Memo to the Judge in the Roger Stone Case

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the federal judge overseeing the fractious sentencing of Trump ally Roger Stone, has scheduled a special hearing for tomorrow, just two days before Stone is scheduled to be sentenced.

On the same date, the Federal Judges Association, a group of more than 1,000 jurists, will be holding an emergency meeting to discuss growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases.

Meanwhile, over 2000 former Department of Justice officials have signed a letter calling for Attorney General William Barr to resign over the controversy, and Trump took a swipe at Judge Jackson.

All of these forces will be coming to a head tomorrow in Judge Jackson’s courtroom.

Stone was convicted in a jury trial in November 2019 of lying and tampering with witnesses. In accordance with Department of Justice procedures, the career prosecutors who convicted Stone prepared a sentencing recommendation consistent with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Their recommendation was vetted and approved by authorized superiors and submitted to the court as the official government position. However, political appointees at the Justice Department reversed the government’s position, and filed a different recommendation with the court.

Judge Jackson is now confronted with two different sentencing recommendations, along with conflicting explanations for why they were created. She cannot make a fair sentencing decision without getting to the bottom of this conflict. This means ordering the four original prosecutors and the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to show up and explain what happened. If they cannot adequately explain how and why the Department of Justice reversed its position, she should order Attorney General Barr to appear and testify.

Any fact finding will have to be done by Judge Jackson. She alone has the authority to obtain all relevant evidence, and she should not be dissuaded by any claim that the evidence of political interference is merely “circumstantial.” In the words of Henry David Thoreau “some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” Judge Jackson has been given a trout in her milk, and she should find out why.