Moments after judge rather directly criticized Trump, he responds with a tweet calling her and juror 'totally biased.' The judge is on the bench as we speak. Interesting times https://t.co/1bL0tqsqw9— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) February 25, 2020
Alright, so let's see how this information from the man who sits atop the entire Administration, fares:
Upon questioning from ABJ, Buschel admits that no one on the defense team googled the people listed on the jury panel sheet.— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
ABJ: "I think it's a regular practice" to google people on that list.
Well, that doesn't help Stone's motion.
Through all of this ABJ has tried to pin Ginsburg down on which of these post proved that she lied, rather than just her thoughts, feelings etc.— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
Apparently jurors ARE allowed to have opinions, and the law presumes until proven otherwise (not just alleged) that they are able to separate personal opinions from the duty to weigh the evidence on its own merits. So Presidents may be simpletons, but jurors are not presumed to be.
For context, this about juror's answer on questionnaire to question about whether she has posted publicly about Stone, House intel probe or Mueller probe. Juror apparently answered that she couldn't recall if she did, but suggested that one or two posts were possible.— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
Not helping; and it still doesn't seem Stone's lawyer is getting anywhere. Because the best he's got is "Yeah, maybe," and while he wants that to be enough, it isn't.
Ginsburg also brings up her answer to a question about whether she has a personal interest in outcome of case.— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
Ginsburg: I think it could be inferred that her extremely strong views combined with her failure to disclose them could lead to a bias or a personal interest
That's not the legal standard.
ABJ has shown annoyance with hard it was to pin SG down on whether Stone is alleging that juror's feelings about Trump made her biased against Stone in the case.— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
ABJ: "Do you want to answer my question or do you not have an answer to my question?"
And why is the judge doing all this? Fairness.
DOJ is concerned that these proceedings amount to redoing voir dire, post trial— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020
ABJ explains that she is bringing foreperson b/c "I want to give her an opportunity to get to the bottom of those allegations.” She also says she wants to create record for in case of an appeal
Not that the POTUS understands that. (BTW, there are a number of tweets detailing the testimony of jurors who present NO evidence the foreperson (subject of Trump's tweets) pressured the jury in any way on their verdict. That portion of Stone's motion is pretty much destroyed.)
The twitter feed goes on with coverage of questions the Judge is now asking the jury foreperson, a careful and detailed examination to, again, create a record for the court of appeals. Or you could be like the President and just watch FoxNews and rant about whatever pushes your buttons there. Fortunately our legal system is not as stupid as our President.
No comments:
Post a Comment