Clapper are the incredibly coincidental minority in the law enforcement community——or the new normal with hundreds like them. Where were the “mass resignations” predicted if the bad cop Comey wasn’t prosecuted? Uh, none. happened.
There was nothing potential about the bias.
He needs a new trial or a review. Or a pardon.
He’s an unlikeable person and not exactly somebody you want to end up defending, but that doesn’t matter. He was unfairly prosecuted, his arrest was abusive, the state apparatus was turned out against him, and it was all political (because he was associated with Trump).
The Dems think they can get away with this because they will always be in the majority, but they should think about how it would be if they weren’t in the majority. That said, they’ve installed so many career bureaucrats and judges that they will never not be in the majority, at least in government. So that’s why they’re so brazen.
There was nothing potential about the bias.
I think that you have discovered the essense of this issue. Lock and Load, acquire foot, fire.
He should ask for and get a new trail!
In Federal criminal cases that are deemed to be “cases of interest”, and “notable cases”, the evidence is often made available to the public.
Especially as Hart is a lawyer, she would have had a large influence on the other jurors.
Every aspect of this trial was corrupt: the prosecution, the judge, and the jury.
Nothing. But maybe Bill Barr will.
She didn't deceive the judge because the judge ruled she could server in spite of those objections to her service as I recall.
freerogerstone.com FWIW
That's what I was thinking too.
That’ll be a big, fat “no” from the judge on that one. May help with the appeal though.
That 302 process is SO handy for making S! up.
The FIB does seem to be a one trick pony in many ways.
L8r
The judge knew the juror skank was actively tweeting about the case while she was jury foreman? Really?
The juror swore to the judge that even though she was a Trump-hating loudmouth activist, she would be impartial. Obviously she lied and the Obama-appointed judge is corrupt.
The case against Stone should be thrown out, no retrial, he should be sentenced to time served. End of story.
“He never got a subpoena to testify before the House. He went on his own ...”
Here are two rules given to me by a friend of mine who is a nationally known authority on rules of evidence:
Rule #1: Never testify in court or give a deposition under oath in a case where you have no direct, personal stake unless you are compelled to do so.
Rule #2: If you are compelled to testify or give a deposition in such circumstances, develop a severe case of forgetfulness. No one can prove that you know what they think you should know.
This may sound callous and devoid of “civic virtue,” but there is simply too much risk that you will fall into a perjury trap.
So he can be found guilty again?
My take on it too.
Roger Stone jury foreperson comes forward to defend prosecutors - but social media history of the failed Democrat candidate reveals she mocked his arrest, labeled Trump supporters racist and posed with ex-DNC chair Donna Brazil
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7998815/Tomeka-Hart-Roger-Stone-jury-foreperson-revealed-anti-Trump-activist.html
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.