Roger Stone going even-more-all-in. His lawyers argue Judge Jackson must be disqualified from hearing his new-trial motion because she praised the jurors in his trial for serving with integrity. 
The argument is, um, thin. Stone's lawyers cite some cases saying it's (usually) improper for judges to make public comments about the merits of a pending case. To the extent this is a comment by Jackson about the merits of his case, it came *during a hearing in his case.*
The case Stone's lawyers cite is one in which the district judge was giving media interviews about the merits of the case while it was going on. Even then, the D.C. Cir. said it's not automatic disqualification.
Stone's argument is basically that it's improper for a judge to obliquely comment on the merits of a pending motion during a proceeding in that very case, after the motion and response have been filed but prior to the filing of the movant's reply.
Roger Stone's lawyers gave a two-sentence summary of his sealed motion for a new trial. They say a juror "misled the Court regarding her ability to be unbiased and fair and the juror attempted to cover up evidence that would directly contradict her false claims of impartiality."
See for yourself ->
Update: Judge Jackson was not impressed with Stone's request that she be disqualified. "The pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court's docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words 'judge' and 'biased' in it."
Denied.
Denied.
Judge Jackson says she wasn't talking about Stone's new-trial motion when she praised jurors' integrity. But even if she had been, she said, judges cannot be 'biased' and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned" while judging the case.
This ruling is a judicial hybrid of "I have been very patient" and "ayfkm."
It's here ->
