Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Ditkaless Wonders

Stone Case Prosecutors

Recommended Posts

To expand. If those social media posts had been discovered during voir dire, the foreperson would have been struck for cause. If they had been discovered during trial, she likely would have been replaced.  At that point in the process, the remedy is easy, so it’s better safe than sorry. 
 

When you first challenge after the conviction, you’re going to need to show more.  It’s a really high bar to clear.  It is the parties’ responsibility to ferret out juror biases. That’s why we have jury selection. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

It was raised before also. 

From this article when the trial opened. 

You’re confusing two different jurors. She refused to strike one juror who had some position in the OMB (and a husband who worked for DOJ) for cause.  
 

Stone’s lawyers argued that was error justifying a new trial. They also offered evidence of the foreperson’s bias based on internet postings, for the first time, in the motion for a new trial. 

Edited by Ramsay Hunt Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

You’re confusing two different jurors. She refused to strike one juror who had some position in the IRS or the administration for cause. 
 

Stone’s lawyers argued that was error justifying a new trial. They also offered evidence of the foreperson’s bias based on internet postings, for the first time, in the motion for a new trial. 

Random legal question.  Are lawyers allowed to google jurors' during selection?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

You’re confusing two different jurors. She refused to strike one juror who had some position in the IRS or the administration for cause. 
 

Stone’s lawyers argued that was error justifying a new trial. They also offered evidence of the foreperson’s bias based on internet postings, for the first time, in the motion for a new trial. 

Gotcha. That article didn't have any names so I obviously made an incorrect assumption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jumping to Stone’s defense is really baffling to me. He was found guilty by a jury. I haven’t heard anyone actually say he is not guilty of the charges he was convicted of. All we are getting is that the sentence is unfair and there were biased jurors. It’s all too familiar to the impeachment inquiry. No actual defense of Trump’s actions, only trying to show the WB may have a bias.  For the law and order President, questioning  the bias of a jury post-conviction sure seems to be undermining our legal system  

Why would the judge go lenient on him when he posted her head next to a crosshair in social media.

One more thing I find interesting is that the Trump supporters are all jumping to the defense of a convicted felon in Stone, but are quick to trash people like Yovanovitch and Vindman despite their honorable service. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dickies said:

The jumping to Stone’s defense is really baffling to me. He was found guilty by a jury. I haven’t heard anyone actually say he is not guilty of the charges he was convicted of. All we are getting is that the sentence is unfair and there were biased jurors. It’s all too familiar to the impeachment inquiry. No actual defense of Trump’s actions, only trying to show the WB may have a bias.  For the law and order President, questioning  the bias of a jury post-conviction sure seems to be undermining our legal system  

Why would the judge go lenient on him when he posted her head next to a crosshair in social media.

One more thing I find interesting is that the Trump supporters are all jumping to the defense of a convicted felon in Stone, but are quick to trash people like Yovanovitch and Vindman despite their honorable service. 

As interesting as Ds jumping on the Cohen bandwagon while still bashing Stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dickies said:

The jumping to Stone’s defense is really baffling to me. He was found guilty by a jury. I haven’t heard anyone actually say he is not guilty of the charges he was convicted of. All we are getting is that the sentence is unfair and there were biased jurors. It’s all too familiar to the impeachment inquiry. No actual defense of Trump’s actions, only trying to show the WB may have a bias.  For the law and order President, questioning  the bias of a jury post-conviction sure seems to be undermining our legal system  

Why would the judge go lenient on him when he posted her head next to a crosshair in social media.

One more thing I find interesting is that the Trump supporters are all jumping to the defense of a convicted felon in Stone, but are quick to trash people like Yovanovitch and Vindman despite their honorable service. 

I'm curious if this new-found sympathy for felons extends to all or just the white collar types. I mean, people with 7 felony convictions rarely elicit such compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KPD said:

As interesting as Ds jumping on the Cohen bandwagon while still bashing Stone?

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why anybody with anything to hide would talk to Congress at all.  "I can't recall..." = no perjury charges, no 7-9 years.  Why would you lie, just doesn't answer in a coherent manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dickies said:

:confused:

Seem to recall Ds celebrating Cohen when he decided to spill dirt on Trump.  But let's throw the book at another convicted Trump crony - unless he will flip on Trump too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't actually a bad strategy right?  Get all the morally upstanding people in the gov't to identify themselves and quit so you can fill in their spots with loyalists.  Brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KPD said:

I don't get why anybody with anything to hide would talk to Congress at all.  "I can't recall..." = no perjury charges, no 7-9 years.  Why would you lie, just doesn't answer in a coherent manner.

Because ‘I can’t recall’ doesn’t look good when answering an important question. Lying when you think you can get away with it looks much better. Especially when you’re performing for an audience of one who you think will protect you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes.  There are plenty of people who aren't political junkies.

And no, you assumed wrong.  The judge denied a defense request to remove a juror they thought had anti-trump bias.  

Guess they should have used a peremptory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Random legal question.  Are lawyers allowed to google jurors' during selection?  

Yes.  Generally before a trial I pull the list of potential jurors and hit their social media, make notes about each person, and use them in voir dire.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, but Federal courts are much more difficult to get that from.  State courts, I can pay about $20 and get the list of everyone who will be there weeks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KPD said:

Seem to recall Ds celebrating Cohen when he decided to spill dirt on Trump.  But let's throw the book at another convicted Trump crony - unless he will flip on Trump too!

I don’t recall Cohen being celebrated as any hero. There’s a difference between those pointing to information he provided or even finding him credible on those matters and thinking he was a good person 

similarly, even had he testified, John Bolton would still have been a blood-thirsty ghoul with a stupid mustache. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Because ‘I can’t recall’ doesn’t look good when answering an important question. Lying when you think you can get away with it looks much better. Especially when you’re performing for an audience of one who you think will protect you.

Well in that regard he did well, sounds like he earned a get out of jail free card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I don’t recall Cohen being celebrated as any hero. There’s a difference between those pointing to information he provided or even finding him credible on those matters and thinking he was a good person 

similarly, even had he testified, John Bolton would still have been a blood-thirsty ghoul with a stupid mustache. 

Now, there is the imagery that I expect from Ramsay (Bolton) Hunt Experience!  Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

In order to determine how big of a deal Barr interjecting is we need to know was the sentencing outlandish(which I admit to me at first glance seemed super outrageous but I have realized I really might not be making fair comparisons). In order to determine that we would need to know how many people get sentenced for similar crimes, how long they get sentenced for, how common is prosecution, etc. 

I honestly have no idea how often people lie to congress, how often we determine they lied to congress, and what happens after that. I am not trying to gloss over the witness intimidation part, which is obviously very wrong, and may in fact make this case completely unique, but it was also subsequent.  

If it is concluded that people almost never lie to congress, but when they do, they are prosecuted, and the average sentence for that is xyz and because he threatened a witness it becomes abc so Barr can only be interjecting because Trump wants it. If we determine that the sentencing should have been much less, then we can't simply rule this to be the DOJ being politicized. It certainly isn't the first time that the atty general has stepped on toes before, so the merits of it are important. 

Simple googling here doesn't help me since this admin is all I get results for even if I try to exclude terms and the year 2020, but that also may be my answer if others can't be found, they might just not exist. 

People lie to Congress often and with impunity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

People lie to Congress often and with impunity 

Sure, and some like Michael Cohen and Alger Hiss go to jail for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

People lie to Congress often and with impunity 

Good point, there was a pretty well covered example of this just last week (State of the Union).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

Oh, but Federal courts are much more difficult to get that from.  State courts, I can pay about $20 and get the list of everyone who will be there weeks in advance.

Seriously? I can't do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheriff Bart said:

It would be neato torpedo if he gave Stone 15 years to spite Barr & Trump.

No, it wouldn't. 

It would be "neato torpedo" if the judge sentenced him within his neutral, unbiased discretion after giving careful consideration to the federal sentencing guidelines and the applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented through testimony, the pre-sentence report, and arguments from counsel. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

People lie to Congress often and with impunity 

I don't think this thread is about State of the Union addresses. 

Edited by Zow
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Do you have any pre trump era examples? 

Sammy Sosa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Random legal question.  Are lawyers allowed to google jurors' during selection?  

Probably. In my jurisdiction, a lawyer can view whatever is available to the public and not be ethically afoul. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Completely disagree. If the criminal code spells out the penalty is xyz, but there is a history of people not getting xyz, then it matters a great deal. It also matters how often each individual crime gets charged. So for example if somebody telling 10 lies to congress usually just gets charged with lying to congress or do they get charged 10 times.

Hopefully we can get some clarity from Barr himself, but obviously I highly doubt it. 

 

 

It's incredibly common for a person to receive a harsher punishment for taking the matter to trial rather than through a plea agreement. Obviously, if such weren't the case there'd be no incentive for a defendant to take a plea and our system would grind to a hault (and @BigJim® would be incensed). 

Trial is always a gamble for the reason above. There are many cases where the more culpable defendant received less time through a plea than a co-defendant did through a trial. But this doesn't necessarily mean the outcome was unjust or the result of overzealous prosecutors. Legislators write the laws (including the sentencing guidelines). A defendant goes to trial with his eyes wide open on them. 

If you have a complaint, complain to the legislature - don't take it out on the prosecutor.

Edited by Zow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

Its amazing how this administration, and it supporters, is suddenly concerned about the treatment of convicted felons. Remember when Trump said the police treat suspects too nicely? Maybe bang their heads a little when they're putting them in the police car. 

But these are his convicted felons. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Do you have any pre trump era examples? 

Casper Weinberger

Roger Clemens

H.R. Haldeman

ETA: sorry, just felt like chiming in

 

Edited by Lutherman2112
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

Seriously? I can't do that. 

Oh, yeah.  With addresses, usually.

Edit: I could conceivably literally have someone follow each of them around for a week before the voir dire.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I could conceivably literally have someone follow each of them around for a week before the voir dire.

It's probably happened for defendants with deep pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Do you have any pre trump era examples? 

Clapper Brennan Comey Mueller

arguably Sessions, but that would be a tough case to prosecute...

Edited by Sam Quentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zow said:

No, it wouldn't. 

It would be "neato torpedo" if the judge sentenced him within his neutral, unbiased discretion after giving careful consideration to the federal sentencing guidelines and the applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented through testimony, the pre-sentence report, and arguments from counsel. 

Lighten up GB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In times like these I’m always comforted knowing that the pro-T crowd would have come running to Obama’s defense had the same thing happened during his term. Because it’s never about partisanship with them it’s only about what is right.  Dems are the only partisan people in Washington.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

In times like these I’m always comforted knowing that the pro-T crowd would have come running to Obama’s defense had the same thing happened during his term. Because it’s never about partisanship with them it’s only about what is right.  Dems are the only partisan people in Washington.  

Yeah, I remember when the Obama admin asserted the right to murder US citizens abroad without a trial or any due process at all, and prosecuted whistleblowers under the EA more than every other president in history combined, American liberals freaked out really hard about it, it was like the sky was falling.  Nothing like these Party Over Country pro-T republicans, man I miss the days when the President wasn't tweeting mean things at the judiciary to bail out his huckster friend for the harmless fibs he told, the real crime in Washington.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Yeah, I remember when the Obama admin asserted the right to murder US citizens abroad without a trial or any due process at all, and prosecuted whistleblowers under the EA more than every other president in history combined, American liberals freaked out really hard about it, it was like the sky was falling.  Nothing like these Party Over Country pro-T republicans, man I miss the days when the President wasn't tweeting mean things at the judiciary to bail out his huckster friend for the harmless fibs he told, the real crime in Washington.  

Please show me where I’ve defended Obama.  I’ll hang up and wait

In the mean time to even attempt to defend that partisan politics is rampant and drives everything to is pure insanity. And whitewashing Trumps actions is laughable Ren.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Yeah, I remember when the Obama admin asserted the right to murder US citizens abroad without a trial or any due process at all, and prosecuted whistleblowers under the EA more than every other president in history combined, American liberals freaked out really hard about it, it was like the sky was falling.  Nothing like these Party Over Country pro-T republicans, man I miss the days when the President wasn't tweeting mean things at the judiciary to bail out his huckster friend for the harmless fibs he told, the real crime in Washington.  

Murder and whistleblower could probably use some fleshing out in this discussion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Yeah, I remember when the Obama admin asserted the right to murder US citizens abroad without a trial or any due process at all, and prosecuted whistleblowers under the EA more than every other president in history combined, American liberals freaked out really hard about it, it was like the sky was falling.  Nothing like these Party Over Country pro-T republicans, man I miss the days when the President wasn't tweeting mean things at the judiciary to bail out his huckster friend for the harmless fibs he told, the real crime in Washington.  

Trump always gets a pass.

Everyone else should be tried for war crimes, but Dictator Donny gets a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The trial judge has already rejected Stone’s request for a new trial on the basis of alleged bias of a different unnamed juror, and unless Hart lied in response to written voir dire, it’s unlikely Stone would be awarded a new trial based on Hart’s alleged bias. Time will tell, however. In the meantime, don’t believe any Twitter lawyer who claims that partisans must be disqualified from serving on juries. The question isn’t whether Hart is a Democrat, it’s whether she hid facts that would have provided a valid basis to challenge her presence on the jury.<<

The Dispatch

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>The trial judge has already rejected Stone’s request for a new trial on the basis of alleged bias of a different unnamed juror, and unless Hart lied in response to written voir dire, it’s unlikely Stone would be awarded a new trial based on Hart’s alleged bias. Time will tell, however. In the meantime, don’t believe any Twitter lawyer who claims that partisans must be disqualified from serving on juries. The question isn’t whether Hart is a Democrat, it’s whether she hid facts that would have provided a valid basis to challenge her presence on the jury.<<

The Dispatch

Yeah being partisan is fine as long as you are truthful. Would seem weird to strike jurors based solely on party affiliation. 

This question and answer though seem at least a bit problematic...

Atty: Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

Kind of hard to reconcile that with also saying this. 

"Cosigning and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank"

But i imagine that this day and age it would be hard to find any jurors then or make cases stick if they had to show 100% consistency online. So not to a level of mistrial, but something seems at least a bit wrong there. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This question and answer though seem at least a bit problematic...

Atty: Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

Kind of hard to reconcile that with also saying this. 

"Cosigning and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank"

I don't think those are hard to reconcile. The defendant was not charged with being racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think those are hard to reconcile. The defendant was not charged with being racist.

But what if he is a racist and it's not germane to the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

But what if he is a racist and it's not germane to the case?

As a juror, if I believe that the defendant is racist, that doesn't mean I can't be fair to him if he's not charged with anything related to racism.

In other words, just because I (irrationally) think he's a racist doesn't mean I'm predisposed to think he's guilty of witness tampering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.