Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Bit of Court Discovery
By way of PowerLine, “Flight of the Drama Queens,” I got to the Knowledge Is Good blog. Intrigued by a screenshot from the court schedule controlling the Roger Stone case, I went digging for the source. What a treasure trove for geeks like me (and maybe you); I give you three recent entries by way of Court Listener. From February 14, 2020:
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS in case as to ROGER JASON STONE, JR before Judge Amy Berman Jackson held on November 15, 2019; Page Numbers: 1-16. Date of Issuance:February 14, 2020. Court Reporter: Janice Dickman. Telephone number: 202-354-3267, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order FormFor the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased fro m the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/6/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/16/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/14/2020.(Dickman, Janice) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
This is about releasing the court transcripts, which may not be very flattering to the Democrats in career prosecutor camouflage. Look for them to try to get favorable redactions of the transcripts.
MINUTE ORDER granting 299 defendant’s sealed motion for leave to file document under seal as to ROGER J. STONE JR. The Clerk of Court is directed to file under seal [Dkt. 299-2] Defendant’s Motion for New Trial and [Dkt. 299-3] the exhibits to defendant’s motion. It is ORDERED that the government shall file under seal its response to the motion by February 18, 2020. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file under seal a proposed redacted version of his Motion for New Trial and accompanying exhibits by February 18, 2020. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/14/20. (DMK)
Order on Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal
This is the big one. Roger Stone’s team has filed a motion seeking permission to ask for a new trial, with documentation (the exhibits) to justify granting the motion. Things are moving right along from there. DOJ must file its response to the request by Tuesday, February 18, and Stone’s team must file a proposed redacted version of the motion for a new trial the same day (in which there will be a fight over what gets redacted, that is, over how badly the Democrat operatives in our government get exposed.
Finally, the judge was working on Sunday:
MINUTE ORDER as to ROGER J. STONE, JR. An on-the-record scheduling telephone conference call is set for February 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. In a separate email from the Deputy Clerk, counsel for the parties will be supplied with both the dial in telephone number and pass code to give them access to the call. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/16/20. (DMK)
This is part of federal procedure, with lawyers for both sides and the judge conferring as the case moves along. The scheduling would be for paperwork and court appearances going forward, driven by the motion for a new trial. Since the four lead Democrat operatives have left the case, we might see the government coming in a different posture to this case this week. Keep your eyes on the Court Listener webpage.
Update: On February 18, J.P. Cooney, Chief of the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud and Public Corruption Section, officially appeared as an attorney representing the government in the Roger Stone case. Cooley has a long record of prosecuting white collar crime. DOJ opposed the defense motion for a new trial. That is normal. Sentencing is still set for Thursday, February 20. The defense has until February 24 to submit a reply, a style of document addressing the DOJ objections to a retrial. All motion documents are under seal, meaning no one on either team may share, leak or blab about them.
Published in Law
Thanks for the link.
Shouldn’t we now whine about Stone’s defense team whining about Tomeka Hart’s social media posts? As if she isn’t allowed to have her own opinions about Trump?
Oh, wait. That’s somebody else’s job. We should stay in our lane.
There is a point or so in there, I’ll grant you. Of course, opinions must be disclosed honestly in jury selection, and it is a near certainty that the appropriate questions were asked. So we will see how things play now that the Obama appointee judge is not playing with Democrat operatives in civil service garb.
Below, she’s juror 1261 at p. 39/174 (numbered 92). See p. 94:
Is that a false material statement, given the social media record?
https://www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019#from_embed
As if “a whole lot” of details is what’s important.
And then there is the weasel word “have.” What does “have” mean?
It’s not clear to me when the 90 days starts, re: release on PACER. Advice?
I haven’t accessed my PACER account in a couple years. I’m supposed to be retired, after all. Reckon it still works, though.
You can bet that the four Democrat operatives who have “left the case” are still sitting at their desks, working on nothing else, just to help out.
Oh, cool! Court Listener is just the docket! So, just looking at the site for the first time, are they inclined to publish the transcript?
I’m not sure, but doubt we will get transcripts on Court Listener.
Court Listener operates via a browser plug-in. When a person who is a PACER subscriber and has the plug-in goes to the docket for a given case, the plug-in updates the Court Listener docket. When such a person downloads a document, the plug-in shares the document with Court Listener (which then includes a link to the document).
That is why Court Listener has spotty coverage of cases, uneven currency of dockets, and sparse inventory of documents.
Court Listener also has some problems displaying on iOS.
My jury trial work was all in state courts, not federal. But that experience makes it seem more likely to me that, to uncover opinions relating to possible prejudice or bias in prospective jurors, the attorneys should conduct voir dire, not the judge as in federal courts.
A trial judge’s interest is in moving the trial along, so bland answers along the lines of “Oh, yes, I can put aside my views and attitudes and be fair and impartial” that satisfy a judge might draw much closer examination by lawyers whose clients will be judged by the jurors. The lawyers know the ins and outs of the sensitive issues in the case they are about to try, so while less efficient in terms of court time consumed, I’d rather they do the examining.
I highlighted this website because it does not require membership or paid access. There are a great many free sources of information now, sources that can inform what would otherwise be fact free opinion. I take it to be a good thing, including noting the limitations.
Interesting. I didn’t know federal courts worked that way. I wonder who decided it should be that way, and when it was decided.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are proposed by the U.S. Supreme Court and then passed into law by the Congress, as Congress has the constitutional power of regulating all courts below the Supreme Court. See Current Rules of Practice & Procedure:
Within both the criminal and civil rules, judges may lead the jury selection, but must at least permit the two sides’ lawyers to submit additional questions and to exercise a certain number of challenges to strike prospective members. Shame on Stone’s team if they failed to do a basic social media search on each prospective juror. Shame on DOJ lawyers if they knew and concealed the biased juror(s).
Wow! You have provided a very detailed answer. And this all means there should be some sort of record of the procedure by which Tomeka Hart got on that jury.
Interesting news article about her here: Tomeka Hart breaks silence about serving as juror on Roger Stone trial.
It’s interesting that in reporting about her breaking of silence the article is silent about her Trump-hating social media posts.
And she gives this explanation of the procedure used by the jury:
Exactly what is that supposed to mean? With what did the jury “match” evidence? And how does a “match,” whatever that is, lead to a conviction?
I’m not sure the problem here is with what she said or with what the Daily Memphian is reporting, but that sounds like weasel-talk.
The same judge presided at the Manafort trial.
Yesterday Barr’s Justice Department claimed that it “lost” informant documents signed by dossier fabulist Christopher Steele in January 2016.
Source: Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ Former D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, Hoover Institution media fellow
Yes jurists can have opinions. But one with full on Trump Derangement Syndrome certainly should not be a jurist in a court case where the only reason the defendant was charged was because he was somewhere in the aforementioned Trump’s orbit.
The jury has written instructions breaking down the elements of each charge and should apply the evidence they heard and saw to the elements of the crimes to see if the jurors agree the state’s burden of proof was met. That is what I understand that comment to mean.
It would have been better, then, for the jury foreman to describe her work as determining whether the state’s burden of proof was met.