Politicspolitics

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:29 AM

Jury Foreman was tweeting Politico links during Stone trial


?s=21

49 replies, 527 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jury Foreman was tweeting Politico links during Stone trial (Original post)
Let it go Feb 13 OP
Grumpy Pickle Feb 13 #1
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #3
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #4
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #5
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #6
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #7
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #9
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #11
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #14
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #15
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #16
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #18
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #19
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #20
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #22
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #23
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #24
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #26
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #27
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #29
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #30
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #32
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #33
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #35
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #37
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #38
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #39
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #40
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #44
Carl Feb 13 #21
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #25
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #28
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #31
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #34
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #42
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #43
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #45
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #46
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #47
Charlie Mike Feb 13 #48
Carl Feb 13 #49
Iron Condor Feb 13 #8
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #10
Iron Condor Feb 13 #13
Cold Warrior Feb 13 #17
Lowrider1984 Feb 13 #41
Penelope Feb 13 #2
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Feb 13 #12
Dumper Feb 13 #36

Response to Let it go (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:16 AM

1. Why in the hell was the Jury allowed to retain their electronic devices during the trial ???

Should be grounds for a mistrial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:39 AM

3. I doubt it was actually while she was in the courtroom

When I look at the tweet it has a time stamp of 12:10 am. Assuming Twitter adjusts for my local time, that would be 6:10 pm in DC. I also doubt that the jurors were instructed to avoid entire publication or media, e.g., WP, NYT, CNN. Just another dodge to deflect from Stone’s guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:00 AM

4. "I also doubt..."

You mean: this is the assumption you will declare to continue pushing the narrative.


Jury instructions are standardized. They include:

Because you will receive all the evidence and legal instruction you properly may consider to return a verdict: do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about the case or anything to do with it[,
although I have no information that there will be news reports about this case]; do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the Internet or using other reference materials; and do not make any investigation or in any other way try to learn about the case on your own. Do not visit or view any placebdiscussed in this case, and do not use Internet programs or other devices to search for or view any place discussed during the trial. Also, do not do any research about this case, the law, or the people involved—including the parties, the witnesses or the lawyers—until you have been excused as jurors. If you happen to read or hear anything touching on this case in the media, turn away and report it to me as soon as possible.

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/sites/default/files/WPD/Criminal_Instructions_2019_12_0.pdf

Page 10

Good luck conclusively proving she did NOT read any articles involving Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:06 AM

5. Nothing in those instructions would prevent a juror from reading

Politico, the Washington Post, etc. It would be up to the defence to prove that she DID read any articles involving Stone.

Again, just a deflection from the conviction of one of Dumpie's criminal henchmen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:11 AM

6. If your argument is, it doesn't specify those media outlets you've already lost.

The law favors the defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 10:55 AM

7. We will wait for the mistrial then



In the future, any juror that reads virtually any major newspaper, online journal, or watches teevee news now will cause a mistrial. Of course, if they ask the juror and he/she says “no,” there will be a mistrial because it is up to the juror to prove a negative.

Oh CM, you are funny at times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:18 AM

9. If you are as much an advocate of the law as you feign to be you would want a mistrial.

But you want to see the law used to punish people.


"In the future, any juror that reads virtually any major newspaper, online journal, or watches teevee news now will cause a mistrial. Of course, if they ask the juror and he/she says “no,” there will be a mistrial because it is up to the juror to prove a negative."


Social Media Proves a Costly Escape for the Horrors of Jury Duty

http://snaptrends.com/social-media-use-jurors-causing-costly-mistrials/

You should really stop acting like you're so smart, because you're really bad at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:28 AM

11. You are grasping at Dumpie's straw-like hair CM

Your article talks about jurors who go online to research the case, the law, or to reveal info about the trial. As far as what’s posted here, this juror did none of those things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:34 AM

14. Those are not the only media interactions that trigger a mistrial.

As my earlier citation from the jury instructions shows.

You tried to evade by claiming if the issue was so prolific it would be overlooked. Hardly a sound rationale for a basis of law.

Obviously you are wrong because social media - unlike a politically-biased media - is less of a taint. Yet, the problem is so prolific they are considering imposing fines on jurors.

I eagerly await your next insubstantial evasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:56 AM

15. Considering is the key word there, CM

And it is unclear from the article you posted as to whether the mere fact that a juror is online on social media is the issue beig address or if, as your article states...

“Merzlak said that jurors who go on the Internet and social networks to get or post information about a trial are responsible for causing an unfair trial because the information they take in has not been ruled admissible in court”

So, in summary, there are no such laws on the books and, should a law attempt to restrict a juror’s speech not related to the trial, it would be immediately contested on First Amendment grounds.

I await to hear your next deflection to defend Dumpie’s criminal colleagues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:01 PM

16. All jurors are instructed to avoid the media. Violating those instructions result in mistrials.

You want to hand wave away all of that because Trump.

Now tell us again about how you just want advocate for the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:14 PM

18. Ok, let us just wait for the mistrial



BTW, where is “avoid the media” in the citation you provided in post #4?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:20 PM

19. As suspected. Your claims about the law were insincere.

If you can read the citation from the jury instructions and know what they say it just further proves your subsequent arguments were just bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:32 PM

20. Please quote your citation from jury instructions where it says to

“avoid the media.” Please do not cite any text indicating to avoid media coverage of the particular case.

I’ll wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:38 PM

22. First sentence...

"Because you will receive all the evidence and legal instruction you properly may consider to return a verdict: do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about the case or anything to do with it."

To which you will claim: "But you can't prove she read specific articles about the trial!"

We can prove she was tweeting articles from politico and we can prove politico was posting numerous articles about the trial at the time.

She's a political partisan. Her presence taints the verdict.

Stop pretending you care about the law when you hand wave away its major principles just because you don't like the president of a nation you long ago decided to hated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:47 PM

23. Fail (as usual). The quote you provided does not say to avoid the media

as you alleged. It specifically says to avoid the media in regards to the case under consideration.

As to her commenting on a Politico article, it was about the election of a D as the Kentucky governor.

You keep failing at this CM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:53 PM

24. Do you know how paraphrasing works? Of course you do.

You lost so you are retreating behind semantics when my re-posted citation more than proves my point.

But I did not say she was commenting on politico articles. I said she was tweeting them.

I did not say she was tweeting articles about the trial. Her reading politico during that time makes it impossible for her to have avoided articles about the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:02 PM

26. It is not paraphrasing when it changes the meaning

“Avoid the media” and “avoid the media as it relates to this case” have two VERY different meanings. FAIL!

“Reading Politico...makes it impossible...to have avoided articles about the trial.” Really? You reading the NYT makes it impossible to avoid Maureen Dowd? FAIL!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:04 PM

27. I didn't change the meaning. Meanwhile, you made claims about my argument I never asserted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:07 PM

29. You said specifically that jurors are instructed to

“avoid the media.” Are you now saying that has the same meaning as “avoid the media as it relates to this case” as in your citation? FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:10 PM

30. You have the citation from the jury instructions.

That is more than sufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:14 PM

32. It IS sufficient to show that it does NOT say what you said it did

FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:19 PM

33. It's sufficient to show she violated those instructions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:25 PM

35. Nope. There is no proof that she read anything,

anywhere specifically related to Stone’s case. I know Dumpie’s Acolytes would like to believe that, but they don’t have any proof. FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:31 PM

37. You're asserting a person can comb through a website to see some articles but not others.

You're a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:41 PM

38. Sure can. If I am interested in the governors race in KY

I will google it. If it takes me to Politico, I will click the link and read the article. You are assuming she was “combing through” Politico, not me.

CM, you have FAILED in this thread more times than I can count. Probably should give it up (but you won’t).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:48 PM

39. When it comes to fair trial the assumptions favor the defense.

You don't get to declare what is a failure because you are a fraud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:55 PM

40. You keep saying that regarding favouring the defence

However, to obtain a mistrial, a very serious decision, the allegation of misconduct must be proven. There is no way to prove your assertion unless the juror admits to it or a computer forensic search shows it to be true. FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:29 PM

44. When has trial procedure NOT favored the defense?

She has an obvious political bias seeing how she fell for the Mueller hoax which arrested Stone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:34 PM

21. Then there is this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:54 PM

25. Yeah, I just saw that as well

What the OP title doesn’t say is that she retweeted that well after the verdict was delivered. I assume, although I don’t know, that the jury had been dismissed after the verdict. If so, it is certainly not uncommon for jurors to comment on aspects of the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:05 PM

28. "she retweeted that well after the verdict was delivered."

Got any citation to show the relevance of that argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:13 PM

31. The factual basis or the fact that jurors often comment on cases after

the jury has been dismissed?

The former is easily confirmed by the dates of the verdict and the retweet. The latter is confirmed by jurors commenting on trials after the verdict. First one that comes to mind (because I saw a show o it recently) is the Laci Peterson jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:20 PM

34. Rendering a verdict is not dismissed. Was she dismissed at the time?

If not, she was still obligated to her instructions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:58 PM

42. As I said, I don't know

If the jury wasn’t dismissed at the time, there would be a problem. Yet I don’t see any of Dumpie’s Acolytes raising that problem with any definitive information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:14 PM

43. If lack of definition is a cause for insult what does that say about you?

"As I said, I don't know"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:41 PM

45. It is hilarious that YOU are complaining of insults

Why don’t you read through your responses in this thread.



Oh, and FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:51 PM

46. You started with your condescending attitude from the beginning.

You have no authority to claim I failed because you are a fraud.

You started claiming to champion the law but you make every effort to wave away a defendant's right to fair trial.

Why? For no reason than Trump - who has done nothing illegal and has been a boon for the nation.

You have no rational basis for your prejudice.

You claim I misstated the nature of the jury instructions. Yet, you repeatedly ascribed statements to me that I never made.

Condescension is not a good look for you because you're just so astoundingly inept and everyone can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charlie Mike (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:17 PM

47. It is getting late so with this I am done

You claim I ascribed statements to you that you did not make.

Did you not say jurors are told to “avoid the media?”

Does not the jury instruction state that jurors are to avoid media coverage of their particular case?

Do you think these two statements are of equivalent meaning?

FAIL (again).

Now you can have the last word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 03:25 PM

48. Look at you lying to weasel out of your ass kicking:

"You claim I ascribed statements to you that you did not make.

"Did you not say jurors are told to “avoid the media?”



I was referencing your sad deflection:

"As to her commenting on a Politico article, it was about the election of a D as the Kentucky governor."


To which I replied:

I did not say she was commenting on politico articles. I said she was tweeting them.

I did not say she was tweeting articles about the trial. Her reading politico during that time makes it impossible for her to have avoided articles about the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 06:55 PM

49. It doesnot matter,she obviously lied about her bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:10 AM

8. Jurors are instructed not to discuss the case with anyone

not even with other jurors. That is standard basic juror instructions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:20 AM

10. Did she discuss the trial in some other tweet?

Cause I don’t see that in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:34 AM

13. So a jury forman who's on the Roger Stone case talking with the media

What could she possibly be talking about? Cookie recipes? Or the media high profile case she's on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 12:09 PM

17. Again, I am not seeing what you are saying

Where in this thread does it indicate that she spoke with the media about the trial while it was going on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:56 PM

41. She ran for Congress in 2012 as a democrat.

Social media feed is FILLED with anti-Trump and anti-Republican posts.

Was Stone's defense even allowed to question prospective jurors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 02:30 AM

2. Ruh Roh

Mistrial


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:32 AM

12. Automatic mistrial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Let it go (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 01:29 PM

36. Even Libertarian 'mansplainer'' Judge Napolitano says NEW TRIAL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics