Marc Breault Ramblings

I have many interests ranging from religion to NFL football. This is a place where I ramble on about whatever I feel like rambling about.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

The Roger Stone Case


The Roger Stone case is yet another example in which many people misunderstand the real issues.  A number of my right-wing friends have expressed agreement with Trump’s assertion that the proposed seven to nine-year sentence by the Justice Department was too harsh.  These friends point to other cases in which those who lied to congress have received lesser sentences.  And now we have people saying the jury itself was an unfair jury because one of its members participated in anti-Trump events.

Even if all of the above is correct and my right leaning friends are absolutely right, they are guilty of letting the specific case blind them to the real issue.  And what is that issue?  The issue is that the President, and by extension, the Executive Branch of government is interfering with the Judicial Branch of government and thereby violating the principle of separation of powers.

You and I can say whatever we like about a judicial ruling.  We can even go so far as to question whether the judges are any good.  But the President cannot do this because his commentary interferes with and influences judicial operations.  Nobody with half a brain can think the Justice Department woke up one morning and collectively decided to reverse their sentencing recommendation.  We know this did not happen because several prosecutors resigned as a result.  The Executive Branch applied political pressure to influence the Judicial Branch and this is wrong.

Then President Trump commented that one of the jurors was unqualified to sit on that particular trial.  If you or I made that comment, that would be a harmless comment.  But the President leads the Executive Branch.  The woman in question got on to the jury because both the prosecution and defence allowed her to be there.  If Stone’s lawyers were so concerned about her supposedly anti-Trump leaning, why did they allow her on the jury in the first place?  Each side is able to challenge potential jury candidates.  The judge did not force the jury on either side.  Thus, even if Stone appeals for this reason, I would be surprised if the verdict was overturned.  Appeals are based on whether procedure was followed, and procedure was followed.

Let’s assume, as I think Stone will argue in his appeal, that at the time of jury selection, they were unaware of her leanings.  Let us also assume she does have anti-Trump leanings.  Given 11 other people also found him guilty, we must question whether those leanings had any influence.  It is true that sometimes, during a trial, we find out something about a juror which causes a mistrial and in fairness to Stone, he is asking for a new trial.  At the time of writing, the Judge is considering his application.  But I think it is fair to say that mistrials have been granted in the past when the juror has either done something inappropriately, violated their duty (e.g. watched news broadcasts and reports about the trial they are sitting on), or been tampered with.  We have no reason to believe this woman has done any of these?  She expressed her views as is her right as an American. Now imagine the precedent a mistrial would set in this case. 

Imagine, if you will, a black man on trial for murder.  He is convicted and we find out later that one of the jurors used to be a member of the KKK.  Would that be grounds for a mistrial?  Probably.  But now let’s suppose that man left the KKK and expressed deep remorse and completely changed his life and his attitude.  Would we still declare a mistrial if the black man were acquitted?  Probably not.  Membership in the KKK is more than just a political opinion.  Membership in such an organization means actively trying to harm African-Americans. 

In this case, however, the woman in question expressed a political opinion.  And now we are being asked to believe that people who do this for a particular opinion should not be allowed on a jury?  You might argue the Stone case is a political one.  It is not.  There is one question and one question only the jury needs to consider.  Did Stone lie to congress?  That’s it.  He either did, or he did not.  If we are saying that Americans who hold a political opinion should not decide such questions, we must then turn into a surveillance state to ensure people have no political opinions whatsoever.  Good luck with that.  The Constitution calls for a person’s piers to sit in judgment of a case.  We then allow each side to vet the jury pool.  That is about as fair as you can get it.  If we allow a mistrial because we find out afterward someone has a different political opinion to the President, who should not in any way interfere with a case, then it means no politician can be held too account for their actions.  It means friends of politicians can do whatever they want.  It means we move one step closer to dictatorship.

The constitution allows the US President only two ways to influence the Judicial Branch.  The first is that the President appoints federal judges.  The second is that the President may pardon someone convicted by the Judicial Branch.  That’s it.  He cannot do anything else.  Trump has gone way beyond what the Constitution allows him to do.

The Judicial Branch needs to rise up against this, just as some within it have.  If they do not, they will become irrelevant.  And what is congress doing?  Republican lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves because their inaction threatens the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold.  Trump has already violated that duty; it’s time for the other branches to fulfil theirs.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home