Skip to main content

Lawyers: Roger Stone’s Attorneys Should Have Done a Better Job Vetting Anti-Trump Jury Foreperson


Former president of the Memphis City School Board of Commissioners Tomeka Hart on Wednesday publicly acknowledged that she was the foreperson on the jury that convicted President Donald Trump’s former advisor Roger Stone on charges of obstruction of justice, lying to federal investigators, and witness tampering.

Hart–who defended the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted the case and resigned after the Department of Justice stepped in to recommend Stone receive a more lenient prison sentence–was later “revealed” to hold negative views of the president, outraging conservative commentators who began questioning whether Stone received a fair trial. Lawyers suggested, however, that Stone’s lawyers should a better job vetting Hart.

“I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial,” Hart wrote in a social media post that was shared with CNN. “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”

President Trump immediately took aim at Hart and the Department of Justice for what he perceived as another error in the adjudication of Stone’s case.

“Now it looks like the fore person [sic] in the jury, in the Roger Stone case, had significant bias. Add that to everything else, and this is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department,” President Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

The president’s sentiments were echoed throughout the conservative mediascape.

Patrick Howley, editor-in-chief of the far-right news site Big League Politics, wrote that Hart “tweeted anti-Trump stuff and also pro-Clinton material DURING the Stone trial.” The president’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani called for the matter to be investigated.

Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Napolitano said Stone should get a new trial.

Others pointed out that Hart was a former Democratic congressional candidate.

But allegations that Hart’s presence on the jury is dispositive proof that the verdict was not impartial appears attenuated at best.

While Hart did express disfavor with President Trump, she did not appear to address Stone’s culpability at any point. Additionally, Hart’s “newly revealed” social media posts were and still are publicly accessible, meaning there’s no indication that she took steps to conceal her political views from the Court during jury selection.

Some believe Stone’s lawyers simply should have done a better job at jury selection.

“Holding political views opposed to the criminal defendant is not an automatic barrier to serving on a jury,” national security attorney Bradley P. Moss told Law&Crime. “If the Stone legal team failed to do basic due diligence during voir dire and didn’t challenge Ms. Hart’s selection at that time, that is on them, not the government. These social media posts and records of political campaigns are a matter of public record: this was not rocket science.”

Trial attorney and NBC legal commentator Katie Phang had a similar take, claiming the conservative carping was positioning Trump to pardon Stone.

Stone’s lawyers did lodge some objections to jurors during jury selection.

One potential juror that Stone’s attorneys motioned to strike from the juror pool was a woman who worked in the Obama administration as a communications director for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected the motion by Stone’s attorneys:

At the outset, Jackson made clear that having an opinion about Trump or working for the federal government were not disqualifying factors for jurors indicating bias against Stone.

Still, Stone’s lawyers quickly moved to strike from serving as a juror a woman who said she previously worked in former President Barack Obama’s administration and her husband worked at the Justice Department. Jackson shot that effort down, saying the woman had credibly denied having an opinion on the Stone case.

This was not the only motion to strike that Judge Jackson rejected, and it was known that “many” prospective jurors had expressed opinions on Trump.

[image via NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime:

Jerry Lambe is a journalist at Law&Crime. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and New York Law School and previously worked in financial securities compliance and Civil Rights employment law.