But the ritual of choosing the jury got off to a slow start as more than half of the first group of 96 potential jurors raised their hands to say they could not be fair to Mr. Trump, demonstrating the challenges of picking an impartial panel in a city where the defendant is widely loathed. The judge immediately excused them.
I don’t know if I trust the awareness or judgment of a juror who could say they either aren’t aware of Trump or are aware but aren’t biased for or against. He’s very famous and very divisive.
They aren’t booting people for being aware of him — any American with a functional brain is.
They are dismissing people who say they won’t be fair to him. It’s possible to like or dislike somebody and still decide a case based on the facts of the matter. I believe the E Jean Carrol case had jurors who had voted for Trump, and they found him liable all the same.
Fair. I’m mostly poking fun at the fact that, at least in my experience, there are exceptionally few people who have had anything approaching a neutral stance about Trump since 2016. The article noted “the challenges of picking an impartial panel in a city where the defendant is widely loathed”.
So they will end up with liar Trump supporters being chosen saying they can be impartial.
It’s a possibility. What will happen later in the selection process is that the lawyers for both sides will ask additional questions of potential jurors, and see if they can find reason to believe they might be biased. They’ll get to toss out anybody were they can show bias, and a remove some number of jurors because they just feel like it. Eventually, there will be 12 jurors and a few alternates chosen.
deleted by creator
Yeah the thing is though that if they can prove they did that on purpose the juror can be tried for perjury for lying during their juror questioning, which is specially crafted to ask “is there any reason at all you will rule against the evidence because of your personal beliefs, yes or no?”
If they answer yes, tossed, if they say no and get on the jury then proceed to do it, they just lied on the stand and are exposed to prosecution, and I’m pretty sure the case can get retried.
I’m curious how often that’s happened. It sounds really tricky to prove someone’s motivation in that scenario.
They openly prosecute people for handing out literature on jury nullification around court houses, and they also will consider an entire jury pool spoiled if someone declares their knowledge of jury nullification. Anecdotally there’s an Ask Reddit thread out there where someone recounts a man being hauled off for prosecution because he declared he was going to just vote guilty whatever the evidence said because he wanted to get out to pick his daughter up from school, and that judge read the bastard the riot act frontways and back over it too.
Wait, are there cities where he isn’t widely loathed?
Moscow.
They deserve each other
Buncha poor rural towns who think a New York fraudster born into wealth understand their plight and cares about them because he says he does while all his actions screw them over.
basically no.
https://medium.com/politically-speaking/the-biggest-cities-that-trump-won-63d01a0825f1
- Wichita
- Oklahoma city
- Colorado springs
- Bakersfield
- Mesa
that’s all I could get from in front of the paywall.
so not places you would think about as cities or readily be able to place on a map.
As much as I want to see this horrible man brought to justice there’s no way I’d want to sit on one of those juries with all of his unhinged supporters out there.
If do it if I lived there… and if I didn’t have a digital anti-Trump data trail a light year across. I can be “impartial” for the right cause.
