Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Jury Foreman in Roger Stone Case

I already told you how it happened. They only have ten peremptory challenges. You had people in the jury pool like Jennifer Palmieri who worked for Obama and was Clinton’s press secretary during the campaign. You can find stories on the internet from during the campaign where Clinton’s people blamed Roger Stone specifically for releasing what they called fake medical records and the like. They hated him.

Anyway, Jennifer Palmieri was in that pool and was one of the people the judge REFUSED to remove for cause. That means the defense had to use one of its limited peremptory strikes on her. When the judge is so damned corrupt that she wouldn’t remove someone so clearly biased as Palmieri for cause, then the defense was probably forced to choose between her and someone like this jury foreman. They knew at the time this woman wasn’t good, but she probably wasn’t as bad as some of the other choices they had.

This corruption by the DOJ Prosecution and the Court is exactly why President Trump should NOT Pardon Stone, at least not yet.

This needs to play out. This miscarriage of justice and criminal corruption could all just go away with a Pardon, but it won’t be fixed and the players in this will be left in play to continue one as if nothing happened.

Stone is going to be sentenced in a few by this crooked Judge. I highly doubt that she is going to agree with the DOJ on the new reduced sentence.

Stone already has plenty of ammo and will most likely have plenty more after this Obama Deep State Judge throws the book at him for an appeal. An appeal that will expose even more corruption in the DOJ and the courts.

This needs to play out, a pardon now is what they want, don’t give it to them, run it up the ladder and expose them even more.

If you read the transcripts the judge asked the defense at the end of her individual voir dire if they "had a motion" meaning to challenge for cause and they said no. Now the judge may or may not have thrown her off based on the tweets she published before the trial, but just the fact that they didn't do enough research to even think to challenge her is mind boggling, much less the fact that they knew she'd ran for congress as a Dem. Look at the tweet posted earlier in this thread where she talked about Trump being guilty in the Russia thing, how is it not bad lawyering not to do a social media search that takes less than 10 minutes and then to challenge for cause based on it? Even if you don't win the challenge you at least get an additional ground for appeal.

If they'd done their work they would've known about her social media post from before the trial before jury selection was over, and then if they knew she had a publicly available social media page why weren't they continuously monitoring it throughout the trial just in the hope that she would post something and they would have grounds for a mistrial or to get her bumped for an alternate. The trial lasted more than 2 weeks, there's no excuse for defense counsel not to have done this stuff

Well, you got me. I didn’t read the transcript. I was surmising based on the refusal of the judge to strike Jennifer Palmieri for cause. Of course, if the judge wouldn’t strike Palmieri for cause, she wouldn’t have struck this woman and now they have reversible error because it certainly looks like she lied in her voir dire. Though, I haven’t actually read the transcript.

Agree, let it play out all the way, expose everything along the way, keep it in the public eye.

Than, sometimes after the election POTUS pardons him.

DF

Here she is with hair next to former DNC Chairwoman, Donna Brazile:



Bias?? What Bias??

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but this thing just amazes me for all the wrong reasons. I don't think it would've been all that hard to get her struck for cause even with the worst judge. You ask for additional individual questioning to explore a challenge for cause, you get her to confirm she knew or to acknowledge Stone was a vital, big player in trump's campaign, ask whether she felt that the campaign was guilty of illegal activity with russia, she says no and you ask if she ever expressed that opinion to anyone, she says no, ask her if she's positive about that (human nature being what it is she isn't going to admit that), then you get her to confirm her twitter user name and then you show the judge a print out of the 2016 post where she said they were guilty of collusion. You've got her lying under oath and the judge has to either throw her off or have reversible error. If the judge won't allow this then you make an offer of proof about it to preserve it for appeal.

This is compounded by the fact that they should've know she had a public twitter feed and should've been watching it during the two weeks of trial. Every judge gives the jurors an instruction not to talk about the case, so if they'd been watching they'd have gotten her bumped for the alternate and it's hard for me to believe that the alternate was worse than a far left black politician

WOW sloppy work by the defense. Standard procedure to check all witnesses social media accounts. Should have asked potential jurors if they ever posted anything biased against Trump or his admin on social media during voir dire

Like it or not. Believe it or not. This "blooming" of the DOJ began in earnest in the Clinton years. They threw up a few trial balloons, saw what they had, and said "We got this".

There was not a word,from the fake news this evening,about this story.

Maybe the judge will have an unfortunate "accident".

this one might be in trouble, you're not supposed to lie when disclosing your background

What possible difference does it make? Trumpy will grant a full pardon next week.

As well he SHOULD !

Read this again, slowly. The judge would not strike Jennifer Palmieri for cause. Jennifer Palmieri worked for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Her husband works for the DOJ. As press secretary for Hillary during her campaign Palmieri specifically blamed Roger Stone for cooking up false medical records about Hillary. She literally was on record as hating him.

The judge refused to strike her from the pool. I guarantee you the judge would not have struck this woman if she wouldn’t strike Palmieri.

No disrespect intended but I don't think you're getting my point. I understand Palmieri was biased, but there's a huge difference between a judge's willingness to strike someone for cause due to bias and having to strike someone because of proof that person lied during voir dire. The standard for bias to get past a cause challenge is pretty low, "Ms. Palmieri, despite everything you've said in the past about fake medical records would you be able to set that aside and follow the law in this case? Yes? then good you aren't biased and I overrule the challenge."

I'm saying that Stone's lawyer dropped the ball in 2 major aspects. First, human nature being what it is they likely could've gotten the lady to deny ever making a statement that the Trump campaign was guilty of collusion. Then confronted with the tweet the judge would've had to dismiss her, not for bias but rather for lying. Even if the judge still refused to strike her at that point then you've got reversible error and any conviction isn't going to stick.

Second, if they'd been monitoring her page like they should've been they would've gotten her bumped for not following instructions and communicating about the trial while it was ongoing.

And you're a racist ass-hole.

You're kidding right? It does not matter to you that a juror committed perjury to get on the jury so she could pursue a political vendetta??

Really?

He is a Democrat, the ends always justifies the means, as long as the "end" is part of their agenda.

Not with this judge!