'Completely Failed:' Judge Rules Against Roger Stone—Again
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that the ex-Trump campaign adviser "has not come close" to reaching the legal standard to dispute search warrants in his case.
September 24, 2019 at 02:00 PM
4 minute read
A D.C. federal district judge has ruled against a motion by Roger Stone over evidence obtained through 18 search warrants issued in his case, finding that the longtime conservative political operative failed to show that the affidavits contained knowingly false statements.
Stone had sought an evidentiary hearing over warrants, alleging that the affidavits used to back the warrant applications included false facts and should be thrown out.
But U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia, in an opinion unsealed Tuesday, found that Stone came far short of the benchmark needed to even call the search warrants into question, never mind block the evidence obtained through the warrants.
Stone provided two statements from cybersecurity experts who claimed it was unlikely that servers for the Democratic National Committee servers were hacked by Russian actors, as found by the private cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike and the U.S. intelligence community.
"But merely conclusory contentions, or suggestions that an affiant was negligent, will not be sufficient to support a request for an evidentiary hearing," Jackson wrote in the new opinion.
Jackson filed the opinion under seal last week, but it was made public after both Stone's lawyers and federal prosecutors said Monday they had no objections to it being unsealed.
In the opinion, Jackson said that Stone needed to show that those who signed the sworn affidavit used for the warrants knowingly made false statements and that those statements were key in a court deciding there was probable cause to issue the warrants.
"In short, defendant must demonstrate that the issuing judge or magistrate was misled. Defendant has not come close to meeting this standard," Jackson wrote.
The judge wrote that the "fundamental problem" with Stone's effort is that he did not identify "any statements in the eighteen affidavits that he claims are deliberately false or were made in reckless disregard for the truth."
"Defendant's original motion completely failed to 'point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false,' as required" under the legal standard, Jackson wrote, "and it could have been denied on that basis alone."
She continued that Stone's attorneys "endeavored to cure the problem in his reply, but as was apparent at the hearing, his efforts still fall short."
Jackson had pressed the GOP strategist's attorneys during a July hearing over which statements in the affidavits they believed to be knowingly false and not simply based off the findings by Crowdstrike and intelligence officials. The legal team, which is led by attorneys Bruce Rogow and Robert Buschel, struggled to directly answer Jackson's questions at the time.
This ruling is another setback for Stone. Jackson has repeatedly ruled against him in court proceedings ahead of his November trial. She last month rejected Stone's motion to dismiss the charges against him.
The judge also slapped Stone with a gag order earlier this year after he posted an image on Instagram depicting Jackson on the bench with a crosshairs in the corner. She tightened that gag order in July, blocking Stone from posting on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter after she determined that he had violated the terms of the order through Instagram posts that referenced filings in his case.
However, Jackson did hand Stone a partial win by ruling last month that he could view some redacted parts of Mueller's report that referred to him and his case.
Stone's attorneys are scheduled to come face-to-face with Jackson in federal court in D.C. this week, at a Wednesday morning pretrial conference.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readElection 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
4 minute readJudicial Nominee Says Criminal Defense Background Will Bring Diverse Ideas to State Appellate Court
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250