Judge in Roger Stone case orders Tuesday phone hearing

[ancianita]

Source: The Hill

The judge overseeing longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone’s trial ordered both the defense and prosecution to appear at a phone hearing Tuesday after all four Justice Department prosecutors withdrew from the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered the hearing Sunday following the prosecutors’ withdrawal, which came after Attorney General Bill Barr overrode their recommendation of a seven- to nine-year sentence, Politico reported.

The withdrawal sparked accusations of political interference, particularly in light of President Trump’s tweets condemning Stone’s prosecution. Barr has denied Trump asked him to intervene but said in an interview last week that Trump tweeting about Justice Department matters was making his job more difficult.

Stone is set for sentencing Thursday on seven felony counts including lying to investigators and witness tampering. Whether the sentencing will proceed as planned remains unclear after Stone’s lawyers moved for a new trial. Johnson rejected an earlier such motion in 2019.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/483319-judge-in-roger-stone-case-orders-tuesday-phone-hearing

---

Ideas? Will we even really know what this on the record call was about by Thursday?

[pbmus]

1. Absolutely no

[bucolic_frolic]

2. They're workin' the refs

Making life difficult to try to convince the judge to soften the sentence or declare a mistrial? She has no good choice other than to stand tall and do what she would have done without this manufactured kerfuffle.

[ancianita]

3. However. This phone call is "On the record."That means it's got exact transcript, if not recorded

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2020, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

voicing.

The transcript will show who "they" are because they only are supposed to use the phone password code to enter the conversation; therefore, no refs.

Judge Amy Berman is the ref. There IS no ref other than her.

She wants to get more info from Stone's people and will alone decide to go from there.

If any pardon comes, she'll have the exact evidence to prove how it's part of a coverup, therefore illegal and will stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny.

The fight is no longer the prosecutors'. It's the Law's. And she's the one to wield it.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. You're generating a lot of concern for Marco and Susan

We might get to 51-49 next Impeachment Article

[ancianita]

5. Who are they?

[bucolic_frolic]

6. oh

Senators

[ancianita]

7. Ah, I get it. I just don't get your point. I also think I found the reason for the call. Juror 1261.

This really should be the news. But I found it too late for LBN.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

Juror No. 1261, and her examination by the federal court and counsel before the trial was anything but notable. And that is precisely the problem.

Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.”

That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.

This is gonna totally mess up the sentencing.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Her statements are no more prejudicial

than the GOP52 who did "impartial justice".

[ancianita]

15. This is a real courtroom, not a trial by Senate standard "rules." So, no. It's seriously prejudicial

What the Senate Republicans did is in no way supposed to be any excuse for the jury system in our third branch to go to hell in the same handbasket.

I get the spirit of what you mean, though.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. You're right

You've got answers to most things. But seriously, everyone has an opinion on everything. All but real crusaders can put their bias aside and call balls and strikes. A jury foreman can subtly influence but it's a stretch in my mind.

[ancianita]

17. Did you read about this juror's social media and activist past? Did she really reveal that in her

juror questionnaire? And still get accepted by both prosecution and defense?

Does she have any excuse now about her questionnaire?

Did she "influence" the jury after she was made foreman?

[bucolic_frolic]

26. OMG They found the deep state

[ancianita]

27. I hear you.

It's Judge Berman who gets the last word on it all.

[DeminPennswoods]

23. Remember the Manafort juror who said after the trial

she was a big Trump supporter and went in with the idea that Manafort was innocent? The she did as directed, listened to the evidence and rendered a verdict of guilty on all counts.

No different here. Only been on a couple of juries, but everyone who is eventually selected tries to put whatever preconceived notions they have aside and listens to the evidence to render a fair verdict.

Further, iirc, Stone's lawyers did not even put on a defense at trial.

[rsdsharp]

28. These kinds of hearing are rarely transcribed.

Occasionally the judge may order it transcribed, but typically he or she will ask if anyone wants a transcription. The answer is usually no, because the requesting party has to pay for it.

Given how politically charged this case is, Judge Berman may well order a court reporter to sit in on the call and make a transcription.

[ancianita]

29. No doubt.

[Evolve Dammit]

10. "workin' the refs"; Spot on.

[Sneederbunk]

8. Who here will be surprised when sentencing does not occur on February 20?

[ancianita]

9. It can't. B/C the whole trial was probably invalid due to 1261's possible perjury disqualification.

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2020, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe that means that Judge Berman has to allow a new trial.

Damn. She's such a good judge, too. But lack of juror vetting got her to this point.

We're all screwed because Stone might just get to start over with another judge.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Lock him up!!!!!

[ancianita]

13. Juror 1261 has changed all that. Judge Berman won't make a sentence ruling on Thurs, I'll bet.

[onenote]

19. I agree.

Folks are assuming that the call is to address the change in the sentencing recommendation. I don't think so. As you pointed out, it's more likely to be about the motion for a new trial.

[brooklynite]

18. What am I missing something?

Why is the hearing by phone?

[onenote]

20. It's a scheduling conference, not a 'hearing'.

It's almost certainly to discuss a schedule for the government to respond to the motion for a new trial and for the court to rule. No need for the lawyers to appear in person.

The scary thing: will the government even oppose the motion, given that Trump has already declared that the juror was biased?

[LudwigPastorius]

21. Given the DOJ attorneys who quit in protest...

this might be something as simple as the judge wanting to know who is going to show up to represent the prosecution at the sentencing..

[Kablooie]

22. The judge could be in a tough spot.

If she legitimately thinks a lower sentence is appropriate, and she might, she could set it.
But now, after this kerfuffle, it would look like she's caving to pressure.

Doling out the full 7 to 9 year sentence could actually mean she was influenced to avoid the appearance of caving and it would have been lighter otherwise.

So there will be attacks on her either way she goes now.

[ancianita]

24. The OP isn't about pressure. It's more likely about the juror.

[ancianita]

25. Josh Marshall's take on the juror selection process contradicts IF45's "victim" stance re Stone.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/all-the-ways-trump-is-dead-wrong-about-juror-bias-in-roger-stone-case

Trump accused the jury foreperson in the trial of GOP provocateur Roger Stone of “bias” on Thursday, a claim that shows the President’s willingness to intervene in the judicial system on behalf of a political ally and friend.

But the claim also lacks founding in reality, and ignores the numerous chances that Stone and his defense attorneys had to examine all potential jurors in the case...

Multiple attorneys who have practiced federal criminal law for years in various parts of the justice system emphasized to TPM that the jury selection process for a federal trial is explicitly designed to eliminate the complaint at the heart of President Trump’s accusation: bias that would prevent a juror from fairly weighing the facts and law of a case.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors submit questions to the judge, who creates a questionnaire for jurors designed to suss out aspects of their background, information diet, and views related to the case at hand.

“The whole process is designed to flag potential bias,” Timothy Heaphy, a former U.S. Attorney who is now general counsel for the University of Virginia, told TPM.

This occurred in the Stone case. Defense attorneys were also granted peremptory strikes, which allows jurors to be stricken for any permissible reason...

“As a longtime federal prosecutor, I’m shocked and really disappointed in the White House being involved in any specific criminal case,” said Heaphy, the former U.S. attorney.

“This is going to chill people from wanting to serve on juries,” he added. “It’s going to chill the exercise of the law by line federal prosecutors.”

Gertner, the former federal judge, added that it ran the risk of turning prosecutors “from professionals into political lackeys.”

“It’s making everyone from one end of the country to the other who are working for the DOJ decide if they can continue in their jobs as independent professionals,” she added

[onenote]

30. Josh should read the Judge Jackson opinion posted on TPM

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-judge-shuts-down-newly-revealed-stone-demand-for-retrial

Marshall's take on the juror challenge makes it sound like it should be a slam dunk for Jackson to deny it. But if the mere fact that the defense had opportunities before the trial to exclude this juror was all that matters, it wouldn't have required a detailed 15 page legal opinion from Jackson to deny a previous motion for new trial based on a challenge to a different juror. We don't know whether the defense tried to exclude the jury forewoman - but we know that they sought to strike over 50 jurors and Jackson did not strike them all. We also don't know exactly what the jury forewoman disclosed in her jury questionnaire or whether Jackson will find any of her answers to have been materially incomplete or misleading. Finally, we don't know whether the government -- following Trump's lead again--will simply rollover and not oppose the new trial motion.

Tuesday may give us some answers, but we can't be certain of that either. The one thing that seems most likely is that Stone isn't going to be sentenced on February 20.

[ancianita]

31. Thanks! One thing we know is that Berman Jackson doesn't roll over for gov. Not now, not ever.