The Roger Stone trial was a comedy of errors and bias that may very well set up Stone for a new trial. Why? There is the juror who was an anti-Trump Democrat activist before the trial. This legally rendered her unable to come to a fair verdict.
Stone’s lawyers pounced on it.
“Whether the subject juror (and perhaps others) served with ‘integrity’ is one of the paramount questions presented in the pending Motion. The Court’s ardent conclusion of ‘integrity’ indicates an inability to reserve judgment on an issue which has yet been heard… Stone’s Motion for New Trial is directly related to the integrity of a juror. It is alleged that a juror misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality.”
They finished with a swipe at the judge.
“The premature statement blessing the ‘integrity of the jury’ undermines the appearance of impartiality and presents a strong bias for recusal.”
Why go after the judge? She said the following from the bench during the proceedings. Does this sound impartial and objective, as any judge should be, to you?
“Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares?” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said. “But, I’ll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care.”
She not only hits Stone, but personally takes the side of the prosecution.
Her line about a fair jury has been shown to be farcical. Given these factors, has she done what any jurist with honor would do and recuse herself? No.
And that’s why this case may be heading for retrial with another judge. Hopefully this one won’t be an Obama-appointed Democrat partisan working from the bench to convict a man.