Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutor

This could well get a mistrial declared.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution.

Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

The revelations came as Trump has called the handling of Stone's prosecution "ridiculous" and a demonstrably unfair "insult to our country." They raised the prospect that Stone's team could again seek a new trial, especially if Hart provided inaccurate responses under oath on her pretrial questionnaires concerning social media activity.

The drama began when Hart confirmed to CNN and other media organizations Wednesday that she had written a Facebook post supporting the Justice Department prosecutors in the Stone case who abruptly stepped down from their posts on Tuesday, saying she "can't keep quiet any longer." The prosecutors apparently objected after senior DOJ officials overrode their recommendation to Jackson that Stone face up to 9 years in prison.

...​

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stone-juror-justice-department-anti-trump-social-media

 

From the Daily Mail

• Tomeka Hart revealed on Wednesday that she was foreperson on Stone jury
• Hart unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Tennessee as a Democrat in 2012
• She is also a former Memphis City Schools Board President
• Her social media shows a long history of anti-Trump comments
• She called Trump supporters racists and tweeted about Stone case before trial

 

https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/s...trial-thanks-to-tomeka-hart-and-donald-trump/

 

Even Andrew Napolitano gets it.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/0...tone-automatic-trigger-for-a-new-trial-886653

 

That absolutely should be a mistrial. She sounds about as unbiased as Schiff.

 

I believe thats called 'stacking the jury', at least when the mafia does it.

 

Wow Stone hired extremely incompetent lawyers. I mean what did they do during Voir Dire?

 

No republicans on the jury?

The jury had a women with an agenda as foreman of the jury.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...evaluating-trump-posts-by-jury-forewoman.html

Stone & Flynn should both be pardoned.

Hillary, Brennan & Clapper all did far worse than Stone & Flynn.

 

Actually his lawyers did reject that juror after examination. The judge overruled their rejection.

 

Then they must have used up all their peremptory challenges. Bad move.

 

Stone should get a new trial.
The jury foreman was a partisan anti Trump hater. She was not impartial as she claimed.

 

It's unjust and awfully sad that Stone couldn't afford an attorney and had to rely on a young, inexperienced public defender.

Mistrial? The courts love that.

 

Nope.

"Jury selection got off to a slow start, with the judge denying most of the requests by defense lawyers to exclude potential jurors they fear could be biased against Stone."

...

"At the outset of Tuesday's proceedings, Jackson said she would not agree to strike prospective jurors just because they work for the federal government or because they have opinions about Trump.

That warning did not stop Stone's lawyers from trying to strike the very first one, a woman who once served as a communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget under Democratic President Barack Obama and whose husband is a Justice Department national security attorney.

"She said credibly she doesn't have an opinion on this case," Jackson said as she denied the motion."

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ill-during-jury-selection-for-trial/23853891/

Care to try again?

Additionally, just as an afterthought, what are the chances that in any jury, supposedly a random selection of the population, that many of them would be federal employees?

 

Peremptory Challenge doesn't require a reason.

Facts are missing in the article,

 

They should declare it a mistrial and give him a retrial.

 

like what?

 

Well for one if the judge denied it’s because the lawyers were saving their peremptory challenges for later.

 

What makes you so sure of that?

Peremptory challenges have long been under scrutiny as a means to racially, sexually and religiously discriminate against jurors. All Stone's Judge would've had to do is demand an explanation for Stone's defense's rejection of a black woman and reject their explanation of out of hand. Who could stop her from overruling on that basis?

 

Federal cases the lawyers agree on the questions for the jury & the judge interviews the jury.

The women who was the foreman must have lied to the Obama appointed judge.

The women foreman is also an attorney who can be prosecuted and disbarred for lying under oath.

Stone should at least get a new trial.

 

"All civil libertarians who care about non partisan justice should support a new trial for Roger Stone based on this new information about a biased juror. Let’s hear from real, non partisan, civil libertarians." @AlanDersh

 

You don’t have to say why that’s the point of peremptory. I guarantee they didn’t make am peremptory challenge. I have seen lawyers save them up before.

 

Yep, definitely a mistrial. Plus she could end up in prison for lying about her knowledge during Voir dire. Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd another one bites the dust.

 

If a rabid Dem Party Trump-hater LIES during Voir dire in order to carry out their political hatred then there's nothing any attorney can do about it . . . unless mind-reading is involved. You know like all those leftist impeachment 'witnesses' KNEW what Trump was thinking?

 

Ouch! Yet another reason to declare a mistrial.

 

"In addition, Stone’s trial will be held in the District of Columbia, where the jury pool hates white-collar criminals almost as much as they hate the current president. And, Zeidenberg says, 'they will find Stone loathsome.'”

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/01/27/why-roger-stone-will-spend-the-rest-of-his-life-in-jail.html

Along with a new trial Stone should get a change of venue to Lubbock, TX.