In a column in the Washington Post one of Roger Stone’s DC jurors essentially admits he did not pay attention to defense argumentshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was-a-juror-in-roger-stones-trial-we-took-his-rights-seriously/2019/11/22/234d7df0-0d46-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html …
-
-
Prosecutors claimed Stone did not tell the House about Jerome Corsi contacting Wikileaks, but Stone’s lawyers pointed out Corsi had no actual contact with Wikileaks and was not credible
Show this thread -
Stone’s lawyers also pointed out that he had offered to answer any other questions the House had, but at no point did anyone ask him about Corsi until he was charged
Show this thread -
Whether this constitutes a false statement of not is the substance of the charge, but this juror completely mischaracterizes the entire issue and flippantly disregards the facts at issue here - just as the prosecution wanted them to
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
''so what'', I have polled juries after verdicts, I have never once heard ''so what'' from anyone of them
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Me thinks that is called a miss trial.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.