Based on reports, the person's occupation and interests were identified and reviewed during jury selection. Defense tried to exclude but the judge overruled them because they couldn't establish why that should exclude a person.
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?
His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.
Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.
Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury.
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc. Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.
I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.
Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.
Why do you think that focus is weird?
Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point. Fair trials and due process are important to me. An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable. If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice. Isnít that something we should all care about? Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?
and, as someone else mentioned, you're trying to negate what everyone else determined on that jury. If this person was running contrary to everyone else, you might have a point. when they reach the same conclusion as everyone else, I'm having a hard time buying they didn't reach their conclusion based on the merits of the case.
The ďsomebody elseĒ who mentioned that was me.
But, itís obviously unfair to have a highly partisan juror *who has publicly criticized Stone on social media before the trial*. We can all agree on that basic premise of due process? Whether or not that should overturn a verdict is a different issue.
Fair or not, blame the judge. The juror did nothing more than their civic duty and reached a conclusion identical to the rest of the jurors. Suggesting that the verdict is "tainted" makes no logical sense given that it was unanimous.
Anybody who has paid any attention to this case knows that Stone was guilty and the correct verdict was delivered.
Making public, personal attacks on the juror now is not justifiable and pointless other than to try to somehow raise sympathy for Stone by demonizing someone, anyone, who was involved in the delivery of justice upon him.
I'm not sure who to blame, because I don't know who committed the wrong-doing regarding the juror.
It could have been the juror herself, if she didn't answer the questionnaires honestly and fully. It could have been the defense attorneys, if they overlooked information that was provided to them. It could be the judge, if the juror honestly answered that she had talked about the case on social media, defense counsel objected, and the judge allowed her to be seated anyway (although in these circumstances I might still blame defense counsel, if they didn't use one of their challenges to strike her from the pool.)
The most obvious fact pattern is that the juror did not in fact disclose that she had spoken about the case (harshly) on social media, but we don't know that that's true. However, there's a clear appearance of bias and partiality when a Stone critic and partisan serves on his jury.
It's up to the judge, and ultimately the various levels of appellate courts, to determine whether the verdict should stand. I tend to agree with you that it should, absent any proof of further juror misconduct. Certainly, he appears guilty. However, it does taint the verdict to me, essentially putting an asterisk next to it. Stone has the right to a trial by 12 impartial jurors, and he only got 11.
Assume for purposes of discussion that the juror did in fact lie on her jury questionnaire and knowingly hid her bias. Under those circumstances, shouldn't she be criticized?