What's new

Citing Trump’s Tweets, Judge Restricts Access To Stone Proceedings To Protect Juror

berg80

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,650
Reaction score
633
Points
160
A judge on Tuesday said that she would be placing limitations on public access to the proceedings surrounding Roger Stone’s efforts to secure a new trial. The limitations were in order to protect the identity of a juror who is apparently central to Stone’s claims of juror misconduct that he said warranted a new trial.

In explaining the restrictions, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson brought up recent public statements by President Trump about the juror, as well as the “false” and “incendiary” claims about the jury selection process that were made by conservative media figures earlier in the proceedings.

“This is a highly publicized case, and in a highly polarized political climate in which the President himself has shone a spotlight on the jury through his Twitter platform,” the judge said, adding that “the risk of harassment and intimidation” was “extremely high” for the juror.
Citing Trump’s Tweets, Judge Restricts Access To Stone Proceedings To Protect Juror
....................................................................................................................................
Judge rejects Roger Stone’s bid to disqualify her, sets Tuesday hearing for motion for new trial
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...669f1c-571c-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
"The federal judge who oversaw Roger Stone’s trial and sentenced him last week to 40 months in prison has scheduled a closed-door hearing for Tuesday afternoon regarding his request for a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct, preceded by a public hearing about his motion to make the matter public.

The one-sentence scheduling order filed Monday morning by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia indicates that she is moving swiftly to address the motion, filed days before Stone’s sentencing.

The order came one day after Jackson dismissed Stone’s demand that she be taken off the case as a baseless smear.

“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Jackson wrote in a rare Sunday opinion."
.....................................................................................................

So.............Trump once again smears his shyte on the judicial process without reason to do so. In so doing threatening the safety of a juror. Is there any point at which Trumpette's say "this is completely unacceptable."
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Mistrial should be declared and the hack woman who lied her way onto the jury should be prosecuted for perjury.

But it won't happen, because were dealing with a political hack oligarch on the bench.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
83,171
Reaction score
6,154
Points
1,815
Mistrial should be declared and the hack woman who lied her way onto the jury should be prosecuted for perjury.

But it won't happen, because were dealing with a political hack oligarch on the bench.
drop MIC
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,650
Reaction score
633
Points
160
Mistrial should be declared and the hack woman who lied her way onto the jury should be prosecuted for perjury.
Would you care for something to eat to go with that Trumper Kool-Aid?
 

Nostra

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
7,706
Reaction score
1,874
Points
255
What is the hack judge hiding?
 

Rambunctious

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
30,667
Reaction score
6,457
Points
1,130
So the biased judge is now protecting the biased foreman?.....why am I not surprised.....
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,650
Reaction score
633
Points
160
So the biased judge is now protecting the biased foreman?.....why am I not surprised.....
“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Jackson wrote in a rare Sunday opinion."

Please present your factual evidence, without using right wing nutbag media conspiracy theories, of what behavior is grounds for disqualification.
 

lantern2814

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,014
Reaction score
405
Points
140
So the biased judge is now protecting the biased foreman?.....why am I not surprised.....
“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Jackson wrote in a rare Sunday opinion."

Please present your factual evidence, without using right wing nutbag media conspiracy theories, of what behavior is grounds for disqualification.
If you’re capable of reading, try reading that biased “foreman’s” posts. Checkmate.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top