'Unmoored From The Facts': Judge Amy Berman Jackson Rejects Roger Stone's Bid For New Trial
Jackson said Stone's claims that his jury's foreperson was biased due to social media posts did not hold up under the law.
April 16, 2020 at 07:06 PM
6 minute read
Roger Stone will not get a new trial over allegations of misconduct by the foreperson for his jury, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Thursday.
In an 81-page opinion, Jackson said Stone's motion requesting a new trial "is a tower of indignation, but at the end of the day, there is little of substance holding it up."
"The assumption underlying the motion—that one can infer from the juror's opinions about the president that she could not fairly consider the evidence against the defendant—is not supported by any facts or data and it is contrary to controlling legal precedent," she wrote.
The motion for another trial hinged on social media posts made by the foreperson on Stone's jury, with Stone's legal team asserting she had made false statements on her juror questionnaire.
Jackson on Thursday rejected those claims, saying the juror's posts—which related more to President Donald Trump than to Stone—did not necessarily make her unfit to sit on the jury.
And she noted that Stone's lawyers had the juror's name ahead of jury selection and could have done research on her then, or asked additional questions that could have revealed further information, but did neither.
"The information in the motion could have easily been found with the exercise of due diligence: by posing a few pointed follow-up questions in person, or by using the same search engines that quickly brought the public social media posts to light the day the juror identified herself to the rest of the world," the judge wrote. "The evidence the defense claims was critical was never 'concealed'—it was a few clicks of a mouse away."
She further rejected Stone's lawyers claims that any anti-Trump remarks by the juror are implicitly anti-Stone, as the two men are longtime associates.
The judge wrote that "linking them together in a sentence does not make them one and the same; there is zero evidence of 'explicit bias' against Stone, and defendant's attempts to gain a new trial based on implied or inferred bias fail."
In a footnote, Jackson said Stone's defense team's "rhetoric on this point is hardly justified, and it is often unmoored from the facts." She noted they had pointed to a photo of the juror with Democratic official Donna Brazile, taken in 2008, as evidence of the bias.
"But the photo was posted in 2008, eleven years before the Stone trial, eight years before there was an Office of Special Counsel, and seven years before Donald Trump had even entered the race to be the 2016 Republican nominee," Jackson wrote.
The allegations that foreperson Tomeka Hart—a former Democratic congressional candidate who revealed on social media that she was on the jury—was biased against Stone due to negative social media posts about Trump were repeated by the president himself.
That level of attention directed at an otherwise private individual sparked major safety concerns by Jackson, who banned anyone from using the jurors' names or numbers during a hearing on the motion for a new trial held in late February.
The jurors, including Hart, filed declarations Wednesday over a petition seeking the release of their jury questionnaires. They all sought to keep the information private, with some, including Hart, saying they have been threatened and others claiming fear of harassment.
Stone's attorneys argued during the proceedings that Hart lied in filling out a questionnaire used to whittle down the prospective jury pool. Lawyer Seth Ginsberg, a recent addition to the defense team, said Hart lied about whether she had opinions about Trump and about making social media posts about Stone.
Jackson pointed out during the hearing that Hart wrote in the questionnaire that she did have opinions about "officials" on a list of individuals listed as potentially coming up during the trial, which included Trump.
Hart also wrote on the questionnaire that she may have posted about Stone on social media, but that she didn't recall.
"I was trying to be honest," the foreperson testified. "I post and tweet a lot of stuff, I absolutely was not trying to downplay anything."
The ruling opens the door for Stone and his attorneys to take their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In sentencing Stone to 40 months in prison—a penalty she handed down before ruling on the motion for a new trial—Jackson agreed to a two week period between Thursday's order and when Stone has to report to prison.
Jackson on Thursday also lifted a gag order that Stone has been under since nearly the start of proceedings in his case.
She previously has allowed Stone to travel after his sentencing, to Akron, Ohio in March for the birth of his first great-grandchild.
Trump has already suggested on social media that he could pardon Stone. But the president has also indicated that he believed his longtime associate would be cleared during the court proceedings, even as he continued to attack the foreperson and Jackson.
Read more:
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 AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 4Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 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