Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. A Bit of Court Discovery

 

AG BarrBy 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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member

    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.

    • #1
    • February 17, 2020, at 9:44 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  2. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    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.

    • #2
    • February 18, 2020, at 1:45 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. ctlaw Coolidge

    Below, she’s juror 1261 at p. 39/174 (numbered 92). See p. 94:

    THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?

    PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.

    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

    • #3
    • February 18, 2020, at 6:29 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  4. The Reticulator Member

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    but I don’t have a whole lot of details

    As if “a whole lot” of details is what’s important.

    • #4
    • February 18, 2020, at 7:52 AM PST
    • 1 like
  5. The Reticulator Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):
    but I don’t have a whole lot of details

    As if “a whole lot” of details is what’s important.

    And then there is the weasel word “have.” What does “have” mean? 

    • #5
    • February 18, 2020, at 7:53 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  6. Quietpi Member

    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?

    • #6
    • February 18, 2020, at 8:24 AM PST
    • 1 like
  7. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    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.

    • #7
    • February 18, 2020, at 10:48 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  8. ctlaw Coolidge

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    • #8
    • February 18, 2020, at 10:52 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  9. Fritz Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #9
    • February 18, 2020, at 12:58 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  10. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    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. 

    • #10
    • February 18, 2020, at 1:06 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. The Reticulator Member

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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. 

    Interesting. I didn’t know federal courts worked that way. I wonder who decided it should be that way, and when it was decided.

    • #11
    • February 18, 2020, at 7:51 PM PST
    • 1 like
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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.

    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:

    Rules of Civil Procedure
    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (eff. Dec. 1, 2018) govern civil proceedings in the United States district courts. Their purpose is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The rules were first adopted by order of the Supreme Court on December 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1938, and effective September 16, 1938. The Civil Rules were last amended in 2018.

    Rules of Criminal Procedure
    The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (eff. Dec 1, 2018) govern criminal proceedings and prosecutions in the U.S. district courts, the courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. Their purpose is to “provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 2. The original rules were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on December 26, 1944, transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1945, and effective March 21, 1946. The rules have since been amended numerous times, most recently in 2019. Please refer to House Document 116-66 for the text of the amended rule, and the accompanying committee note effective December 1, 2019.

    Rules of Evidence
    The Federal Rules of Evidence (eff. Dec. 1, 2018) govern the admission or exclusion of evidence in most proceedings in the United States courts. The Supreme Court submitted proposed Federal Rules of Evidence to Congress on February 5, 1973, but Congress exercised its power under the Rules Enabling Act to suspend their implementation. The Federal Rules of Evidence became federal law on January 2, 1975, when President Ford signed the Act to Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings, Pub. L. No. 93-595. As enacted, the Evidence Rules included amendments by Congress to the rules originally proposed by the Supreme Court. The most recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted in 2019. Please refer to House Document 116-67 for the text of the amended rule, and the accompanying committee note effective December 1, 2019.

    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). 

    Rule 24. Trial Jurors

    (a) Examination.

    (1) In General. The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.

    (2) Court Examination. If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the attorneys for the parties to: (A) ask further questions that the court considers proper; or (B) submit further questions that the court may ask if it considers them proper.

    (b) Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors specified below. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.

    (1) Capital Case. Each side has 20 peremptory challenges when the government seeks the death penalty.

    (2) Other Felony Case. The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.

    (3) Misdemeanor Case. Each side has 3 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment of one year or less, or both.

    • #12
    • February 18, 2020, at 9:45 PM PST
    • Like
  13. The Reticulator Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    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:

    “As foreperson, I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts,” she said.

    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.

     

     

    • #13
    • February 18, 2020, at 10:40 PM PST
    • 1 like
  14. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    The same judge presided at the Manafort trial.

    • #14
    • February 19, 2020, at 6:04 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    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

    • #15
    • February 19, 2020, at 7:51 AM PST
    • 1 like
  16. Jeffery Shepherd Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #16
    • February 19, 2020, at 7:54 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  17. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    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:

    “As foreperson, I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts,” she said.

    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 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.

    • #17
    • February 19, 2020, at 12:38 PM PST
    • 1 like
  18. The Reticulator Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    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.

    • #18
    • February 19, 2020, at 1:01 PM PST
    • 1 like