Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial was put in jeopardy on Tuesday as defense attorneys admitted that they did not google a juror who they later claimed was biased against President Donald Trump.

At a hearing that was available to reporter as audio only, defense attorneys argued that Stone deserves a new trial because the juror had made disparaging social media posts about the president and his supporters.

Jackson said that she would permit the attorneys to question some of the jurors, but said that she would not rule on the request for a new trial immediately.

Jackson had ruled earlier in the day to restrict the hearing to audio only after the president and a Fox News host incited hatred against the juror.

Hearing is underway. Judge Jackson grilling the US attorney about what information was available to the Stone defense team from the jury questionnaire and when.

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Former Stone prosecutor Michael Mirando -- one of the four who resigned from the case two weeks ago -- is here at the courthouse and Judge Jackson just said he may need to testify in the hearing.

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Judge Amy Berman Jackson: "Tucker Carlson accused the foreperson of the jury of being an anti-Trump zealot...Any attempts to invade the privacy of the jurors or to harass or intimidate them is completely antithetical to our system of justice." Per @dnlbrns

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) February 25, 2020

Judge Jackson criticizes Trump tweets attacking Roger Stone jury forewoman, as well as comments from Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson.
"While judges may have volunteered for their positions ... jurors are not volunteers....They are deserving of the public's respect,” per @kpolantz

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 25, 2020

Upon questioning from ABJ, Buschel admits that no one on the defense team googled the people listed on the jury panel sheet.

ABJ: "I think it's a regular practice" to google people on that list.

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020

Judge Jackson just grilled Buschel over how deep Stone's jury consultants & lawyers dug into the at-issue potential juror during the voir dire process. Asked if they'd googled the person, Buschel replied. "Unfortunately, they didn't do that in this circumstance."

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

ANALYSIS: Jury consultants and attorneys almost automatically research the social media profiles and online presence of potential jurors. That the Stone team didn't do this is a bad look for their efforts and will make their attempt at a new trial harder to achieve.

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) February 25, 2020

Jackson asking Ginsberg about the jury foreperson's response to this question. The woman left the y/n part blank, Jackson said, but wrote in the open-ended longer section she couldn't remember. "Honestly, not sure," the at-issue juror wrote. pic.twitter.com/cwwUNdy470

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Through all of this ABJ has tried to pin Ginsburg down on which of these post proved that she lied, rather than just her thoughts, feelings etc.

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020

Jackson ?s whether jury foreperson who posted about Stone had the opinions Stone's lawyers say she has. “She might have just liked the headline. Who knows?" Jackson asks. Ginsberg replies that the juror included the comment: "Brought to you by the lock her up peanut gallery."

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Judge says again that issue, at moment, is whether juror lied 'not that she is a died in the wool Democrat and probably wouldn't like Mr. Stone if she met him.'

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) February 25, 2020

Sharp exchange just now between Judge Jackson and Seth Ginsberg when talking about how Stone lawyer Robert Buschel handled the voir dire process to question the at-issue juror.

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Ginsburg also brings up her answer to a question about whether she has a personal interest in outcome of case.

Ginsburg: I think it could be inferred that her extremely strong views combined with her failure to disclose them could lead to a bias or a personal interest

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020

Judge Jackson rules in favor of Stone's lawyer on his motion seeking to question the juror.

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

ABJ: "Am I supposed to even grant a hearing based on a possibility?”

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) February 25, 2020

Judge Jackson just said she directed the entire Stone jury to be in the courthouse today for the hearing. She said that one had travel plans, one was ill and there are 11 who are here.

— Darren Samuelsohn (@dsamuelsohn) February 25, 2020

Judge has ruled that defense did not meet the standard to get a hearing to show jury was tainted by press reports during trial, but she will allow limited hearing anyway. She has said she'll also allow a hearing on whether foreperson was candid.

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) February 25, 2020