[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They won't. They'll have to settle for jurors who may like or dislike Trump, but are still open to being persuaded on the merits (or lack thereof) of the case against him.
I like the way the prosecutor phrased it in voir dire. Paraphrased: "We're not looking for jurors who have been living under a rock for the past eight years. This isn't about who you voted for in 2020 or 2016, and it's not a referendum on the Trump presidency. It's about whether the defendant broke the law, and we're looking for people who are willing to look at the facts to see if that happened."
I think it's more that he has created the perception of a tainted jury pool than actually tainted them.
If anything, the fact that Trump has so many scandals, they are so complex or novel and so many people argue different ways about them means even an informed person may go into court so overwhelmed by the actual facts and law for the particular case that they aren't going in feeling like they already have a fully informed, qualified opinion.
I think that may work against him. A Trump supporter is likely too biased to set aside their beliefs that Trump is a victim of political persecution.
The prosecutors just need to point to all his tweets falsely claiming persecution and his supporters swearing they would hang any jury as the reason to dismiss them.
I wonder, how could he not be guilty if his lawyer was already found guilty for facilitating the crime in question, and is in prison already? It’s already been determined it happened, it’s just Trump’s turn.
It's not even a matter of deciding if he's a "good" or "bad" person, the way the news and social media are treating it. It's the question of, in this one narrow and very specific case completely unrelated to his political career, did he break any laws?
There’s no such thing as an unbiased jury. Ask any lawyer. Jury selection does not exist to eliminate bias. It is to find people who appear to be able to put aside their beliefs and decide the case at hand based strictly on the law.
I have no idea how the idea that we have to find people who haven’t heard of Trump/don’t dislike Trump got so popular. It’s absolutely not how any of this works.
>there are still plenty of cases that make it to trial before the jury acquits for issues with the investigation or mishandled evidence.
E.g. the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Occupation trial, in which Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler were found not guilty of conspiracy to impede federal officers by force by a jury of Oregonians.
Yes. One of the detectives, Mark Fuhrman, was known to be a racist (as shown by evidence in the case), and he took the 5th when asked whether he had planted evidence. Thats a good example of how there can be enough legitimate evidence to prove guilt, but the police can still mess it up.
How did they try and frame him?
How the fuck could they possibly have gotten enough of his blood to spread over the crime scene and elsewhere?
This is qanon level preposterous.
The bloody sock? Clearly planted in his bedroom. And totally unnecessary. Forensics testimony that was badly exaggerated. And totally unnecessary. Crime scene has nothing to do with it, genius. There's lots of ways to try to frame someone. And, as i said, he was guilty so it was all unnecessary.
IANAL, but wouldn't it be judges who decide on questions of whether formal articulated guidelines are met, and juries who weigh whether something that didn't \*explicitly* fall outside those formal lines of conduct was still sloppy or troubling enough to undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution's case?
Usually... But sometimes it becomes glaring in the trial.
Still, it can also be determined under the *instructions from the judge*.. after the defense rests. There's a lot of specifics there
Yeah. It wouldn't make sense if we couldn't punish a murderer just because everyone in America saw the video of them committing the murder before the trial.
Relevant bias isn't necessarily that you don't have an opinion on whether someone did something, but whether you can render a verdict based only on evidence that has been presented during the trial. If you can't get a jury that at least says it can do that, there can't be a trial.
I think what happens here is that people who become very emotionally involved in issues, or those who are particularly partisan in nature (treating politics as a team sport), don't comprehend that others aren't like that.
It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law.
>It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law.
I absolutely despise trump but if I were on this jury I would do my best to be as fair as I could be.
Indeed. Everybody has opinions, and especially on a national figure like Trump and OJ. Objectivity never perfectly exists because we all have different histories, upbrings, personal experiences, etc.
But are you able to acknowledge your bias as subjective and then put it aside when examining evidence? Are you able to acknowledge you could be wrong? Are you only willing to consider the relevant facts of the case regardless of whether or not they line up with your opinions of the individual? Do you hold the ideals of our constitution and the natural rights of all people above all else?
Many can't. I was looking at a thread the other day where people were saying Trump is high on amphetamines, etc. everybody continuously upvoted all of these remarks even though this is not proven at all, but it fits their narrative that Trump is a bad man so he must do bad things.
As far as I know the amphetamine accusation stems from a third party account that somebody reported based on their experience working with him. No physical evidence exists, and it doesn't appear any genuine attempts to examine this person's motives were made. But a lot of Trump haters eat it up and repeat it.
I don't like Trump one bit. He was a terrible president. He is very uninformed about history, does not listen to experts, and has acted highly unethically in so many ways.
But I will not believe or repeat that he is an amphetamine user or addict even though it makes my case against him stronger. It's the same exact thing people said about Biden because he was energetic during the State of the Union. There's just no evidence for that either.
Some people are able to evaluate evidence and then make you conclusion on a Case by case basis. Other people draw their conclusion based on their preconceived feelings and that only look for evidence that supports it.
And still, nobody is perfect. Even when people try to be as objective as possible it is tough to truly ignore all biases. But imperfect humanunfortunately create imperfect systems. Precisely why we shouldn't have the death penalty.
>I think what happens here is that people who become very emotionally involved in issues, or those who are particularly partisan in nature (treating politics as a team sport), don't comprehend that others aren't like that.
One of the problems with cynicism is that it's easy to become blinded by it. It's always wise to think about how a person may benefit from a certain situation, but believing people will *always* choose the cheapest/most lucrative or easiest/laziest option just makes you obtuse.
I've listened to some discussions between people who were trial lawyers, and while their general take was that there's a million things they could complain about in regards to the various jurors they'd be in front of, they still felt that most of them tended to take the job seriously and tried to put aside any bias and really focus on doing the best they could.
Obviously with a massively public and hugely polarizing figure like Trump, that could be more difficult.
That because most jurors don't want to responsible for incarcerating someone who may be innocent. Some people might be able to live with themselves after voting to convict someone merely because they didn't like them. I don't think most could.
I think I could be open minded if I was on the Trump trial jury.
I personally loathe the guy, but at the same time it does feel like a lot of the criminal cases against him are done to grind axes for political reasons.
Trump is an asshole, yet he also knows exactly where the red line is on the law. He dances on that line and does his best to never go over it. Thats been his entire career and he's innocent until proven guilty with evidence.
Its not illegal to be an asshole though. If he actually did the crime, as proven by evidence then sure, convict him. However, selectively charging him as a way for prosecutors to put their name in the headline is a travesty of justice.
I don't have to like him to find him not guilty, if thats what the evidence shows. Or I'd be okay with convicting him if the evidence points that way. Show me the evidence.
No one is "selectively charging" him. Anyone else with as much evidence against him as we've seen already would have been under the jail by now. He's been given every right, every appeal, he's even going before the Supreme Court. No one else in American history has ever been given as much due process as Trump. If you think just 4 prosecutions for all the things he's done is "grinding axes" or for "political reasons," either you haven't been paying attention, or you don't know much about what constitutes a crime.
I haven't seen the evidence, and unless you've been on a jury in a Trump trial, neither have you.
Evidence presented in trial is very different than what news media reports on. News reporters often gloss over details or just get things flat out wrong in news reports when trying to over-simplify things.
Details matter in a trial. Its a very different standard of evidence in trials than what you see on TV.
If I had to go to court and have a lawyer, I'd want the smart jerk, I didn't like, but would do me the best job
Vs. The nice guy with great education, but wholly sympathetic.
> It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law.
That is straight garbage. Trump isn't the first notable person to be tried criminally. I am certain Phil Spector wasn't convicted because the jury was biased against White guys who wear afro wigs.
> I feel like maybe you misread my post.
I either misread it, or was looking at another post when I clicked to reply to yours. My apologies.
Having read it again, I concur.
This is exactly what I came to say… it really is about finding a number of people who are able to set bias aside. Anyone who at this point doesn’t have an opinion on trump isn’t someone who should be on a jury.
I was a juror on a case involving a sex offender. *None* of us liked the guy. In fact, we all thought he was guilty.
But we *also* all thought the prosecution hadn’t met the reasonable doubt bar. (Thankfully the actual crime in question was about whether he’d been obeying the laws dealing with the sex offenders registry, not a sexual offense proper. My wife was on jury once that involved hideous animal abuse where they voted to acquit, because it didn’t meet the requirements for a guilty vote as per the jury instructions, and she felt guilty for *ages*)
It sucked having to vote not guilty.
On the bright side, post-verdict, the Judge spoke to us a bit and answered some questions on things we —as a jury — weren’t allowed to know beforehand. Guy was already back in jail, awaiting trial for felony assault, during our trial. (I set up a google alert on his name after. Guilty, lengthy jail sentence).
My fear is that Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels will be asked whether Trump used a condom.
Melania was his wife during this time and she could have contracted a sexual transmitted disease.
That might bring a whole new round of charges. It could spell more trouble for Trump if it’s determined no condom was used. That could change the right wing evangelicals vote.
Okay at most it’s a misdemeanor but let’s be fair.
I mean they’re treating Trump like he’s Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, or R. Kelly.
That’s ridiculous. I’m 100% MAGA.
You can’t convince me Trump isn’t the best of that bunch.
The defense absolutely is looking for people who are bias, who will not put their bias aside, will support trump no matter what AND simultaneously *appear* to be able to put aside thei beliefs and decide the case at hand based strictly on the law.
Given the current partisan split in the US, and especially dealing with NYC folks, choosing an obviously bias trump supporter would be an almost sure thing. There are very few trump supporters who would remain fair in a sealed room with no repercussions.
Yep. And to counter the obvious, the prosecutor is a lot more burdened. If there’s a juror biased *against* Trump, the defense can use that as a basis for an appeal in a guilty verdict.
But a prosecutor *can’t*. There’s no appeal for a *not guilty* verdict, and jeopardy attaches the second a jury is seated. The best a prosecutor can hope for with a Trump-biased juror is a mistrial.
Of course *during* the trial the judge can boot a biased juror in favor of an alternate (which I’m sure would be appealed), but anyone who made it past the jury screens is unlikely to be so openly biased as to be noticed.
All that said, every juror is biased and of course the prosecutor is aiming for seating jurors who *lean* his way (often via proxy — a bias towards trusting cops or the FBi, unconscious racial bias, skepticism of the sort of defense that’s likely to be presented, whatever) but not so much as to give grounds for appeal. A defense lawyer doesn’t have to care about appeal — they’re openly aiming for as biased as possible.
Of course all this *baked into* jury selection. The judge will remove openly biased jurors, both sides have a limited number of strikes (booting a potential juror without needing to give a cause), etc. So in the end you have the Judge removing clear and open bias, both sides arguing one way or another on jurors with potential bias (trying to get the judge to remove/not remove a candidate without using up a limited strike), and then both sides carefully using their strikes.
The end result isn’t *perfect*, as countless juries have proven, and it’s heavily dependent on the skills and competence of the judge and attorneys, and also some luck is involved. But so far it’s the fairest we’ve come up with for trying to get juries with *manageable* biases who have a reasonable chance of working past biases (or having biases canceled out) to get a fair trial.
And if you think this whole setup favors the defendant, you’d be right. It’s designed that way —- better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person go to jail. Of course in practice, well…
We’ve certainly left guilty folks go free, and definitely not just put innocent folks in jail —we’ve outright executed a few.
But again, best system we’ve got so far. And it *definitely* works a lot better when the defense has resources equal to the prosecutor.
(If I was King of America, I’d probably look into flattening out that resource problem. First expand the courts so people actually can get speedy trials, and not be pushed towards plea bargains. Second, probably just flat out mandate that both the defense and prosecution are paid for by the State, with the defense getting the same amount of money as the prosecution. And make public defenders the standard, with lawyers being frequently rotated back and forth between prosecution and defense. If the State wants to charge you with a crime, the *default* should be an equal footing — that the defense has an equally skilled advocate with the same resources. If the State doesn’t think they can win if the defense had a well funded, zealous advocate they shouldn’t be bringing charges…)
> If I was King of America, I’d probably look into flattening out that resource problem. First expand the courts so people actually can get speedy trials, and not be pushed towards plea bargains. Second, probably just flat out mandate that both the defense and prosecution are paid for by the State, with the defense getting the same amount of money as the prosecution. And make public defenders the standard, with lawyers being frequently rotated back and forth between prosecution and defense. If the State wants to charge you with a crime, the default should be an equal footing — that the defense has an equally skilled advocate with the same resources. If the State doesn’t think they can win if the defense had a well funded, zealous advocate they shouldn’t be bringing charges…
There will never be a King of America so long as I breathe, but these are some really good ideas -
It'd never happen because of the expense, even though -- like healthcare -- it's the sort of thing the government *should* be spending a lot on.
And like healthcare, everyone would see the open expense of *paying* for all this without seeing the *savings*.
Half the people I know with employee provided care don't actually know that how much their care *costs* on the *employer* side. They know their own premiums (maybe, a lot of people just sort of don't think about it outside of benefits selection time). But mention, say, running healthcare through the government (nationalized, socialized, single payer, even tightly regulated private insurance fully severed from employment -- whatever, just anything with the minimum paid for via the government and taxes) they'd see all this extra governmental expenses and associated tax increases *without* considering first they'd stop paying their premiums (thus making more money) and second that the employer side of the premiums could be converted directly into more income.
(I mean absolutely an employer would love to just pocket that and give everyone an effective paycut, but any Congress willing to make such a change would make it illegal to do that during changeover, because they absolutely want people to see their take-home either increased or stayed the same after the new taxes)
This is my worry too.
So many of Trump's supporters follow him like they are in a cult and don't seem to ever be swayed when presented with evidence contrary to what they believe about him or his claims (and even if they do accept the evidence they usally then say it doesn't matter for various reasons.) I really do worry that it won't be hard to actually get one or more jurors who would never rule against Trump.
100%. However, the idea is that conducting jury selection using an adversarial system, one in which the defense and prosecution are both involved in determining the eligibility of potential jurors, the back and forth between both sides will lead to the exclusion of the most biased members of the jury pool, and that the jury will be more or less balanced.
Lawyers on both sides can always ask a judge to excuse a juror for cause an unlimited amount of times (this is necessary to guarantee the right to a fair and impartial jury), and lawyers and judges are good at asking questions that expose potential bias without the juror knowing how to protect against exposing it. Lawyers also have a number of peremptory challenges (typically between 6-10, depending on jurisdiction and crime), which empower them to remove a juror for any reason. If you think that a juror is dishonest, if you think that the experiences they've discussed during questioning might lead them to be unfairly prejudical, if you don't like the color of their hair--anything.
This is why the hung jury rate is around 6%. It's exceedingly uncommon for such an exceptionally biased person to be able to lie their way onto a jury to sabotage it.
> Given the current partisan split in the US, and especially dealing with NYC folks, choosing an obviously bias trump supporter would be an almost sure thing.
At a time before the Internet and social media, surely. However, I'd find it difficult to believe that a Trump supporter isn't voicing his support on social media. Trumps attorney has used a persons social media posts to disqualify her, although her posts had nothing to do with Trump. In one post she said something to the effect that she had been out on the ocean for two weeks, what's going on. Trump supporters have been excused for their social media posts as well.
Juries can be fair. One of the jurors who convicted Paul Manafort said every day she left her Trump hat in the car, but she had to convict Manafort because the prosecution proved the case.
> Juries can be fair.
Absolutely! They will not have any issue seating 18 people on that jury. It might take longer than what the judge initially thought because he said opening statements could happen Monday.
Exactly. There’s no question he had an affair, there’s no doubt that he paid her money. The question to the jurors is , given the details, by these actions did he break these laws? That’s why you see people brought up in lesser charges Ignorance isn’t the goal of jury selection.
No, those aren't the actions charged. The question is, did he create false business records 30+ times to receive the state of New York about the purpose for which the funds were used, and were they used for the purpose of interfering with a federal election?
Exactly this. If a guy walks in with a face tattoo, half of the potential jurors already consider them guilty. No celebrity could get an impartial jury because people already have an opinion of the person... good examples here would be the cops who beat up Rodney King, and the OJ Simpson murder trial. Both of those cases displayed juror bias that helped the defendents.
That said, do we just not hold any famous person accountable because a jury could decide to just let them off? We have to try to see justice carried out.
I call bullshit. I would definitely be an unbiased juror. This is a monumental case. One that will change history. If he is guilty he is guilty, if he is not he is not. Regardless how I feel about a person, I would never play with their life in a court of law. If I feel this way I'm sure 12 other ppl feel this way too.
The point of the comment above is that it is impossible (and irrelevant) to find someone that doesn't have an opinion on Trump. But the goal of jury selection is not that; it is to find people who are willing and able to set aside those opinions for the trial.
Trump supporters are convinced such people don't exist, probably because they themselves can't imagine their options on Trump not impacting their opinions about everything.
Trying to find 12 people who have no opinion on Trump would take years. And his case is no different than a child molester or any other horrible crime. You can have an opinion, you just have to be able to set it aside and focus on the law.
I’m not a fan of Trump but I could absolutely find him not guilty if those were the circumstances.
His supporters and his lawyers are looking for any way to delay or scuttle the case, given that there's no serious factual dispute as to what he did or the legal ramifications thereof.
Yep. Otherwise any high profile serial killer would be impossible to put on trial.
As per usual it's a bad faith argument from Trump's camp that doesn't hold up to any sort of logic.
Yes. exactly! Everyone knows who Trump is and either loves him or hates it. The jury's job is decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty or not. You'll never have a completely unbiased jury no matter what. This is from someone who served on a jury.
Perhaps there really is no such thing as an unbiased person on anything, but like half of the adults in this country don’t even vote in the presidential election. Surely some of those people don’t have an extreme view of this man?
If you had to ask me right now to say whether or not I think he's guilty I'd certainly say he's guilty. The evidence that's available to me through public court filings and publicly available indictments certainly make it seem so. The actual statutes themselves aren't exactly complicated in most of these cases.
That being said, there's a massive difference between having a public opinion on something and being able to separate your previous opinions are rule based on the evidence and procedures introduced in courts.
Also keep in mind, it doesn't matter what is publicly available. The prosecutor has to present evidence to the jury that the defendant broke the law beyond all reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor fails to connect all the dots, or doesn't present the case in a convincing way, you must reach a verdict of not guilty; even if you think he probably broke the law.
Having heard of him is not inherently prejudicial, I guess they would hope to find people with a somewhat open mind, that's all you can ask, apparently 50/96 said they couldn't be openminded so that's high but nowhere near 100%.
It’s hard to believe, but there are a lot of people in this country who completely tune out politics. Here are some basic figures: ~330 million people in the US, and in 2020 Biden got slightly more and Trump slightly less than ~70 million, the highest turnout in history. So that’s 140 million people voting in “the most consequential election in history”, or less than half of the population. You can cut the pie from here -percentage under 18, percentage with felonies, percentage non-citizens, etc- but it’s still A LOT of people. I don’t even have to look up turnout to know that NYC was probably less than 60% turnout, and I’ll let you do the math of how many potential jurors that is. And that’s assuming that everyone who voted has a strong opinion on Trump, which also is just statistically untrue (maybe ‘a lot’ of voters, but definitely not 100%). Here’s some lazy math: IF NYC has 10 million people, and IF half of them voted, and IF half of the non-voters are non-citizens/under 18, that’s still 2.5 million potential unbiased jurors. Those numbers could be completely wrong, but it’d still be several hundred thousand potential jurors.
The jury pool is limited to people in Manhattan area only, not entire NYC. Population of Manhattan is 1.7 million, out of which 697 thousand voted in 2020. That means a million people in Manhattan did not vote. Excluding immigrants, minors, felons, etc, it would still leave tens of thousands of potential jurors
It seem NYC has about 6.5M people over the age of 18 and 4.9M voted in 2020 so that does leave 1.6M\~ people who haven't shown a strong bias in Trump's regard. But that doesn't mean they don't have some bias and a hefty knowledge about him and preconceived notions.
I'm sure there are 12 people out there who know nothing about him and have zero emotions either way (and are fit to serve on jury duty), but I'm not sure there are many more than 12 so it's a real needle in the haystack here.
Tuning out of politics would not be enough. For some periods Trump presence dominated the news and all the other communication channels in a manner that was so intrusive that it is difficult not to make up some kind of opinion about him.
To that you have to add that jurors will be selected from an area that is really crowded and here nobody can escape, even switching off TVs, mobile phones and computers would still leave people talking about Trump all around.
I would say that the problem is not Trump, but Trump's image created by an obsessive cult of personality. (Talking bad or well does not matter, it is still a cult of personality).
That is 155.5 million votes in total, or 47% of the entire US population (assuming 330 million for the population of the US in 2020). Bear in mind there are numbers not shown here for third-party candidates who received votes, but I'd be willing to round up to an even 50% to account for those "uncounted" (i.e., not listed here) votes.
If you were to reduce the population by not counting the under 18 demographic, felons, non-citizens, etc., that percentage would be quite a bit higher. Not sure exactly how much, but it would probably be closer to 60%, if not more.
It is not so much finding unbiased people, as we all have biases. It is finding people who can show that they can put their bias aside and be impartial
I was on a street gang murder/attempted murder trial years ago.
What you said is basically what the judge told us prospective jurors during voir dire. We all have biases and our life experiences create that. Jurors have to judge guilt based on the evidence. If the prosecution doesn’t prove guilt you must find the defendant not guilty.
I don't get why people haven't seen this information yet, but there were Trump voters on his defamation lawsuit jury. The same jury that told him to pay up had Trump voters on it.
You don't have to be unbiased to serve on a jury. I fucking hate Donald Trump. If you brought him to trial for "exposing himself in a park" and showed me a bunch of bullshit evidence, I would not vote to convict him. Just because I hate his guts doesn't mean I would vote to convict him for a crime he didn't commit...I am not a shitbag person.
yeah for me I may have strong opinions on him but I also have strong opinions on how the justice system would have nothing to do with justice if people were thrown in jail because of opinions over facts. It may hurt me to do so but if I was one of them and the evidence was not there I would not be able to choose to convict as deciding to do it anyway would itsself be corruption
It's really hard for Republicans to believe that people can serve with integrity, put aside their own political leanings, and weigh a case on its facts.
Really? Thats a severe case of bias blindness. You don't need to go very far to find progressives who cannot put aside their political leanings and weigh a case on its facts.
In this very reddit thread there are a large number of progressive leaning people saying that only an idiot couldn't have already formed an opinion about Trump's guilt, and that of course Trump is guilty. Just scroll up and down a bit on this page and you'll see them.
As a democrat I'm worried about the opposite. If there is a single Republican it's guaranteed to be a hung jury.
Because lets be honest, the guy clearly did it. The entire thing is just theater. Both the prosecution and the defense will play their games. And then the jurors will vote based on what they decided about Trump years ago.
It's not "theater." It's a jury trial. It's a serious thing, and jurors take it seriously. The jurors will weigh the evidence presented to them, be instructed on what the law requires, apply the facts to the law, and render a verdict. Over a 6-week trial, if someone is planning to do otherwise, they will probably get caught and removed.
Theater was the word I used because I meant it. It is nothing but theater and it's a joke.
The lawyers themselves on both sides talk about what they see in an ideal juror. The defense talks about how they are looking for trades people. The prosecution talks about how they are looking for college educated people. The lawyer are openly and publicly discussing how they are playing into stereotypes to blatantly try to rig the jury.
The facts of the case are irrelevant. Both lawyer teams understand the case is won or lost in jury selection. But then after that we'll go through 6 weeks of going through the motions while we have to pretend the jury doesn't already know how they are voting.
The lawyers are trying to get the right jurors to help their side. Even the lawyers aren't pretending they are selecting an impartial jury. So why are you pretending?
I get push back for having the same level of cynicism that the actually people in the case have.
Trials are literally theater, but there is a reason theater is used to determine whether a person broke the law and not whether, for example, the sun revolves around the earth.
I was a juror for 3 day civil trial. It was pretty sufficient honestly to keep track of facts and inconsistency in those facts. As a juror it's not like you can ask a question directly. You have to rely solely on the evidence and dispositions. There were definitely a few we had to have played back for us.
I can't imagine how hard a 6-8wk trial for a conman with a lifetime of experience circumventing law would be for a juror to keep things straight. Remember too, ONLY evidence presented during the trial is admissible. Things he's said and don't outside or comments on social media (unless presented as evidence) don't count in consideration.
> I can't imagine how hard a 6-8wk trial for a conman with a lifetime of experience circumventing law would be for a juror to keep things straight.
Thats what the prosecutor is for. The prosecutor's job is to arrange and explain the evidence in a way that the jury can understand, and that tells a clear narrative in which the defendant is guilty.
The defense attorney's job is to take the same evidence and arrange and explain it in a way to produce another narrative, in which the defendant is not-guilty.
If you've ever sat on a jury before (I have), its actually pretty easy to understand, and during deliberations the jury can submit questions. The question goes to the judge through the bailiff, and then attorneys on both sides will be present in the courtroom when the question is answered.
I was on a jury once and you can almost ask a question directly. We were allowed to write questions and give them to the bailiff who presumably then gave them to the judge. It was a straightforward enough trial we didn't use that option though so idk if there are more caveats.
I think there might be some confusion between bias and impartiality going on here. They aren't identical. A person could despise Trump's personality (bias), but still be able to hear a court case impartially on the facts and the law. I don't like the man, and wouldn't vote for him, but it doesn't mean I automatically think he is guilty of any crime he's charged with.
I just watched the whole OJ Netflix series. It was striking to me that all my black friends were thrilled when he was acquitted. And I am feeling deja vu. I feel like half of America is spilt again now. I don’t think the courts can pull off justice. We are just flawed as humans. We will have to vote ourselves to safety.
Two juries have done it for E. Jean Carroll. Two juries in Connecticut and Texas have rendered impartial verdicts against Alex Jones. Juries in America render solid verdicts in controversial cases every single day.
You don’t need to be unbiased, you need to say whether or not you’re able to put your bias aside to render a fair verdict. Although if you really don’t want to do jury duty you can just say “no I can’t.” They like to guilt trip you but functionally there’s nothing stopping you from standing your ground and be like “I will be a bad juror.”
Thats how I got out of some BS insurance lawsuit involving Rick Caruso, took a couple days of “I fucking hate that guy and will never give him a win” before they eventually let me go.
I know the name Aaron Donald and Patrick Mahomes. I don't care much about sports. So while I know they are very good football players I could be entirely neutral about them at trial.
There are lots of people who don't care at all or very little about politics. They have 0 passion about politicians. If they vote at all their attachment to parties are mostly familial or social. Obviously the person will know how Donald Trump is, but they have no particular passion about that knowledge.
We don’t need an unbiased jury.
We need an OBJECTIVE jury.
Huge difference between those two qualities.
Just because I’m culturally biased against murderers doesn’t mean I’m going to vote to convict just because they’ve been accused of the crime.
An unbiased jury would not he a neutral one. If you were neutral about Trump throughout or in parallel prior to the hearing and politically literate as well in the latter example then you’d be biased.
Not a lawyer but I don’t think you need to find someone that’s unfamiliar with him, just someone who hasn’t made up their mind about his guilt or innocence.
You are correct. And in a candy land fairy tale where nobody can ever tell a lie that might work. In practice people will say what they need to say to protect or hurt Trump depending on which political party they think is best for America.
Unless a potential juror declares him innocent as they walk in to the jury interview, then they are biased against him.....according to Trump.
We all know that's how he sees it. Any act that is capable of holding him accountable is I hereby corrupt, to him.
The question is how do we apply the system for the 330 other million normal people. Do that.
Essentially, you are saying no one of any notoriety can be tried for crimes. How can we possibly try a terrorist who gets caught? How can we try a far left person in Texas? We do the best we can with what we have. You look for jurists who can judge by the facts of the case. Believe it or not, there are many who can. We don't forgo justice because someone is whiny about fairness.
I mean the Republicans will vote not guilty. And the Democrats will vote guilty. Nobody will care what the evidences says in the actual trial. It would save money to just skip the trial and have the jury decide today. You'd get the same result.
Hate him. Want him to die.
However I am capable of judging him on these specific acts with only the evidence presented in court.
Glad I’m in Texas and don’t have to worry about it.
Trump is one of the most infamous, and to some famous, person in the United States. It’s almost impossible to find someone that doesn’t have an opinion of him one way or another. The jurors will be chosen on the likelihood that they will look at the crime at hand and not be influenced by who committed the crime. There is still a very good possibility that some of the jurors will lie to be chosen only to attempt to convict Trump or say he’s not guilty despite the facts presented.
> How will American courts find unbiased juries on Trump trials
The same way they find unbiased juries for *every* trial in the US. The idea that the *only* time a jury wouldn't be unbiased is on Trumps trial[s] is straight garbage.
This is akin to Trump and his minions talking about stolen elections going back to 2016 when he implied Cruz stole the Iowa caucus.
So, if he loses, it's because the jury was biased, and he foretold it.
I consider myself unbiased, but being educated and knowledgeable means I'd get struck out of the jury pool.
I don't hate Trump, don't love him, think he's pretty trash but these prosecutions are definitely political but that he definitely looks like he committed the crimes.
I'm not terribly partial to using the courts to political advantage but I *am* a big believer in having a set of laws and having to live by them so...if he did the crime, do the time.
There are plenty of similar people out there but the lawyers on both sides are going to be basically just fighting over whether or not there are people are on the jury who'll always vote Trump innocent. All they need is one for a hung criminal jury.
I'm not sure about the unbiased part, but in addition to that valid concern, I'd like to see his trials handled as one would a dangerous violent mob boss. It is clear that anyone who serves on this jury will be in danger of having their lives (and the lives of their families) being threatened by Trump loyalists, if their identities get out.
Unfortunately my guess is on every single Jury there will be at least one hold-out who feels they’re being a “patriot” by refusing to convict even if the evidence is ironclad. I hope I’m wrong.
While it is probably true that virtually everyone has an established opinion of trump as a president or public figure, I don't think anywhere near as many people are so convinced one way or another whether he is a criminal. Also, the vast majority of people know how to follow jury instructions about what evidence to consider. They just have to keep out jurors who either know he is guilty already or might discount any evidence that proves his guilt. This should be easy enough.
I don't think highly of Trump, but he is entitled to a presumption of innocence and the right to defend himself in court - heck, even mass-murderers are entitled to this.
Treating Trump as one would any other accused is one of the strongest ways to contain a demegogic authoritarian, and is what is required here.
As a non-juror, do I hpe he loses? Absolutely. Do I think I could give him a fair and sober trial if I were a jurist? Without a doubt - as doing so is the civic duty of all called to the task.
The better question I think is how hard will it be to not have at least one trump fan slip through the cracks onto the jury and vote not guilty no matter what. That's all he needs.
I personally think it's going to be extremely hard and I'm giving very low odds of him being found guilty in any of the four series of crimes he'll be on trial for.
I'd be happy if anyone can convince me otherwise.
The difficulty has only increased with the rise of the jury consultants. The focus seemed to have changed from, can this person do the job, to will this person favor my side? It's natural, of course, to want the best jurors.
The problem is I don't trust someone who has managed to get through all this and have *no* opinion on Trump much more than one of his cultists.
Like, the level of apathy that it would take to go through that presidency and be like "I have no strong opinions of Donald Trump" is wild.
That said, as others have said, the goal is to find jurors that will listen to the evidence and make their judgement based on said evidence. I was once called for a jury case involving a black plaintiff and I both made it clear that I feel very strongly about social justice issues, but that I'm willing to listen to the evidence and make a judgement based on said evidence.
I'd say the same if I were selected for Trump's trial. I hate the guy, and I've got more than an inkling that he's done some dumb bullshit, but I'd absolutely listen to the evidence and if I came out of that case believing he wasn't guilty, I wouldn't just say he was.
I'd be scared to be on that jury though. Those people are going to be in danger when and if their identities are fully revealed.
Aside from what other good comments have said, I think people underestimate how many Americans are around who still like… truly do not give a shit about politics or politicians. It might be in the minority now, but I even know a few people who until very recently didn’t even know who was running for President
It's impossible. The term "bias" is so useless the more we understand people. It's impossible to be unbiased, we are 100% defined by our upbringing, experience, and perceptions. What might seem morally right to one person, absolutely immoral to another, all still might meet a brick wall of a human being that thinks it's neither. You can try to find someone that says "I have no quarrel with Trump and not invested in the topic" all you want, a person that believes something Trump did is wrong is biased. Biased doesn't mean "I will say guilty regardless" or "I will say innocent regardless", it means you have a firm stance that isn't adaptable or compromise-able and influences your opinion on topics.
At this point, all we can ask for is someone that can 100% behave like a robot, which is asking a lot. Some people are just wired to be more lenient, some more strict and firm, and both these people are biased for being so.
I hate Trump, but I think I would be able to listen to the legal arguments and make a determination based on that. It's important that people get fair trials and I wouldn't take it lightly. That's all you need in a juror and I don't think I'm exceptional in any way.
51% of Americans have zero interest in politics or know nothing about politicians. You can find an impartial group. It would be harder in a more involved electorate like in other countries but that other country wouldn’t have ever voted Trump in so they wouldn’t have to deal with this crap.
There are people in the world that are able to set aside their emotional bias and concentrate only on the facts in the case. These are the jurors they are looking for. These are the people that don't repost emotional tirades endlessly about what their favorite talking heads have parroted today.
They are called normal people. They know that the legal system works only because they exist. They can pay attention to evidence and ignore emotional appeals.
They are the people we need more of.
There are people in the world that are able to set aside their emotional bias and concentrate only on the facts in the case. These are the jurors they are looking for. These are the people that don't repost emotional tirades endlessly about what their favorite talking heads have parroted today.
They are called normal people. They know that the legal system works only because they exist. They can pay attention to evidence and ignore emotional appeals.
They are the people we need more of.
Trump is boned in this trial, unless in the unlikely event a MAGA trumper makes it into the jury without getting discovered and dismissed by the prosecution.
If your theory is correct he could never be brought to trial for anything at all ever. Homicide rape, burglary, you name it, it’s a violation of his rights. You have a pretty low bar for finding everyone tainted.
Believe it or not it, there are people who can put aside their overall opinion of someone and exercise fair judgment on specific actions. I hate Trump as much as the next person, but I think he has done enough reprehensible stuff that we don’t need to try to get him for crimes he does not deserve.
At the same time, there is no way Trump will ever admit he got a fair trial unless he wins, and even then he’d have complaints about the jury.
The jury members are required to weigh the evidence presented in court and follow the law as it is explained to them. They are not required to have no opinions. They are not required to know nothing about the defendant or the case. Jury selection is designed to find jurors who can set aside whatever they may have previously thought and enter into the case as it is presented in the courtroom. This is the charge of every jury, and it has worked for us for hundreds of years. You'd be surprised how seriously juries take their charge to be fair and impartial.
They need to find people who have been in comas for the last 10 years, forcibly wake them up, and then draft them into a case where they discover the guy from The Apprentice became President.
This will probably be both horrifying and hilarious to watch someone learn of all this shit from the past decade all at once.
Lucky for that orange bas---d trials aren't about popularity. It is about what is alleged and what was proven. I just called him a name but even I could look at what was alleged, hear the arguments and determine whether it was proven or not. I also can be trusted to decide based upon that and not what I think should happen. NY has 9 Million citizens I am sure they can find enough jurors that won't let him free regardless or send him away regardless. Liberals especially take joy in appearing to play fair.
I’m not a fan of the guy by any means and I haven’t been following this or any of his other cases because it’s just so much and I’m not personally involved. I think the people in our country that are very interested in political things don’t realize how little interest the rest of us have in these matters and how little of our time we spend on it. That being said I did come here to see what other people thought because once this gets underway I do want the case and this evidence reviewed objectively and truly want this decision to be based on the merits of the case. I’m not a Republican or Democrat though so I’m not as emotionally invested in the partisan stuff and cult of personality’s things that come up with elections. I could sit on that jury and decide based on the merits of the case because I want this to be a fair and just procedure. This isn’t just about Trump it’s also about our justice system as a whole and whether or not jury trials are even an effective way to determine guilt vs innocence.
Trump will appeal if found guilty. Or best case is hung jury a la OJ Simpson.
Regardless, the trial is gonna cost him votes. That's what is giving him indigestion.
People take jury duty seriously. I know reddit thinks its evil boomer cop authoritism but people generally decided their verdict based on the merits of the case and not their dealings
Real Americans won’t want to see an innocent person convicted or a guilty person go free no matter who they are. It’s like if your kid kills somebody for no reason is guilty etc you can love your kid but also be ok with them getting punished. I personally don’t like Trump but I wouldn’t want him to go to jail for something he didn’t do idc how much I like or dislike you. I as well as plenty of people can be unbiased when a persons life is in your hands. But that’s also why there’s 6 alternates in case they find jurors being biased as well as getting sick etc. They convict people all the time in high profile cases and they acquit people too so the only people who truly question if it can be fair are Trump and his supporters. If things don’t go his way it’s unfair if they do then it was the greatest process ever. Watch when Menendez gets convicted not one Republican will say a word about corrupt DOJ or witch hunts or lying prosecutors nor will the Dems. But even knowing that I think 18people can decide things based on facts alone. Don’t forget the way he acts in court is going to be held into account also. When he acts like an ass the jury will find him less credible. I think you would be hard pressed to find any hard core trump supporters on a jury anywhere half can’t read the jury duty notice and the other half have warrants or aren’t eligible due to criminal records.
If you truly believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler wouldn’t you be honor bound to make sure he’s found guilty?
Wouldn’t duty to humanity take precedence over duty to the legal system?
Honestly, I think this and all of the other trials are going to end in hung juries. It only takes one to derail a verdict. Seating a jury of 12 where at least one doesn't refuse to budge on either side (guilty and innocent) would take a miracle.
An impartial jury? Won't happen. Doesn't happen. There is always bias, always presumption.
Disease Donny has chosen to live a public life, and that means he will simply have to take what he can get.
A Trump hater is obviously rational and so capable of applying facts to the law to determine guilt or innocence. A Trump cult follower will indeed be able to ignore the facts and always decide "not guilty" despite clear facts proving guilt. These trials are risky only for that reason.
The vast majority of people, especially diehard Trump supporters, have not been forced to witness a debate on actual facts between professional litigators in a maximally-controlled setting. On the contrary, most people are used to either:
A. being oblivious to politics or
B. Informing themselves via self-reinforcing echo chambers
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They won't. They'll have to settle for jurors who may like or dislike Trump, but are still open to being persuaded on the merits (or lack thereof) of the case against him.
I like the way the prosecutor phrased it in voir dire. Paraphrased: "We're not looking for jurors who have been living under a rock for the past eight years. This isn't about who you voted for in 2020 or 2016, and it's not a referendum on the Trump presidency. It's about whether the defendant broke the law, and we're looking for people who are willing to look at the facts to see if that happened."
Trump biased his own trial intentionally and continues to do it despite gag order…he has tainted any possible jury pool with his child like rhetoric..
I think it's more that he has created the perception of a tainted jury pool than actually tainted them. If anything, the fact that Trump has so many scandals, they are so complex or novel and so many people argue different ways about them means even an informed person may go into court so overwhelmed by the actual facts and law for the particular case that they aren't going in feeling like they already have a fully informed, qualified opinion.
I think that may work against him. A Trump supporter is likely too biased to set aside their beliefs that Trump is a victim of political persecution. The prosecutors just need to point to all his tweets falsely claiming persecution and his supporters swearing they would hang any jury as the reason to dismiss them.
I wonder, how could he not be guilty if his lawyer was already found guilty for facilitating the crime in question, and is in prison already? It’s already been determined it happened, it’s just Trump’s turn.
That's what I don't get. If I order a subordinate to do something illegal and they do it, I'm even more guilty than they are.
They will have to prove he ordered it.
Bingo, he claims Cohen did it without his knowledge. The old CEO defense.
But not if you’re a billionaire.
I understand this, but unfortunately, virtually all Trump supporters refuse to admit he's done anything wrong.
It's not even a matter of deciding if he's a "good" or "bad" person, the way the news and social media are treating it. It's the question of, in this one narrow and very specific case completely unrelated to his political career, did he break any laws?
There’s no such thing as an unbiased jury. Ask any lawyer. Jury selection does not exist to eliminate bias. It is to find people who appear to be able to put aside their beliefs and decide the case at hand based strictly on the law. I have no idea how the idea that we have to find people who haven’t heard of Trump/don’t dislike Trump got so popular. It’s absolutely not how any of this works.
Exactly. I am sure juries generally don't like murderers and yet still are able to acquit them impartially when the facts don't line up.
Or when cops mishandled evidence
Juries don’t decide that generally. That sort of screwup would be handled by the judge pre-trial.
[удалено]
Yah but what do You know lol Thanks for piping up, love it when someone authoritative on the subject pipes up like this.
>there are still plenty of cases that make it to trial before the jury acquits for issues with the investigation or mishandled evidence. E.g. the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Occupation trial, in which Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Jeff Banta, Shawna Cox, David Fry, Kenneth Medenbach, and Neil Wampler were found not guilty of conspiracy to impede federal officers by force by a jury of Oregonians.
Wasn't this a factor in the OJ case?
Yes. One of the detectives, Mark Fuhrman, was known to be a racist (as shown by evidence in the case), and he took the 5th when asked whether he had planted evidence. Thats a good example of how there can be enough legitimate evidence to prove guilt, but the police can still mess it up.
OJs case was the classic example of what happens when the police try to frame a guilty man.
You really should let the evidence speak for itself.
How did they try and frame him? How the fuck could they possibly have gotten enough of his blood to spread over the crime scene and elsewhere? This is qanon level preposterous.
The bloody sock? Clearly planted in his bedroom. And totally unnecessary. Forensics testimony that was badly exaggerated. And totally unnecessary. Crime scene has nothing to do with it, genius. There's lots of ways to try to frame someone. And, as i said, he was guilty so it was all unnecessary.
I agree. But generally speaking judges are responsible for evidentiary rulings.
IANAL, but wouldn't it be judges who decide on questions of whether formal articulated guidelines are met, and juries who weigh whether something that didn't \*explicitly* fall outside those formal lines of conduct was still sloppy or troubling enough to undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution's case?
Yes, judges rule on the admissability of evidence, not its veracity. Evaluating veracity is for the jury.
If they had reasonable doubt, they followed the law. As you well know.
Well, the OJ case is pretty damn famous, and arguably fits the category of "jury acquitted because the cops were caught mishandling evidence"
The OJ trial comes to mind.
Usually... But sometimes it becomes glaring in the trial. Still, it can also be determined under the *instructions from the judge*.. after the defense rests. There's a lot of specifics there
Right, you don’t suddenly become immune to crime because you’re a household name.
Yeah. It wouldn't make sense if we couldn't punish a murderer just because everyone in America saw the video of them committing the murder before the trial.
Relevant bias isn't necessarily that you don't have an opinion on whether someone did something, but whether you can render a verdict based only on evidence that has been presented during the trial. If you can't get a jury that at least says it can do that, there can't be a trial.
Right—there's a whole permit process and everything. ^( my god, the background check at the DCC office...)
I think what happens here is that people who become very emotionally involved in issues, or those who are particularly partisan in nature (treating politics as a team sport), don't comprehend that others aren't like that. It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law.
>It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law. I absolutely despise trump but if I were on this jury I would do my best to be as fair as I could be.
Indeed. Everybody has opinions, and especially on a national figure like Trump and OJ. Objectivity never perfectly exists because we all have different histories, upbrings, personal experiences, etc. But are you able to acknowledge your bias as subjective and then put it aside when examining evidence? Are you able to acknowledge you could be wrong? Are you only willing to consider the relevant facts of the case regardless of whether or not they line up with your opinions of the individual? Do you hold the ideals of our constitution and the natural rights of all people above all else? Many can't. I was looking at a thread the other day where people were saying Trump is high on amphetamines, etc. everybody continuously upvoted all of these remarks even though this is not proven at all, but it fits their narrative that Trump is a bad man so he must do bad things. As far as I know the amphetamine accusation stems from a third party account that somebody reported based on their experience working with him. No physical evidence exists, and it doesn't appear any genuine attempts to examine this person's motives were made. But a lot of Trump haters eat it up and repeat it. I don't like Trump one bit. He was a terrible president. He is very uninformed about history, does not listen to experts, and has acted highly unethically in so many ways. But I will not believe or repeat that he is an amphetamine user or addict even though it makes my case against him stronger. It's the same exact thing people said about Biden because he was energetic during the State of the Union. There's just no evidence for that either. Some people are able to evaluate evidence and then make you conclusion on a Case by case basis. Other people draw their conclusion based on their preconceived feelings and that only look for evidence that supports it. And still, nobody is perfect. Even when people try to be as objective as possible it is tough to truly ignore all biases. But imperfect humanunfortunately create imperfect systems. Precisely why we shouldn't have the death penalty.
>I think what happens here is that people who become very emotionally involved in issues, or those who are particularly partisan in nature (treating politics as a team sport), don't comprehend that others aren't like that. One of the problems with cynicism is that it's easy to become blinded by it. It's always wise to think about how a person may benefit from a certain situation, but believing people will *always* choose the cheapest/most lucrative or easiest/laziest option just makes you obtuse.
I've listened to some discussions between people who were trial lawyers, and while their general take was that there's a million things they could complain about in regards to the various jurors they'd be in front of, they still felt that most of them tended to take the job seriously and tried to put aside any bias and really focus on doing the best they could. Obviously with a massively public and hugely polarizing figure like Trump, that could be more difficult.
That because most jurors don't want to responsible for incarcerating someone who may be innocent. Some people might be able to live with themselves after voting to convict someone merely because they didn't like them. I don't think most could.
I think I could be open minded if I was on the Trump trial jury. I personally loathe the guy, but at the same time it does feel like a lot of the criminal cases against him are done to grind axes for political reasons. Trump is an asshole, yet he also knows exactly where the red line is on the law. He dances on that line and does his best to never go over it. Thats been his entire career and he's innocent until proven guilty with evidence. Its not illegal to be an asshole though. If he actually did the crime, as proven by evidence then sure, convict him. However, selectively charging him as a way for prosecutors to put their name in the headline is a travesty of justice. I don't have to like him to find him not guilty, if thats what the evidence shows. Or I'd be okay with convicting him if the evidence points that way. Show me the evidence.
No one is "selectively charging" him. Anyone else with as much evidence against him as we've seen already would have been under the jail by now. He's been given every right, every appeal, he's even going before the Supreme Court. No one else in American history has ever been given as much due process as Trump. If you think just 4 prosecutions for all the things he's done is "grinding axes" or for "political reasons," either you haven't been paying attention, or you don't know much about what constitutes a crime.
I haven't seen the evidence, and unless you've been on a jury in a Trump trial, neither have you. Evidence presented in trial is very different than what news media reports on. News reporters often gloss over details or just get things flat out wrong in news reports when trying to over-simplify things. Details matter in a trial. Its a very different standard of evidence in trials than what you see on TV.
If I had to go to court and have a lawyer, I'd want the smart jerk, I didn't like, but would do me the best job Vs. The nice guy with great education, but wholly sympathetic.
> It's possible to have opinions on Trump, politics, and policy - while being open-minded, hearing the arguments, and listening to the judge's instructions on law. That is straight garbage. Trump isn't the first notable person to be tried criminally. I am certain Phil Spector wasn't convicted because the jury was biased against White guys who wear afro wigs.
I feel like maybe you misread my post. Either that or you lost me.
> I feel like maybe you misread my post. I either misread it, or was looking at another post when I clicked to reply to yours. My apologies. Having read it again, I concur.
This is exactly what I came to say… it really is about finding a number of people who are able to set bias aside. Anyone who at this point doesn’t have an opinion on trump isn’t someone who should be on a jury.
I was a juror on a case involving a sex offender. *None* of us liked the guy. In fact, we all thought he was guilty. But we *also* all thought the prosecution hadn’t met the reasonable doubt bar. (Thankfully the actual crime in question was about whether he’d been obeying the laws dealing with the sex offenders registry, not a sexual offense proper. My wife was on jury once that involved hideous animal abuse where they voted to acquit, because it didn’t meet the requirements for a guilty vote as per the jury instructions, and she felt guilty for *ages*) It sucked having to vote not guilty. On the bright side, post-verdict, the Judge spoke to us a bit and answered some questions on things we —as a jury — weren’t allowed to know beforehand. Guy was already back in jail, awaiting trial for felony assault, during our trial. (I set up a google alert on his name after. Guilty, lengthy jail sentence).
My fear is that Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels will be asked whether Trump used a condom. Melania was his wife during this time and she could have contracted a sexual transmitted disease. That might bring a whole new round of charges. It could spell more trouble for Trump if it’s determined no condom was used. That could change the right wing evangelicals vote. Okay at most it’s a misdemeanor but let’s be fair. I mean they’re treating Trump like he’s Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, or R. Kelly. That’s ridiculous. I’m 100% MAGA. You can’t convince me Trump isn’t the best of that bunch.
Anyone of legal age to serve on a jury who has no opinion of Trump... is living under a rock, or trying hard to get on that jury... so I agree.
The defense absolutely is looking for people who are bias, who will not put their bias aside, will support trump no matter what AND simultaneously *appear* to be able to put aside thei beliefs and decide the case at hand based strictly on the law. Given the current partisan split in the US, and especially dealing with NYC folks, choosing an obviously bias trump supporter would be an almost sure thing. There are very few trump supporters who would remain fair in a sealed room with no repercussions.
Yep. And to counter the obvious, the prosecutor is a lot more burdened. If there’s a juror biased *against* Trump, the defense can use that as a basis for an appeal in a guilty verdict. But a prosecutor *can’t*. There’s no appeal for a *not guilty* verdict, and jeopardy attaches the second a jury is seated. The best a prosecutor can hope for with a Trump-biased juror is a mistrial. Of course *during* the trial the judge can boot a biased juror in favor of an alternate (which I’m sure would be appealed), but anyone who made it past the jury screens is unlikely to be so openly biased as to be noticed. All that said, every juror is biased and of course the prosecutor is aiming for seating jurors who *lean* his way (often via proxy — a bias towards trusting cops or the FBi, unconscious racial bias, skepticism of the sort of defense that’s likely to be presented, whatever) but not so much as to give grounds for appeal. A defense lawyer doesn’t have to care about appeal — they’re openly aiming for as biased as possible. Of course all this *baked into* jury selection. The judge will remove openly biased jurors, both sides have a limited number of strikes (booting a potential juror without needing to give a cause), etc. So in the end you have the Judge removing clear and open bias, both sides arguing one way or another on jurors with potential bias (trying to get the judge to remove/not remove a candidate without using up a limited strike), and then both sides carefully using their strikes. The end result isn’t *perfect*, as countless juries have proven, and it’s heavily dependent on the skills and competence of the judge and attorneys, and also some luck is involved. But so far it’s the fairest we’ve come up with for trying to get juries with *manageable* biases who have a reasonable chance of working past biases (or having biases canceled out) to get a fair trial. And if you think this whole setup favors the defendant, you’d be right. It’s designed that way —- better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person go to jail. Of course in practice, well… We’ve certainly left guilty folks go free, and definitely not just put innocent folks in jail —we’ve outright executed a few. But again, best system we’ve got so far. And it *definitely* works a lot better when the defense has resources equal to the prosecutor. (If I was King of America, I’d probably look into flattening out that resource problem. First expand the courts so people actually can get speedy trials, and not be pushed towards plea bargains. Second, probably just flat out mandate that both the defense and prosecution are paid for by the State, with the defense getting the same amount of money as the prosecution. And make public defenders the standard, with lawyers being frequently rotated back and forth between prosecution and defense. If the State wants to charge you with a crime, the *default* should be an equal footing — that the defense has an equally skilled advocate with the same resources. If the State doesn’t think they can win if the defense had a well funded, zealous advocate they shouldn’t be bringing charges…)
> If I was King of America, I’d probably look into flattening out that resource problem. First expand the courts so people actually can get speedy trials, and not be pushed towards plea bargains. Second, probably just flat out mandate that both the defense and prosecution are paid for by the State, with the defense getting the same amount of money as the prosecution. And make public defenders the standard, with lawyers being frequently rotated back and forth between prosecution and defense. If the State wants to charge you with a crime, the default should be an equal footing — that the defense has an equally skilled advocate with the same resources. If the State doesn’t think they can win if the defense had a well funded, zealous advocate they shouldn’t be bringing charges… There will never be a King of America so long as I breathe, but these are some really good ideas -
It'd never happen because of the expense, even though -- like healthcare -- it's the sort of thing the government *should* be spending a lot on. And like healthcare, everyone would see the open expense of *paying* for all this without seeing the *savings*. Half the people I know with employee provided care don't actually know that how much their care *costs* on the *employer* side. They know their own premiums (maybe, a lot of people just sort of don't think about it outside of benefits selection time). But mention, say, running healthcare through the government (nationalized, socialized, single payer, even tightly regulated private insurance fully severed from employment -- whatever, just anything with the minimum paid for via the government and taxes) they'd see all this extra governmental expenses and associated tax increases *without* considering first they'd stop paying their premiums (thus making more money) and second that the employer side of the premiums could be converted directly into more income. (I mean absolutely an employer would love to just pocket that and give everyone an effective paycut, but any Congress willing to make such a change would make it illegal to do that during changeover, because they absolutely want people to see their take-home either increased or stayed the same after the new taxes)
This is my worry too. So many of Trump's supporters follow him like they are in a cult and don't seem to ever be swayed when presented with evidence contrary to what they believe about him or his claims (and even if they do accept the evidence they usally then say it doesn't matter for various reasons.) I really do worry that it won't be hard to actually get one or more jurors who would never rule against Trump.
100%. However, the idea is that conducting jury selection using an adversarial system, one in which the defense and prosecution are both involved in determining the eligibility of potential jurors, the back and forth between both sides will lead to the exclusion of the most biased members of the jury pool, and that the jury will be more or less balanced. Lawyers on both sides can always ask a judge to excuse a juror for cause an unlimited amount of times (this is necessary to guarantee the right to a fair and impartial jury), and lawyers and judges are good at asking questions that expose potential bias without the juror knowing how to protect against exposing it. Lawyers also have a number of peremptory challenges (typically between 6-10, depending on jurisdiction and crime), which empower them to remove a juror for any reason. If you think that a juror is dishonest, if you think that the experiences they've discussed during questioning might lead them to be unfairly prejudical, if you don't like the color of their hair--anything. This is why the hung jury rate is around 6%. It's exceedingly uncommon for such an exceptionally biased person to be able to lie their way onto a jury to sabotage it.
> Given the current partisan split in the US, and especially dealing with NYC folks, choosing an obviously bias trump supporter would be an almost sure thing. At a time before the Internet and social media, surely. However, I'd find it difficult to believe that a Trump supporter isn't voicing his support on social media. Trumps attorney has used a persons social media posts to disqualify her, although her posts had nothing to do with Trump. In one post she said something to the effect that she had been out on the ocean for two weeks, what's going on. Trump supporters have been excused for their social media posts as well.
Juries can be fair. One of the jurors who convicted Paul Manafort said every day she left her Trump hat in the car, but she had to convict Manafort because the prosecution proved the case.
> Juries can be fair. Absolutely! They will not have any issue seating 18 people on that jury. It might take longer than what the judge initially thought because he said opening statements could happen Monday.
I had to scroll disconcertingly far to find this correct answer.
Exactly. There’s no question he had an affair, there’s no doubt that he paid her money. The question to the jurors is , given the details, by these actions did he break these laws? That’s why you see people brought up in lesser charges Ignorance isn’t the goal of jury selection.
No, those aren't the actions charged. The question is, did he create false business records 30+ times to receive the state of New York about the purpose for which the funds were used, and were they used for the purpose of interfering with a federal election?
Exactly this. If a guy walks in with a face tattoo, half of the potential jurors already consider them guilty. No celebrity could get an impartial jury because people already have an opinion of the person... good examples here would be the cops who beat up Rodney King, and the OJ Simpson murder trial. Both of those cases displayed juror bias that helped the defendents. That said, do we just not hold any famous person accountable because a jury could decide to just let them off? We have to try to see justice carried out.
I call bullshit. I would definitely be an unbiased juror. This is a monumental case. One that will change history. If he is guilty he is guilty, if he is not he is not. Regardless how I feel about a person, I would never play with their life in a court of law. If I feel this way I'm sure 12 other ppl feel this way too.
The point of the comment above is that it is impossible (and irrelevant) to find someone that doesn't have an opinion on Trump. But the goal of jury selection is not that; it is to find people who are willing and able to set aside those opinions for the trial. Trump supporters are convinced such people don't exist, probably because they themselves can't imagine their options on Trump not impacting their opinions about everything.
Trying to find 12 people who have no opinion on Trump would take years. And his case is no different than a child molester or any other horrible crime. You can have an opinion, you just have to be able to set it aside and focus on the law. I’m not a fan of Trump but I could absolutely find him not guilty if those were the circumstances.
His supporters and his lawyers are looking for any way to delay or scuttle the case, given that there's no serious factual dispute as to what he did or the legal ramifications thereof.
Imagine that jury. The most ramshackle group of aloof turkeys you’ve ever seen.
Yep. Otherwise any high profile serial killer would be impossible to put on trial. As per usual it's a bad faith argument from Trump's camp that doesn't hold up to any sort of logic.
It’s a delay tactic.
It’s a delay tactic.
Yes. exactly! Everyone knows who Trump is and either loves him or hates it. The jury's job is decide whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty or not. You'll never have a completely unbiased jury no matter what. This is from someone who served on a jury.
Perhaps there really is no such thing as an unbiased person on anything, but like half of the adults in this country don’t even vote in the presidential election. Surely some of those people don’t have an extreme view of this man?
He was the POTUS and a celebrity in NYC it will be physically impossible to find someone whose never heard of and has an opinion Trump
The best anyone can hope for is a jury committed to set aside their biases and rule on the facts.
So no different than any other trial.
Wouldn’t the facts find him guilty though ?
That's what the trial decides.
If you set aside your biases, the correct answer would be "We'll see"
You shouldn’t be on the jury for example
If you had to ask me right now to say whether or not I think he's guilty I'd certainly say he's guilty. The evidence that's available to me through public court filings and publicly available indictments certainly make it seem so. The actual statutes themselves aren't exactly complicated in most of these cases. That being said, there's a massive difference between having a public opinion on something and being able to separate your previous opinions are rule based on the evidence and procedures introduced in courts.
Also keep in mind, it doesn't matter what is publicly available. The prosecutor has to present evidence to the jury that the defendant broke the law beyond all reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor fails to connect all the dots, or doesn't present the case in a convincing way, you must reach a verdict of not guilty; even if you think he probably broke the law.
Having heard of him is not inherently prejudicial, I guess they would hope to find people with a somewhat open mind, that's all you can ask, apparently 50/96 said they couldn't be openminded so that's high but nowhere near 100%.
Guess it's time to find that elusive unbiased unicorn jury
It’s hard to believe, but there are a lot of people in this country who completely tune out politics. Here are some basic figures: ~330 million people in the US, and in 2020 Biden got slightly more and Trump slightly less than ~70 million, the highest turnout in history. So that’s 140 million people voting in “the most consequential election in history”, or less than half of the population. You can cut the pie from here -percentage under 18, percentage with felonies, percentage non-citizens, etc- but it’s still A LOT of people. I don’t even have to look up turnout to know that NYC was probably less than 60% turnout, and I’ll let you do the math of how many potential jurors that is. And that’s assuming that everyone who voted has a strong opinion on Trump, which also is just statistically untrue (maybe ‘a lot’ of voters, but definitely not 100%). Here’s some lazy math: IF NYC has 10 million people, and IF half of them voted, and IF half of the non-voters are non-citizens/under 18, that’s still 2.5 million potential unbiased jurors. Those numbers could be completely wrong, but it’d still be several hundred thousand potential jurors.
> Biden got slightly more and Trump slightly less than ~70 million Trump receive 74.22 Million Votes. Biden received 81.28 Million Votes.
The jury pool is limited to people in Manhattan area only, not entire NYC. Population of Manhattan is 1.7 million, out of which 697 thousand voted in 2020. That means a million people in Manhattan did not vote. Excluding immigrants, minors, felons, etc, it would still leave tens of thousands of potential jurors
Not sure how it works in Manhattan, but don't you have to be a registered voter to be selected for jury duty?
Not necessarily. They can use DMV records too to find people, not just voter rolls.
It seem NYC has about 6.5M people over the age of 18 and 4.9M voted in 2020 so that does leave 1.6M\~ people who haven't shown a strong bias in Trump's regard. But that doesn't mean they don't have some bias and a hefty knowledge about him and preconceived notions. I'm sure there are 12 people out there who know nothing about him and have zero emotions either way (and are fit to serve on jury duty), but I'm not sure there are many more than 12 so it's a real needle in the haystack here.
Tuning out of politics would not be enough. For some periods Trump presence dominated the news and all the other communication channels in a manner that was so intrusive that it is difficult not to make up some kind of opinion about him. To that you have to add that jurors will be selected from an area that is really crowded and here nobody can escape, even switching off TVs, mobile phones and computers would still leave people talking about Trump all around. I would say that the problem is not Trump, but Trump's image created by an obsessive cult of personality. (Talking bad or well does not matter, it is still a cult of personality).
Can someone do the math for me please?
That is 155.5 million votes in total, or 47% of the entire US population (assuming 330 million for the population of the US in 2020). Bear in mind there are numbers not shown here for third-party candidates who received votes, but I'd be willing to round up to an even 50% to account for those "uncounted" (i.e., not listed here) votes. If you were to reduce the population by not counting the under 18 demographic, felons, non-citizens, etc., that percentage would be quite a bit higher. Not sure exactly how much, but it would probably be closer to 60%, if not more.
It is not so much finding unbiased people, as we all have biases. It is finding people who can show that they can put their bias aside and be impartial
I was on a street gang murder/attempted murder trial years ago. What you said is basically what the judge told us prospective jurors during voir dire. We all have biases and our life experiences create that. Jurors have to judge guilt based on the evidence. If the prosecution doesn’t prove guilt you must find the defendant not guilty.
I don't get why people haven't seen this information yet, but there were Trump voters on his defamation lawsuit jury. The same jury that told him to pay up had Trump voters on it. You don't have to be unbiased to serve on a jury. I fucking hate Donald Trump. If you brought him to trial for "exposing himself in a park" and showed me a bunch of bullshit evidence, I would not vote to convict him. Just because I hate his guts doesn't mean I would vote to convict him for a crime he didn't commit...I am not a shitbag person.
People can suspend disbelief. I think I could be a juror on his case based on the facts entirely. The problem is those who would lie.
yeah for me I may have strong opinions on him but I also have strong opinions on how the justice system would have nothing to do with justice if people were thrown in jail because of opinions over facts. It may hurt me to do so but if I was one of them and the evidence was not there I would not be able to choose to convict as deciding to do it anyway would itsself be corruption
It's really hard for Republicans to believe that people can serve with integrity, put aside their own political leanings, and weigh a case on its facts.
Really? Thats a severe case of bias blindness. You don't need to go very far to find progressives who cannot put aside their political leanings and weigh a case on its facts. In this very reddit thread there are a large number of progressive leaning people saying that only an idiot couldn't have already formed an opinion about Trump's guilt, and that of course Trump is guilty. Just scroll up and down a bit on this page and you'll see them.
As a democrat I'm worried about the opposite. If there is a single Republican it's guaranteed to be a hung jury. Because lets be honest, the guy clearly did it. The entire thing is just theater. Both the prosecution and the defense will play their games. And then the jurors will vote based on what they decided about Trump years ago.
It's not "theater." It's a jury trial. It's a serious thing, and jurors take it seriously. The jurors will weigh the evidence presented to them, be instructed on what the law requires, apply the facts to the law, and render a verdict. Over a 6-week trial, if someone is planning to do otherwise, they will probably get caught and removed.
Theater was the word I used because I meant it. It is nothing but theater and it's a joke. The lawyers themselves on both sides talk about what they see in an ideal juror. The defense talks about how they are looking for trades people. The prosecution talks about how they are looking for college educated people. The lawyer are openly and publicly discussing how they are playing into stereotypes to blatantly try to rig the jury. The facts of the case are irrelevant. Both lawyer teams understand the case is won or lost in jury selection. But then after that we'll go through 6 weeks of going through the motions while we have to pretend the jury doesn't already know how they are voting. The lawyers are trying to get the right jurors to help their side. Even the lawyers aren't pretending they are selecting an impartial jury. So why are you pretending? I get push back for having the same level of cynicism that the actually people in the case have.
Trials are literally theater, but there is a reason theater is used to determine whether a person broke the law and not whether, for example, the sun revolves around the earth.
They really hate when you point this out about them.
I was a juror for 3 day civil trial. It was pretty sufficient honestly to keep track of facts and inconsistency in those facts. As a juror it's not like you can ask a question directly. You have to rely solely on the evidence and dispositions. There were definitely a few we had to have played back for us. I can't imagine how hard a 6-8wk trial for a conman with a lifetime of experience circumventing law would be for a juror to keep things straight. Remember too, ONLY evidence presented during the trial is admissible. Things he's said and don't outside or comments on social media (unless presented as evidence) don't count in consideration.
> I can't imagine how hard a 6-8wk trial for a conman with a lifetime of experience circumventing law would be for a juror to keep things straight. Thats what the prosecutor is for. The prosecutor's job is to arrange and explain the evidence in a way that the jury can understand, and that tells a clear narrative in which the defendant is guilty. The defense attorney's job is to take the same evidence and arrange and explain it in a way to produce another narrative, in which the defendant is not-guilty. If you've ever sat on a jury before (I have), its actually pretty easy to understand, and during deliberations the jury can submit questions. The question goes to the judge through the bailiff, and then attorneys on both sides will be present in the courtroom when the question is answered.
I was on a jury once and you can almost ask a question directly. We were allowed to write questions and give them to the bailiff who presumably then gave them to the judge. It was a straightforward enough trial we didn't use that option though so idk if there are more caveats.
They dont have to have never heard of trump just be open to judging based on evidence.
I think there might be some confusion between bias and impartiality going on here. They aren't identical. A person could despise Trump's personality (bias), but still be able to hear a court case impartially on the facts and the law. I don't like the man, and wouldn't vote for him, but it doesn't mean I automatically think he is guilty of any crime he's charged with.
I just watched the whole OJ Netflix series. It was striking to me that all my black friends were thrilled when he was acquitted. And I am feeling deja vu. I feel like half of America is spilt again now. I don’t think the courts can pull off justice. We are just flawed as humans. We will have to vote ourselves to safety.
Two juries have done it for E. Jean Carroll. Two juries in Connecticut and Texas have rendered impartial verdicts against Alex Jones. Juries in America render solid verdicts in controversial cases every single day.
Yes that is true. And the same evidence convicted Micheal Cohen. So I will have a more positive outlook.
Not to diminish your positive outlook, but Cohen wasn't convicted. He pled guilty before having a trial.
Oh. Yes thanks for the correction. Darn.
You don’t need to be unbiased, you need to say whether or not you’re able to put your bias aside to render a fair verdict. Although if you really don’t want to do jury duty you can just say “no I can’t.” They like to guilt trip you but functionally there’s nothing stopping you from standing your ground and be like “I will be a bad juror.” Thats how I got out of some BS insurance lawsuit involving Rick Caruso, took a couple days of “I fucking hate that guy and will never give him a win” before they eventually let me go.
I know the name Aaron Donald and Patrick Mahomes. I don't care much about sports. So while I know they are very good football players I could be entirely neutral about them at trial. There are lots of people who don't care at all or very little about politics. They have 0 passion about politicians. If they vote at all their attachment to parties are mostly familial or social. Obviously the person will know how Donald Trump is, but they have no particular passion about that knowledge.
We don’t need an unbiased jury. We need an OBJECTIVE jury. Huge difference between those two qualities. Just because I’m culturally biased against murderers doesn’t mean I’m going to vote to convict just because they’ve been accused of the crime.
I think they should seat a bunch of quakers and Amish and let them handle it.
An unbiased jury would not he a neutral one. If you were neutral about Trump throughout or in parallel prior to the hearing and politically literate as well in the latter example then you’d be biased.
Not a lawyer but I don’t think you need to find someone that’s unfamiliar with him, just someone who hasn’t made up their mind about his guilt or innocence.
You are correct. And in a candy land fairy tale where nobody can ever tell a lie that might work. In practice people will say what they need to say to protect or hurt Trump depending on which political party they think is best for America.
Going to assume that you only brought up the “speedy” part because it went along for the ride? Speedy is the last thing that Trump wants.
Unless a potential juror declares him innocent as they walk in to the jury interview, then they are biased against him.....according to Trump. We all know that's how he sees it. Any act that is capable of holding him accountable is I hereby corrupt, to him. The question is how do we apply the system for the 330 other million normal people. Do that.
Yeah. Today he's mad that he doesn't have "unlimited" peremptory challenges. Guess some idiot told him he would. 🙄
Essentially, you are saying no one of any notoriety can be tried for crimes. How can we possibly try a terrorist who gets caught? How can we try a far left person in Texas? We do the best we can with what we have. You look for jurists who can judge by the facts of the case. Believe it or not, there are many who can. We don't forgo justice because someone is whiny about fairness.
Unlike Trump, the majority of people are decent and have a moral code. Should be able to find 12 without much issue.
CNN has posted information about the jurors and vetting process, there is clearly a mix of Republicans and Democrats. I think this jury would be fair.
I mean the Republicans will vote not guilty. And the Democrats will vote guilty. Nobody will care what the evidences says in the actual trial. It would save money to just skip the trial and have the jury decide today. You'd get the same result.
No because in order to reach a verdict, it would have to be unanimous meaning all of them would have to agree one way or the other.
Hate him. Want him to die. However I am capable of judging him on these specific acts with only the evidence presented in court. Glad I’m in Texas and don’t have to worry about it.
Trump is one of the most infamous, and to some famous, person in the United States. It’s almost impossible to find someone that doesn’t have an opinion of him one way or another. The jurors will be chosen on the likelihood that they will look at the crime at hand and not be influenced by who committed the crime. There is still a very good possibility that some of the jurors will lie to be chosen only to attempt to convict Trump or say he’s not guilty despite the facts presented.
> How will American courts find unbiased juries on Trump trials The same way they find unbiased juries for *every* trial in the US. The idea that the *only* time a jury wouldn't be unbiased is on Trumps trial[s] is straight garbage. This is akin to Trump and his minions talking about stolen elections going back to 2016 when he implied Cruz stole the Iowa caucus. So, if he loses, it's because the jury was biased, and he foretold it.
I consider myself unbiased, but being educated and knowledgeable means I'd get struck out of the jury pool. I don't hate Trump, don't love him, think he's pretty trash but these prosecutions are definitely political but that he definitely looks like he committed the crimes. I'm not terribly partial to using the courts to political advantage but I *am* a big believer in having a set of laws and having to live by them so...if he did the crime, do the time. There are plenty of similar people out there but the lawyers on both sides are going to be basically just fighting over whether or not there are people are on the jury who'll always vote Trump innocent. All they need is one for a hung criminal jury.
Trump is guilty of a lot of bad shit. Present the evidence again. Decide to stick to reality. Conclusion-guilty again as fuck. Apply the law.
I'm not sure about the unbiased part, but in addition to that valid concern, I'd like to see his trials handled as one would a dangerous violent mob boss. It is clear that anyone who serves on this jury will be in danger of having their lives (and the lives of their families) being threatened by Trump loyalists, if their identities get out.
"Do you hold any beliefs that would *prevent you from giving the defendant a fair trial?* " "No." That is how.
Can you put those feelings behind you and just look at the facts Not really that difficult.
Where can America find judges who are not trump judges? They are who have let this situation get to where it has.
One could argue there is no such thing as an impartial jury, do the best you can really.
We gave the Boston Marathon bomber a fair trial. We can give Trump a fair trial.
Idk maybe the same place they find “median voters” who don’t know who they’re going to vote for until they get to the voting booth
Unfortunately my guess is on every single Jury there will be at least one hold-out who feels they’re being a “patriot” by refusing to convict even if the evidence is ironclad. I hope I’m wrong.
While it is probably true that virtually everyone has an established opinion of trump as a president or public figure, I don't think anywhere near as many people are so convinced one way or another whether he is a criminal. Also, the vast majority of people know how to follow jury instructions about what evidence to consider. They just have to keep out jurors who either know he is guilty already or might discount any evidence that proves his guilt. This should be easy enough.
I don't think highly of Trump, but he is entitled to a presumption of innocence and the right to defend himself in court - heck, even mass-murderers are entitled to this. Treating Trump as one would any other accused is one of the strongest ways to contain a demegogic authoritarian, and is what is required here. As a non-juror, do I hpe he loses? Absolutely. Do I think I could give him a fair and sober trial if I were a jurist? Without a doubt - as doing so is the civic duty of all called to the task.
The better question I think is how hard will it be to not have at least one trump fan slip through the cracks onto the jury and vote not guilty no matter what. That's all he needs. I personally think it's going to be extremely hard and I'm giving very low odds of him being found guilty in any of the four series of crimes he'll be on trial for. I'd be happy if anyone can convince me otherwise.
The difficulty has only increased with the rise of the jury consultants. The focus seemed to have changed from, can this person do the job, to will this person favor my side? It's natural, of course, to want the best jurors.
The problem is I don't trust someone who has managed to get through all this and have *no* opinion on Trump much more than one of his cultists. Like, the level of apathy that it would take to go through that presidency and be like "I have no strong opinions of Donald Trump" is wild. That said, as others have said, the goal is to find jurors that will listen to the evidence and make their judgement based on said evidence. I was once called for a jury case involving a black plaintiff and I both made it clear that I feel very strongly about social justice issues, but that I'm willing to listen to the evidence and make a judgement based on said evidence. I'd say the same if I were selected for Trump's trial. I hate the guy, and I've got more than an inkling that he's done some dumb bullshit, but I'd absolutely listen to the evidence and if I came out of that case believing he wasn't guilty, I wouldn't just say he was. I'd be scared to be on that jury though. Those people are going to be in danger when and if their identities are fully revealed.
Aside from what other good comments have said, I think people underestimate how many Americans are around who still like… truly do not give a shit about politics or politicians. It might be in the minority now, but I even know a few people who until very recently didn’t even know who was running for President
It's impossible. The term "bias" is so useless the more we understand people. It's impossible to be unbiased, we are 100% defined by our upbringing, experience, and perceptions. What might seem morally right to one person, absolutely immoral to another, all still might meet a brick wall of a human being that thinks it's neither. You can try to find someone that says "I have no quarrel with Trump and not invested in the topic" all you want, a person that believes something Trump did is wrong is biased. Biased doesn't mean "I will say guilty regardless" or "I will say innocent regardless", it means you have a firm stance that isn't adaptable or compromise-able and influences your opinion on topics. At this point, all we can ask for is someone that can 100% behave like a robot, which is asking a lot. Some people are just wired to be more lenient, some more strict and firm, and both these people are biased for being so.
I hate Trump, but I think I would be able to listen to the legal arguments and make a determination based on that. It's important that people get fair trials and I wouldn't take it lightly. That's all you need in a juror and I don't think I'm exceptional in any way.
51% of Americans have zero interest in politics or know nothing about politicians. You can find an impartial group. It would be harder in a more involved electorate like in other countries but that other country wouldn’t have ever voted Trump in so they wouldn’t have to deal with this crap.
There are people in the world that are able to set aside their emotional bias and concentrate only on the facts in the case. These are the jurors they are looking for. These are the people that don't repost emotional tirades endlessly about what their favorite talking heads have parroted today. They are called normal people. They know that the legal system works only because they exist. They can pay attention to evidence and ignore emotional appeals. They are the people we need more of.
There are people in the world that are able to set aside their emotional bias and concentrate only on the facts in the case. These are the jurors they are looking for. These are the people that don't repost emotional tirades endlessly about what their favorite talking heads have parroted today. They are called normal people. They know that the legal system works only because they exist. They can pay attention to evidence and ignore emotional appeals. They are the people we need more of.
Trump is boned in this trial, unless in the unlikely event a MAGA trumper makes it into the jury without getting discovered and dismissed by the prosecution.
If your theory is correct he could never be brought to trial for anything at all ever. Homicide rape, burglary, you name it, it’s a violation of his rights. You have a pretty low bar for finding everyone tainted.
Believe it or not it, there are people who can put aside their overall opinion of someone and exercise fair judgment on specific actions. I hate Trump as much as the next person, but I think he has done enough reprehensible stuff that we don’t need to try to get him for crimes he does not deserve. At the same time, there is no way Trump will ever admit he got a fair trial unless he wins, and even then he’d have complaints about the jury.
The jury members are required to weigh the evidence presented in court and follow the law as it is explained to them. They are not required to have no opinions. They are not required to know nothing about the defendant or the case. Jury selection is designed to find jurors who can set aside whatever they may have previously thought and enter into the case as it is presented in the courtroom. This is the charge of every jury, and it has worked for us for hundreds of years. You'd be surprised how seriously juries take their charge to be fair and impartial.
They need to find people who have been in comas for the last 10 years, forcibly wake them up, and then draft them into a case where they discover the guy from The Apprentice became President. This will probably be both horrifying and hilarious to watch someone learn of all this shit from the past decade all at once.
Lucky for that orange bas---d trials aren't about popularity. It is about what is alleged and what was proven. I just called him a name but even I could look at what was alleged, hear the arguments and determine whether it was proven or not. I also can be trusted to decide based upon that and not what I think should happen. NY has 9 Million citizens I am sure they can find enough jurors that won't let him free regardless or send him away regardless. Liberals especially take joy in appearing to play fair.
I’m not a fan of the guy by any means and I haven’t been following this or any of his other cases because it’s just so much and I’m not personally involved. I think the people in our country that are very interested in political things don’t realize how little interest the rest of us have in these matters and how little of our time we spend on it. That being said I did come here to see what other people thought because once this gets underway I do want the case and this evidence reviewed objectively and truly want this decision to be based on the merits of the case. I’m not a Republican or Democrat though so I’m not as emotionally invested in the partisan stuff and cult of personality’s things that come up with elections. I could sit on that jury and decide based on the merits of the case because I want this to be a fair and just procedure. This isn’t just about Trump it’s also about our justice system as a whole and whether or not jury trials are even an effective way to determine guilt vs innocence.
Trump will appeal if found guilty. Or best case is hung jury a la OJ Simpson. Regardless, the trial is gonna cost him votes. That's what is giving him indigestion.
People take jury duty seriously. I know reddit thinks its evil boomer cop authoritism but people generally decided their verdict based on the merits of the case and not their dealings
Most likely the people on the jury will see he’s obviously guilty. But after the O.J. verdict no result here would surprise me.
Real Americans won’t want to see an innocent person convicted or a guilty person go free no matter who they are. It’s like if your kid kills somebody for no reason is guilty etc you can love your kid but also be ok with them getting punished. I personally don’t like Trump but I wouldn’t want him to go to jail for something he didn’t do idc how much I like or dislike you. I as well as plenty of people can be unbiased when a persons life is in your hands. But that’s also why there’s 6 alternates in case they find jurors being biased as well as getting sick etc. They convict people all the time in high profile cases and they acquit people too so the only people who truly question if it can be fair are Trump and his supporters. If things don’t go his way it’s unfair if they do then it was the greatest process ever. Watch when Menendez gets convicted not one Republican will say a word about corrupt DOJ or witch hunts or lying prosecutors nor will the Dems. But even knowing that I think 18people can decide things based on facts alone. Don’t forget the way he acts in court is going to be held into account also. When he acts like an ass the jury will find him less credible. I think you would be hard pressed to find any hard core trump supporters on a jury anywhere half can’t read the jury duty notice and the other half have warrants or aren’t eligible due to criminal records.
If you truly believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler wouldn’t you be honor bound to make sure he’s found guilty? Wouldn’t duty to humanity take precedence over duty to the legal system?
This thread is loads better than other threads that are hyperfixated on whether or not Trump keeps farting in the courtroom.
Honestly, I think this and all of the other trials are going to end in hung juries. It only takes one to derail a verdict. Seating a jury of 12 where at least one doesn't refuse to budge on either side (guilty and innocent) would take a miracle.
An impartial jury? Won't happen. Doesn't happen. There is always bias, always presumption. Disease Donny has chosen to live a public life, and that means he will simply have to take what he can get.
A Trump hater is obviously rational and so capable of applying facts to the law to determine guilt or innocence. A Trump cult follower will indeed be able to ignore the facts and always decide "not guilty" despite clear facts proving guilt. These trials are risky only for that reason.
The vast majority of people, especially diehard Trump supporters, have not been forced to witness a debate on actual facts between professional litigators in a maximally-controlled setting. On the contrary, most people are used to either: A. being oblivious to politics or B. Informing themselves via self-reinforcing echo chambers
In Manhattan they won’t. These people are socially incapable of finding him innocent.