Roger Stone again asks court for new trial

[onenote]

13. The issue is whether she withheld information on her questionnaire

First, we don't necessarily know if the defense team objected to this particular juror in advance. My bet is that they did. Judge Jackson's fifteen page opinion denying a separate motion for a new trial based based on the defense's objection to a different juror reveals the following: The defense initially sought to strike 58 jurors from the jury pool. Judge Jackson struck over 30 of those jurors initially and subsequently struck several others. The juror at the heart of the initial motion for a new trial was not one of the jurors that the defense sought to strike. Only later, after oral void dire, did the defense move to strike that particular juror, and Judge Jackson denied that motion before the trial and denied the motion for a new trial after the trial.

If the fact that the defense had the opportunity to object to the jury forewoman was dispositive of the motion for new trial, Judge Jackson would have said so and it wouldn't have required a 15-page opinion. And as for the new motion, relating to the jury forewoman, we don't know if the defense objected either based on the written questionnaire or the oral void dire. And we don't know if she concealed any details that Judge Jackson is going to conclude the jury forewoman should have disclosed.

This isn't a slam dunk.