What Makes an "Impartial" Juror in the Trial of Roger Stone?

Although Roger Stone was convicted in November of last year and sentenced earlier this month to 40 months in prison, the case is not yet over. The case, which has been extremely high profile, concerned Roger Stone’s alleged obstruction of a House investigation into President Trump and included charges of witness tampering and lying under oath. Even following the verdict and sentence, however, the defense still has outstanding motions requesting both a new trial and the recusal of the judge who has presided over the case thus far.

Stone’s bid for a new trial concerns jury forewoman Tomeka Hart, who President Trump tweeted about earlier this month. Hart came into public scrutiny after she wrote a post on Facebook regarding the resignation of four prosecutors in the Roger Stone trial after the Department of Justice interfered with their initial sentencing recommendations. “I’m standing up for them now because I was a juror on the case. In fact, I was the foreperson.” Hart wrote in her Facebook post. Prior to serving on the jury, Hart had been outspoken in criticizing President Trump and his supporters, including a January 2019 retweet of another twitter user criticizing Roger Stone’s complains of excessive force from police.

            As of right now, however, it’s not clear whether Tomeka Hart lied during jury selection and mislead the defense as to her beliefs and public persona or whether the defense was simply unaware of the material that it now finds objectionable in her past. The difference here is key: if Hart lied under oath, and particularly in such a way that would have otherwise led to her being struck from the jury, she may have unfairly influenced the outcome of the trial. On the other hand, even if she told the truth to the best of her ability and thought herself impartial, it may be the case that her preexisting biases, if she had any, tainted the verdict.

            Perhaps most interesting in the argument about Tomeka Hart, however, are the arguments from President Trump that her outspoken criticism of the president amounts to bias against Roger Stone. One such remark from Hart which has been particularly noted in the media was her August 2019 tweet calling for Trump supporters to stop defending President Trump if they wanted not to be called racists.  Although being a democrat or disagreeing with the President clearly does not establish bias in itself, it is unclear whether open criticism of the President actually does amount to a bias against Roger Stone. Clearly, President Trump and Stone’s legal team would not have objected to a juror who was outspoken in being pro-Trump and defending the President, even if this raised similar questions of the transfer of bias from the President to Stone. The real question is whether Hart could have, and actually did, separate her biases against President Trump from biases against Roger Stone. It is this question that the judge will have to decide, excepting the unlikely event that she grants Stone’s motion and recuses herself, when court resumes in the coming weeks. Undoubtedly, whatever the judge rules, the case is likely far from through. President Trump’s continued tweets and comments regarding the case have hinted that a likely appeal or possible pardon may be on the horizon if the original verdict stands.