The jury foreperson in Roger Stone’s trial probably hid her bias, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Napolitano appeared Thursday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to discuss revelations that Tomeka Hart, who led the jury that convicted Stone on seven counts of making false statements, witness tampering and obstruction, may have been biased against Stone from the outset.

WATCH:

Carlson laid out the recent reporting as he introduced Napolitano, saying, “Is it your view a problem that the foreman of the jury in Roger Stone’s trial turned out to be a former Democratic congressional candidate who attacked Trump on Twitter and mocked concern, I think most critically, about the FBI raid on stone’s house? Why was someone like this allowed to remain on the jury?”

Napolitano responded by first acknowledging that Stone was a longtime friend but saying that he would answer the question specifically from the judicial perspective. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Shock And Awe Arrest Is ‘An American Nightmare,’ Says Judge Napolitano)

“This is information that she must have hidden from the lawyers and the judge who interrogated her before she was put on the jury,” Napolitano began, explaining that because it was a federal case, the judge would have interrogated the jurors.

“The lawyers sign off ahead of time on the questions the judges are going to ask. The purpose of the interrogation is to weed out people that have a bias, prejudice, and knowledge of case or interest in the outcome,” Napolitano said. “She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone, a bias in favor of his prosecution, and an interest in seeing him convicted.”

Napolitano went on to say that although the information did not come out until after the conviction, there was still a remedy.

“The proper thing for the judge to do is to bring this juror back in the courtroom in the presence of Roger Stone and his lawyers and in the presence of the four prosecutors who have since resigned because their resignations are not effective until she, the trial judge, accepts them and interrogate this woman in order to determine whether the bias influenced her guilty vote and whether that bias was passed on to other members of the jury,” he said.

Carlson then asked what might happen if it was determined that Hart had lied during her initial interrogation.

“It would be catastrophic for her,” Napolitano replied. “First of all, she is a lawyer. So she would be prosecuted for perjury since the statements are given under oath and if convicted she would lose her license to practice law but that would be the least of her concerns. She probably would serve jail time if she lied in order to affect the outcome of a case and if she did lie, if a judge concluded she lied, Tucker, that is an automatic vacation of the conviction and in order for a new trial if the government even wants to try Stone a second time.”