Doesn’t matter what Stone did or didn’t do.
That jury was tainted.
The verdict should be tossed.
agree......not just a little tainted. She was the foreman...dragging everyone along....
Sure it does.
The sentence was excessive. The foreman had some bias. Is it enough to get the verdict overturned? maybe.
But that's not mutually exclusive with Stone being a jackass.
And that judge should be impeached and disbarred.
The Judge is an Obama appointee, you can just smell the bias in every word she says..and the case should be thrown out and have a new trial..you cannot have a fair trial with a jury that was anti Trump
Bingo. Easily a mistrial.
The jury was inarguably tainted.
So regardless of guilty, innocent or inappropriate sentence he gets a new trial.
I don’t care if it was Hilary Clinton on trial. That foreman was obviously prejudiced, easily demonstrated.
Doesn’t matter what Stone did or didn’t do.
That jury was tainted.
The verdict should be tossed.
There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.
History:
The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term’s first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).[citation needed]
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine.
The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the “attenuation doctrine”[6], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated
For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently “attenuate” the connection between the government’s illegal discovery of the witness and the witness’s voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.[1] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.[2]
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
It was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
It would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
The chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).
This doctrine was also used by the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany.[citation needed] In certain cases continental European countries have similar laws (e.g. in cases of torture), while the doctrine itself is generally not known.[citation needed] Illegally obtained evidence is used by the courts to ensure that the judgment is factually correct, however the person obtaining the illegal evidence typically faces independent consequences.
“That jury was tainted. ... The verdict should be tossed.”
The verdict should be tossed for two reasons: (1) The jury was tainted, as you said, and (2) Ineffective representation by Stone’s own legal counsel. What kind of hack assholes wouldn’t do a simple Google search on the names of potential jurors? It would take them maybe 15 seconds to find this woman’s social media sites and read her clear disdain for All Things Trump?
The verdict should not be tossed; in fact, it should not have been questioned at all until some of the coup conspirators are tried and convicted of lying to Congress.
However, the verdict was fruit of a poisoned tree: the entire trial and jury selection was based on lies, and Stone should be granted a new trial and a different venue.