Bias does not mean she determined he was guilty. Bias is about personal opinions about people involved. She made statements about Stone being part of Trump's team. Which she has shown bias towards.
So nothing that I can recall specifically,” Hart replied. “I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN.”
“So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN,” she continued.
So she had knowledge and also showed preconceived negative notions about Trumps associates calling them racists and criminals. The attorneys tried to have her removed, but the judge said no.
Her tweets showed her bias towards Stone. She should have been removed.
Troubling Revelations About Roger Stone Jury Foreperson and She Wasn't the Only One With Issues
Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors
Bias towards people which the juror clearly had as seen by her actions and comments towards Trump and his associates are clear reasons for dismissal. So was her tweet showing she knew about the case and brought racism I to the situation. The defense wanted her out for legit reasons.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...s/reasons-for-rejecting-potential-jurors.html
This should be a mistrial and a new one held.
Basically the argument boils down to her re-Tweeting something someone else wrote about Republicans, who have ignored Blacks being shot and killed by police, were up in arms of how Stone was arrested -- there is nothing in that Tweet that shows she had any knowledge of the case.
There is a claim that since her husband works for the FBI in the same division that investigated Stone that she couldn't be impartial -- despite the fact there is no evidence that her husband had any knowledge of the Stone case, that he had ever worked on it or been involved with it, much less that he had ever talked to her about it.
Last, the remainder of the claims is basically that as a Democrat and a "civil rights activist," one that dislikes Trump, that she could not be impartial. I'm sorry, that does not show that she could not be impartial.
In fact, going through your link showing reasons for a juror to be dismissed -- none of them fit what is alleged against her. To go through the reasons:
1) "Personal knowledge about a party to the case or someone connected to the case." In this case, the example given is, "the prosecutor’s next-door neighbor would ordinarily be excused for cause, as would someone related to a key witness," and that appears to have not applied. If her husband had worked the case, particularly if he was testifying, that would have disqualified her. Instead, again, he worked in that "division" but, from what we know, was not involved and had no knowledge of the case.
2) "Personal experiences that might affect the person’s ability to judge the case." So, the example, "For instance, someone who has himself been the victim of a similar crime might be prone to project his trauma onto the alleged victim, coloring his ability to weigh the victim’s credibility." Doesn't apply here.
3) "Inability or unwillingness to follow core legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence or the defendant’s right not to testify." There is no evidence she had such an issue.
4) "Refusal to consider the sentence, including the death penalty. " Again, not an issue.
5) "Critical and extreme feelings about the judicial system or government." Again, no evidence of any issue here.
6) "A predisposition to believe police officers or other individuals involved in the case." No evidence that is the case here.
7) "An unfavorable predisposition towards the defendant’s race, lifestyle, or occupation." The examples: "“I know many members of [that ethnic community], and they’re all scammers,” or “I’ve had enough experience with people who [live like that] to know never to trust them.” This can be prejudice in its meanest form." While you can argue that she is a "racial activist" there is no evidence that she held that type of feeling towards white people. The closest you can claim is that you believe, based on her comments, that Stone is a racist (though there is no real evidence to support that idea) -- but that again does not mean she could not be impartial in this case, which had zero to do with racial issues.
8) "Exposure to pre-trial publicity." And the best you have is she reTweeted a comment someone else made about the arrest. In a case like this, with the story of the arrest being national news, that is not a reason to dismiss a juror.
The obvious bias in the article has been pointed out to you. As a prime example, they suggest that a juror that merely donated to a Democratic candidate should have been removed "for cause" -- if you notice, there is nothing in those above reasons that comes anywhere close to showing that as a reason to remove a juror. Yet they basically use that as an entire reason why that juror should not have been seated -- your article is not credible.
There is no evidence that the judge was wrong to not remove the juror "for cause" -- as, again, no evidence shows that she was unable to be impartial. And, obviously, the defense did not have enough concern to use a peremptory challenge -- the judge could not have overruled it.