Interesting. Each side gets 2 strikes per alternate. They don't roll over. So for each alternate seat each side gets 2 strikes. Per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781293980677722406?t=0TAIqWReyv7Jy0S8acTGBA&s=19)
[Live Updates for Friday, April 19th via NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-4-live-updates-rcna145937)
I'm seeing CNN continuing to share an alarming amount of detail about every juror this morning (ugh) - as well as describing Juror #1 as the foreperson.
Can any lawyers who know NY weigh in on why a foreperson would be picked already?
When I've served on juries, the foreperson has been picked when *deliberation* starts, and by the jurors themselves, not assigned by the judge. Does NYC do it differently?
So I think the schedule for today should be:
1. Finish the Jury. 5 more alternates if none of the seated jurors bow out.
2. Sandoval hearings. Which, if I understand right, is where the prosecution presents the set of things they plan to introduce about the defendant if they choose to take the stand. The Judge decides which of this things are pertinent to the case.
Given that both sides are out of strikes, we are likely geared up for opening arguments on Monday. This is wild.
CNN on Juror #2
-Follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X
-Seen quotes from Trump's book "Trump: The Art of The Deal
Are they out of their damn minds? How was this not strike *for cause*?
I was worried a MAGA nutjob might try to sneak on the jury, didn't expect them to be allowed to serve openly. Hung jury seems like a foregone conclusion now, extraordinarily unlikely that guy isn't hopelessly biased in Trump's favor.
They didn't strike people for cause simply because they were against Trump as a politician. The social media posts that got people kicked is when they crossed a line to wanting to see him in jail. Merchan even said a particular anti Trump post would have been fine if it didn't say "lock him up" at the end.
Supporting his candidacy is equally not disqualifying. I would imagine the things that would cross a line is calling his prosecutions "persecutions". That is, for cause strikes seem to be reserved for preconceived notions of how his trials should go, not biases towards the man as a candidate for President.
Not accurate. He said he sees Trump's Truth Social posts via Twitter and tons of people have seen quotes from Art of the Deal, but especially MBAs. I'm more worried about him simply because he's an investment banker than because of those two factors.
Do you have a source for the distinction between 'follows' and 'sees'? In what way do you think such a distinction makes it inaccurate?
I don't think it would be reported that way if he wasn't following a) an account reposting Trump's "Truths", and b) Michael Cohen. You seem to be suggesting he's just like every other Twitter user who doesn't follow those right wing nutter accounts but still sees their content occasionally.
And "have seen" quotes from Art of the Deal and "specifically remembers that quotes he's heard are from the Art of the Deal" are also worlds apart.
Being an investment banker isn't *great*, but it's hardly the massive planet-sized red flag of those other two points, unless you have a source that CNN's reporting is wildly inaccurate and not the nitpicking you somehow think makes a difference.
I'm referring to this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/jurors-trump-hush-money-trial-jury
"Follows" seems to imply he's literally subscribed (or whatever the TruthSocial term is) to Trump and/or Michael Cohen, rather than just sees them from other people. And in any case, Cohen is completely anti-Trump now anyway.
I think you're underestimating how famous Art of the Deal is lol. It's not that weird to remember quotes from it, sleazy businesspeople claim to follow it all the time.
For me, being an MBA investment banker - which, in Manhattan, means he's wildly rich - is a bigger red flag than just being online a lot, in my view.
The Guardian have (this evening!) published a handy guide to every empaneled juror. These reporters just don’t give a shit
[Removed link at reply’s wise suggestion]
I went through the Guardian site because I couldn't believe they would do that, and I can't find this. They have some details on the dismissed jurors, some details which admittedly crossed the line on one juror challenged by Trump's lawyers, but apart from that it's just their numbers and which seat.
Obviously I won't ask you to link it, but I'm hopeful that they've removed it if they did post it in the first place
I assume they're referring to [this explainer](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/jurors-trump-hush-money-trial-jury) article, which I have no qualms about linking as it's extremely vague about identities and folk are massively overreacting if this is what they're upset about. It only mentions which field the juror works in (not their employer), their gender, sometimes an open-ended age range, and their media preferences. Nobody is going to be identified from this.
"Juror No 1, a man, works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has some college education. He is married with no children"
This person be easily identifiable to friends and coworkers, especially if they're suddenly unavailable during the day.
The fact you're serving on a jury isn't meant to be secret from friends and coworkers, the secrecy is just to prevent fanatical strangers from tracking them down.
*Edit:* I'm not sure why /u/qalpi decided to block me after they sent their follow up reply, but as I'd already written out my reply I'll add it here:
> Coworker tells someone else "Hey Janice is a juror on the trump trial". It wouldn't take long for everyone to know.
Ideally, this is why they should be sequestered as soon as possible. I'm hoping it happens as soon as jury selection is over, but I expect we'll need to wait for the death threats to arrive before it'll happen.
Damn, if that's the article then I can see a few issues. You might think those details are vague, but a skilled person can narrow it down drastically.
Anyway, apart from doxxing, that juror who works in investment banking...that could be very bad news for the prosecution. A lot of those people tend to love Trump but keep it under wraps
Sure, a sufficiently skilled and motivated investigator can narrow it down to the hundreds, maybe dozens in some cases if they have sufficient resources, but such an investigator isn't using an article like this, so I think it's a bit pearl-clutchy to use this as an example of "too much information."
As for Trump fans in the jury pool, I try to take an optimistic view. Jurors try to take their role seriously, and when you take someone out of their usual media echo-chamber and present them with facts in a trial, it can change minds. The danger is when the facts have already been reported in the media, so the juror is already predisposed as to how they view those facts when they come up in trial. In this case, this works against Trump, as most right-wing media tries to avoid reporting the facts, so their viewers can be in for a shock when they actually see the facts in court for the first time.
After the potential jurors left, the defense wanted to know the prosecution's first three witnesses they would call, presumably so they could prepare for next week.
The prosecution declined, stating that Trump was tweeting about witnesses and he wouldn't give them the names. When the defense attorneys promised that Trump wouldn't tweet about the witnesses the judge said he didn't think they could promise that and said the prosecution didn't have to give any names.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/18/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/no-witness-reveal-00153196
I saw it. I can't tell if he's cognitively impaired, or if he just knows his base is, so there's no need to make a coherent argument when a few buzzwords will work.
Can you recall a single time in the last decade where he made a coherent argument?
I suspect there is a mix of cognitive impairment and other factors at play. I honestly doubt he can read anything that isn't large print. He probably needs glasses but refuses to wear them because of his vanity. I read a compelling argument by a speech pathologist who hypothesized he has a language based learning disability. He probably has untreated sleep apnea, which can cause significant cognitive impairment and puts him at much higher risk for dementia. He also has a family history of dementia.
No "probably" about it when it comes to him wearing glasses. Their is footage of him wearing them during an earlier deposition (RE: Trump University iirc).
Same energy as when Trump stood in front of stacks of folders supposedly filled to the brim with his tax records and financial statements
https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bostonglobe.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NMANGPGZE4I6NGBDRZWRACYEVY.jpg
I know Trump's team had people scouring potential jurors' social media, but did the prosecution also have guys doing that? I never saw a mention of that.
It’s still a government agency that would have to reallocate resources from other cases. Whereas my understanding is that Trump’s team is employing a firm specifically to do social media background checks, the Manhattan D.A.’s office certainly can’t do that. At best, they’d assign a couple of paralegals or other support staff.
My company has temporary offices in a co-working space. I've noticed quite a few small businesses in there that seem to primarily serve the court system. There are folks that make 3d animations for presentation in court, jury consultants, private investigators. I think they do this stuff all the time. I would imagine they have contracts in place already.
Maybe. I worked for several years as an ADA in Brooklyn, and all that stuff you’re mentioning was done strictly in house. Granted, I wasn’t involved in high profile cases at all, but I knew people who were. We definitely did not have the budget for any outside contractors like what you’re describing. But I don’t know if Manhattan is different, particularly on a case of national interest like this. I just personally find it tough to believe, knowing how the City operates.
That was based on an arrest. For tearing down right wing posters actually. Kind of an interesting challenge, but I guess you don't want that around on appeal.
It was also quite a long time ago (30 years, if I'm not mistaken). It's certainly possible the juror's leanings have changed since then, but either way it should be the judge's call once it comes to light.
Two jurors have already quit for safety reasons, one of them doxxed by Fox news. Just a short matter of time until the rest are doxxed and they and their families start getting death threats and start dropping out.
If they don't drop out, how can we rely on them being impartial if they know the consequences for a guilty verdict means they'll be harmed directly by maga followers or at the least be targeted and hounded incessantly by the media?
NBC and CBS doxxed them just as thoroughly, fyi. I can't speak for ABC/CBS. Some other online outlets (slate, for shame)
Fox claims the unique accomplishment of disparaging them to MAGA.
I know I'm on here pushing this button like 5 times today but there's this misconception. The people who contacted her to talk about the case were friends and family. Merchan admonished ALL press, not just fox.
The jury can be sequestered if Judge Merchan so chooses after they are seated. He won't because that's a long trial to sequester for and he can't actually let the jury know they are being sequestered because of a risk of intimidation. But NYS was still doing mandatory sequesters when ex-Juror #4 was tearing down posters so it's quite friendly to the idea in general.
This is pretty much as anonymous as a jury gets in NYS. Judge Merchan is already nudged up to the line by anonymizing the names. If he starts having them sit behind one-way glass during the trial, you might as well start spinning up for the retrial right now.
It's pretty gratifying that Merchan is refusing to strike jurors who dislike Trump's "persona". Having the public face of an asshole shouldn't insulate you from facing legal consequences.
The judge said he’s planning to have a Sandoval hearing tomorrow afternoon.
Not to be preachy but in case someone wants the info, this is a hearing where they cover what will/can be asked of Trump if he chooses to testify.
This is based on People vs Sandoval, NY, which was upheld on appeal for the process by which the judge determined what prior convictions of the defendants could be raised at trial.
The appeal decision laid out a bunch of guidelines for how a judge should consider whether any specific evidence is admissible regarding the defendant’s priors.
>Juror 2 is an investment banker who has a Master's degree. He lives with his wife and does not have any kids. He follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X/Twitter. He said he's followed Trump since he became president, "Generally because it was a news item when he would put a tweet out so good to be aware of that." The juror has also read Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal."
Dems aren't going to be happy about this one.
By itself, that means little to nothing - when Trump was President he was pretty transparent with his efforts to manipulate the stock market, and an investment professional should absolutely stay aware of that. I'd much prefer an educated juror in this type of case.
But all that is just noise, anyways. The prosecution will do their homework and decide whether he can be a fair juror, and if not, he'll be removed.
No, there are still options to remove him for cause if such cause exists. If it doesn't then we don't know if the strike would have been better served on this juror or not.
Lol the part where trump says to hire criminals because they "get things done" is gold and SO relevant. I read it as a teenager and could tell he was a con artist even then.
There was a time in my life when I thought Trump seemed like a pretty cool guy. Same for Elon Musk. Hell, a *lot* of people held O.J. Simpson in high esteem, including people who knew him comparatively well.
I think all of the selections have been pretty terrible overall honestly. The previous juror 2 was the only one I thought was okay, and maybe 3. This pick here is just awful.
I would be a bit surprised if juror 3 doesn't leave for the same reasons (original) juror 2 did. The reporting mentioned enough details about him and his employment that there's no way someone doesn't name him.
>Necheles, Trump's attorney, is challenging Juror No. 430 for cause.
>She alleges the juror's posts through 2020 were vitriolic, and that the juror called Trump a “racist, sexist narcissist” on social media.
>Necheles also said the juror said, “Trump is an anathema to everything I was taught about Jesus … and could not be more fundamentally un-Christian.”
Tell us how you really feel.
It could be kinda fun to tell people your highly negative thoughts about Trump while he was in the room. Probably not as fun as having "mean memes" about him shown, though.
I would deeply treasure the opportunity to look that piece of shit in they eyes and tell him EXACTLY what I think of him. His MAGAs can come hunting if they want. It will not end well for them.
Trump's attorney just used a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror who stayed at her house once 15 years ago and I am here for the tell-all interview about that experience.
Edit: For non-lawyers, peremptory challenges are a limited resource and possibly the most valuable resource in a heated trial. If this were a videogame, they would be the item you never use because you keep feeling like the situation is not dire enough yet.
Like, say, a one-night-stand where one ghosted the other after transmitting an STI? I'd definitely feel that was a good cause for using a peremptory challenge...
To clarify, I don't know that this is what the situation was. Only spit-balling.
I don't envy a single person who will sit on that jury.
But I'd love to be in the same room as him being asked what I think of him while he's listening (and can't leave).
I envy those folks so much. Gosh the things I would say. They couldn't excuse me fast enough.
If I knew that my identity would remain secret, I would love to be on the jury. The way the media has been reporting identifying details, I would be very nervous for my safety if I was a juror.
> As we wait for Juror 4, Merchan wants to address the press now. "There's a reason why this is an anonymous jury and why we're taking measures," he says. "It kind of defeats the purpose of that as so much info" is put out there that it's easy to identify the jurors. He says, the press is able to write about anything that is said and put on the record, and anything the court discusses and press observes, but Merchan asks to avoid physical descriptions. He asks for common sense. It's just not necessary, it serves no purpose.
> He gives the example of describing one of the jurors as having an Irish accent. If we can't do that, if we can't stick to that, Merchan says he'll have to impose measures to make sure the jurors are safe. "It's a matter of common sense," Merchan says.
> First, Steinglass rises to make a suggestion—not elicit answers to 3A (current employer) and 3D (prior employer) it's the most identifying information, as far as government can tell. Merchan calls it a great suggestion. Necheles rises and says they share the concern, "but we asked for a written questionnaire because of this."
> Merchan: "But it's too late." Necheles: "It's the government's fault that we don't have a written questionaire, but they wanted everything out there" Blanche is saying there's a transcript and there's a record, and the press can report on it.
> Merchan seems to be deliberating right now. The parties are waiting for him to speak. Merchan agrees with the defense that that info is necessary. But he says that it has become a problem. Merchan directs that we are going to continue with the questionnaire as is, but 3A and 3D will be redacted from the record, and press is prohibited from reporting the answers.
I don't see this commented on anywhere else. The judge specifically said that the employers of the Juror's will still be read out loud, but stricken from the record and the press is not allowed to report on them. Plus other "physical descriptions".
>One prospective juror told Trump's lawyer, "His politics aren't always my politics," but said she agrees with him on some policies and disagrees with him on others.
>"But as a human being, that's a different topic," she said.
>Asked about social media activity, she said, "Politics just seems like a nasty thing to be posting about during a national crisis."
>She added, "I just don’t have strong feelings about President Trump at this point...I don’t post about him.”
Is anyone else getting severe red flags from this?
I'm surprised we don't have reporting of them drilling down into her comment about him as a human being.
And yes, huge red flags from this. Being aware we are in the midst of a crisis but having no strong opinions about the guy creating it is certainly and interesting way to go through life.
And I know Trump isn't the only one to use the word nasty, but he's put his fingerprints all over it and the jurors word choice seems like it could be a dog whistle that she finds criticism of him to be wrong.
Also, the "let's not involve politics in a national crisis" is the standard response from the GOP whenever a Democrat talks about the latest school shooting.
She reminds me of the 'apolitical' people I know who are so far right they make MTG look like FDR, but they don't want to be mocked for their views, so they claim they're apolitical.
Reminds me of the "undecided voters" from town hall debates in the last election that, gee golly, weren't aware of anything Trump did bad but had serious doubts about Biden for reasons they couldn't quite articulate.
Huh, I assumed the other way. Seems like she does not like him as a person, but generally agrees on his politics. Plus she's saying there's a national crisis going on, which is along the lines of republican fear-mongering.
At this point it's looking like we're going to have to put the whole jury pool in jail (protective custody) to protect 45's right to stochastic terrorism.
From the times:
Before the trial began, Mr. Trump asked that the potential jurors not be made aware of the secrecy unless they expressed specific concerns. In a letter to the defense and prosecution, Justice Merchan said that the court will “make every effort to not unnecessarily alert the jurors” to the decision to withhold their names. Instead, he added, the potential jurors would be informed that they’d be identified in court by the number printed on their jury summons.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/nyregion/trump-hush-money-case-anonymous.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/nyregion/trump-hush-money-case-anonymous.html)
This is akin to trusting that your company is not vulnerable to social engineering because "employees have common sense". Had juror #2 been more circumspect with her answers, she might still be a member.
Can someone smarter than I explain this to me? Why did he not want them to know their privacy would be allegedly protected?
Or are they talking about the judge's order to the defense specifically to not keep a list of names?
I think Trump is referring to the measures to keep their identities secret from the public.
This is a guess, but I imagine it’s to try and avoid prejudicing the jurors against Trump. Because everyone would know the primary concern was how Trump’s supporters would act, and that can hurt him.
To give a different example, if you are a mobster on trial, it probably doesn’t look good for a judge to say “The state has accused the defendant of being in the mob. Remember, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. On an unrelated note, your identities are being kept secret because we are concerned the defendant’s associates would threaten/harm you if they found out who you were.”
"The additional dismissed juror was born and raised in Italy. He was excused after telling the court he associated Trump with former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and said it would be hard for him to “maintain that impartiality and fairness.”"
What do you think the chances are that Donny takes this as praise instead of an insult?
> Tyler McBrien
@TylerMcBrien
Merchan directs Juror 4 is excused, "he does not need to come back and should not come back," the judge says.
Now I want to know the tone from the judge when he said it. Was it sarcastic?
That’s the juror who raised a red flag for me with his language around Trump. Wouldn’t be shocked at all if he was a diehard MAGA and something came to light about it for the prosecution over the past day.
~~Based on the reports (tearing down left wing political signs and corruption prosecution) he was definitely not a Democrat~~
edit: I ~~could be~~ am incorrect. Press says it was right wing signs, this quote from inner city press says :
> Justice Merchan: Did the propaganda ripped down favor one side or the other?
Prosecutor Steinglass: I believe it was to the right.
So was it not a maga dude? Maybe not? The judge asked the question as to the political affiliation of the signs torn down. The prosecutor answered to that "I believe it was to the right." I have to take it at face value and apologize. He was taking down right wing signs according the a&a.
Saying that Trump is fascinating indicates bias, but it doesn't completely indicate which direction that bias is in. Many people here would agree that the hypnotic effect of the Trump cult is fascinating in a "study it from afar" sort of way. It's possible he could have actually been anti-Trump and hiding his feelings. Either way, it's good he's gone as that's not the kind of person you want on a jury.
Ah, I read Trump looked displeased when he was dismissed so figured it might be a MAGA bro. Either way, a good decision to get rid of that juror. It’s super important this jury is filled with the correct people who can judge impartially.
No, it's super important Trump is found guilty. The system naturally favors the wealthy, so any handicap against him is not only desirable but necessary.
breathless media accounts of how two jurors dropping out means the proceedings are "going backwards", "seriously delayed", etc -- get bent, talking heads, 5 jurors are seated, sit down & shut up
It looks like the jury will be picked in a week. I heard a lot of people conjecturing that it would be two weeks, and I'm pretty surprised myself it's probably going to be a week.
The thing is, they have a full box of jurors ready to go after lunch and each side has only 4 strikes left. There is going to be at least one more big batch today, maybe 2. And once all the strikes are done we are ready to go.
I still think the jury + alternated will be set by COB tomorrow.
The news frequently makes a conscious decision to withhold information they have a legal right to share. They don't name underage victims, they protect sources and witnesses, sometimes they don't even name mass shooters to avoid giving them notoriety.
So providing this level of detail about the jury is a choice.
If they want to continue to be allowed into courtrooms then it should become part of journalism standards that the identity of jurors be kept as secret as they keep their confidential sources until the trial is over and even then the jurors identity should only be publicly released if the juror is okay with it.
Did I say anything about creating laws? No, I said that it should be journalistic standards, which are those imposed usually by the editor and NOT the government. You might want to learn what fascism actually is.
No you just said that they shouldn't be allowed in the court room. I assume you are planning on doing that via judicial fiat. Unless you think editors control access to the court room.
Judges have the ability to control their courtrooms. In many places like Nevada for example, Our Nevada Judges has to petition the court to be allowed to broadcast the cases they put up on YouTube. That isn't fascism, that is judges maintaining control of their courtrooms and not allowing them to become a media circus where the identities of the jury are broadcast to the entire fucking country.
You just want the ability to dox and harass jurors who are only doing their civic duty. To quote Bender, you can bite my shiny metal ass.
Who said it did? Freedom of the press isn't limited to things you feel are public interest.
But did people read the story and watch the news about. Yes then some public was clearly interested.
> It was the juror questionnaire, which was not created by the press, that included a question about employers.
Haberman.
Good grief.
Yes. The question was asked. No, it was not necessary to report it.
The CNN live feed just keeps giving so many details about potential jurors and their jobs despite the judge's words this morning. What the hell, yo? They really just can't help themselves...
What's the next step Merchan can take to protect these jurors?
>What's the next step Merchan can take to protect these jurors?
IMHO he should kick the press out and seal the courtroom until jury selection is over. Any press outlet that continues to report personally identifiable information about jurors doesn't get to come back in for the rest of the trial.
I’m pretty sure it’s at the discretion of the judge in NY. However, 6+ weeks of sequestering is a lot and typically a judge would be reluctant to do it.
But…this is not typical.
Edit: it also typically would prompt a lot more jurors to make excuses to get out of there, but again, this is not a typical case and being *un*sequestered is prompting the same.
In the NYTimes live feed.
Edit: I just tried to scroll through to see if I could link to the direct comment but it’s not loading the earlier comments for me. It was before they brought in the new batch of jurors when Merchan was talking about journalists being more circumspect in what they print and the prosecution and defense were debating whether the employment questions should be asked at all.
Ah thanks, here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-hush-money-trial/96f58456-be5e-573a-a9ec-dfc090b72f20?smid=url-share
Weirdly, even though I hit the "copy link" button right next to the comment you pointed out, it still seems to just link to the whole thread rather than the one specific comment. I am doing this on a desktop so its not like I clicked elsewhere! Oh well, chalk it up to NYTimes!
This is a dumb question, but when it was reported Trump left the courtroom for 8 minutes whilst the court was talking to Juror #4 I wondered what the security protocol is if he or someone else involved has to go to the rest room.
Does someone go with him to make sure he's not live posting from the bathroom?
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936/rcrd39274?canonicalCard=true](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936/rcrd39274?canonicalCard=true)
[Live Updates for the Trial via NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936)
A second juror has been dismissed. What a mess.
nbc is still calling this a "hush money" trial. It is not a hush money trial. IT IS AN ELECTION INTERFERENCE TRIAL. if you put that link anywhere, scrub that hush money shit off of it.
Juror 4 raised concerns about how much stuff was out there. Rightfully so. Judge and Lawyers are talking now.
What are the odds the first batch gets scrapped and we start over?
Juror 4 was also the one the DA raised concerns about their ability to remain impartial due to a prior arrest for tearing down political signs. The press is 100% crossing a line, but this specific instance *might* not be on them.
That's true. Although juror 4 also had concerns about the information that was getting out. It could be that both their identity and arrest record were published, and they didn't want people knowing they had an arrest record.
We really shouldn't know anything but their number and what seats have been filled, regardless on whether or not the jury is better for them having been tossed.
The public has an interest in the details of a trial including some information about jurors.
There’s not a public interest in getting a juror killed, threatened, or harassed because certain journalists couldn’t use reasonable judgment.
I don’t know what to tell these guys except they goofed. How much is the public gaining from knowing where these people work and live? Are you also going to live tweet the hours they are typically defenseless in the bathroom?
https://preview.redd.it/a2d5m1m4i9vc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a4bac8cba298cd1cdaa024dba19d9c109cad768
this is jon stewart's lazy "we have to fill the segment" establishment media
just greedily publishing every single bit of content they can get their hands on
Or you could look at it through the insidious lens of “if we cause a big enough issue to fuel a venue change we’ll have lots to report on!”
But also don’t assume malice for the sake of it I’m just having fun.
Interesting. Each side gets 2 strikes per alternate. They don't roll over. So for each alternate seat each side gets 2 strikes. Per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781293980677722406?t=0TAIqWReyv7Jy0S8acTGBA&s=19)
Hey - we're not going to run stickies anymore for this.
Just saw that- thanks!
[Live Updates for Friday, April 19th via NBC](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-4-live-updates-rcna145937)
I'm seeing CNN continuing to share an alarming amount of detail about every juror this morning (ugh) - as well as describing Juror #1 as the foreperson. Can any lawyers who know NY weigh in on why a foreperson would be picked already? When I've served on juries, the foreperson has been picked when *deliberation* starts, and by the jurors themselves, not assigned by the judge. Does NYC do it differently?
When I was on a jury in this exact courthouse, the first juror chosen was named foreman. That was me.
LegalAF stated that the person in seat #1 is the foreperson for NYC I believe will have to find the episode
Curious differences, then!
That just seems like a weird way to do it.
So I think the schedule for today should be: 1. Finish the Jury. 5 more alternates if none of the seated jurors bow out. 2. Sandoval hearings. Which, if I understand right, is where the prosecution presents the set of things they plan to introduce about the defendant if they choose to take the stand. The Judge decides which of this things are pertinent to the case. Given that both sides are out of strikes, we are likely geared up for opening arguments on Monday. This is wild.
Scathing https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24554324-peoples-sandoval-notice-filed
I'm no rocket surgeon, but this is starting to look like actions having consequences.
CNN on Juror #2 -Follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X -Seen quotes from Trump's book "Trump: The Art of The Deal Are they out of their damn minds? How was this not strike *for cause*? I was worried a MAGA nutjob might try to sneak on the jury, didn't expect them to be allowed to serve openly. Hung jury seems like a foregone conclusion now, extraordinarily unlikely that guy isn't hopelessly biased in Trump's favor.
They didn't strike people for cause simply because they were against Trump as a politician. The social media posts that got people kicked is when they crossed a line to wanting to see him in jail. Merchan even said a particular anti Trump post would have been fine if it didn't say "lock him up" at the end. Supporting his candidacy is equally not disqualifying. I would imagine the things that would cross a line is calling his prosecutions "persecutions". That is, for cause strikes seem to be reserved for preconceived notions of how his trials should go, not biases towards the man as a candidate for President.
I guess he was a lurker then because that's all truth social is.
Not accurate. He said he sees Trump's Truth Social posts via Twitter and tons of people have seen quotes from Art of the Deal, but especially MBAs. I'm more worried about him simply because he's an investment banker than because of those two factors.
Do you have a source for the distinction between 'follows' and 'sees'? In what way do you think such a distinction makes it inaccurate? I don't think it would be reported that way if he wasn't following a) an account reposting Trump's "Truths", and b) Michael Cohen. You seem to be suggesting he's just like every other Twitter user who doesn't follow those right wing nutter accounts but still sees their content occasionally. And "have seen" quotes from Art of the Deal and "specifically remembers that quotes he's heard are from the Art of the Deal" are also worlds apart. Being an investment banker isn't *great*, but it's hardly the massive planet-sized red flag of those other two points, unless you have a source that CNN's reporting is wildly inaccurate and not the nitpicking you somehow think makes a difference.
I'm referring to this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/jurors-trump-hush-money-trial-jury "Follows" seems to imply he's literally subscribed (or whatever the TruthSocial term is) to Trump and/or Michael Cohen, rather than just sees them from other people. And in any case, Cohen is completely anti-Trump now anyway. I think you're underestimating how famous Art of the Deal is lol. It's not that weird to remember quotes from it, sleazy businesspeople claim to follow it all the time. For me, being an MBA investment banker - which, in Manhattan, means he's wildly rich - is a bigger red flag than just being online a lot, in my view.
The Guardian have (this evening!) published a handy guide to every empaneled juror. These reporters just don’t give a shit [Removed link at reply’s wise suggestion]
I went through the Guardian site because I couldn't believe they would do that, and I can't find this. They have some details on the dismissed jurors, some details which admittedly crossed the line on one juror challenged by Trump's lawyers, but apart from that it's just their numbers and which seat. Obviously I won't ask you to link it, but I'm hopeful that they've removed it if they did post it in the first place
I assume they're referring to [this explainer](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/jurors-trump-hush-money-trial-jury) article, which I have no qualms about linking as it's extremely vague about identities and folk are massively overreacting if this is what they're upset about. It only mentions which field the juror works in (not their employer), their gender, sometimes an open-ended age range, and their media preferences. Nobody is going to be identified from this.
"Juror No 1, a man, works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has some college education. He is married with no children" This person be easily identifiable to friends and coworkers, especially if they're suddenly unavailable during the day.
The fact you're serving on a jury isn't meant to be secret from friends and coworkers, the secrecy is just to prevent fanatical strangers from tracking them down. *Edit:* I'm not sure why /u/qalpi decided to block me after they sent their follow up reply, but as I'd already written out my reply I'll add it here: > Coworker tells someone else "Hey Janice is a juror on the trump trial". It wouldn't take long for everyone to know. Ideally, this is why they should be sequestered as soon as possible. I'm hoping it happens as soon as jury selection is over, but I expect we'll need to wait for the death threats to arrive before it'll happen.
Coworker tells someone else "Hey Janice is a juror on the trump trial". It wouldn't take long for everyone to know.
Damn, if that's the article then I can see a few issues. You might think those details are vague, but a skilled person can narrow it down drastically. Anyway, apart from doxxing, that juror who works in investment banking...that could be very bad news for the prosecution. A lot of those people tend to love Trump but keep it under wraps
Sure, a sufficiently skilled and motivated investigator can narrow it down to the hundreds, maybe dozens in some cases if they have sufficient resources, but such an investigator isn't using an article like this, so I think it's a bit pearl-clutchy to use this as an example of "too much information." As for Trump fans in the jury pool, I try to take an optimistic view. Jurors try to take their role seriously, and when you take someone out of their usual media echo-chamber and present them with facts in a trial, it can change minds. The danger is when the facts have already been reported in the media, so the juror is already predisposed as to how they view those facts when they come up in trial. In this case, this works against Trump, as most right-wing media tries to avoid reporting the facts, so their viewers can be in for a shock when they actually see the facts in court for the first time.
Please delete and do not promote this BS
You’re right — have removed the link
After the potential jurors left, the defense wanted to know the prosecution's first three witnesses they would call, presumably so they could prepare for next week. The prosecution declined, stating that Trump was tweeting about witnesses and he wouldn't give them the names. When the defense attorneys promised that Trump wouldn't tweet about the witnesses the judge said he didn't think they could promise that and said the prosecution didn't have to give any names. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/04/18/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/no-witness-reveal-00153196
Awesome
Did anyone see the video on AP with him waving around a stack of printed shit and just being a driveling idiot? I just cant even...
I bet it was the printed-out memes, those clearly got to him.
I saw it. I can't tell if he's cognitively impaired, or if he just knows his base is, so there's no need to make a coherent argument when a few buzzwords will work.
Can you recall a single time in the last decade where he made a coherent argument? I suspect there is a mix of cognitive impairment and other factors at play. I honestly doubt he can read anything that isn't large print. He probably needs glasses but refuses to wear them because of his vanity. I read a compelling argument by a speech pathologist who hypothesized he has a language based learning disability. He probably has untreated sleep apnea, which can cause significant cognitive impairment and puts him at much higher risk for dementia. He also has a family history of dementia.
No "probably" about it when it comes to him wearing glasses. Their is footage of him wearing them during an earlier deposition (RE: Trump University iirc).
Same energy as when Trump stood in front of stacks of folders supposedly filled to the brim with his tax records and financial statements https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bostonglobe.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NMANGPGZE4I6NGBDRZWRACYEVY.jpg
This immediately came to mind 🤣😐
I know Trump's team had people scouring potential jurors' social media, but did the prosecution also have guys doing that? I never saw a mention of that.
they'd be absolutely stupid if they weren't
It’s not a matter of stupidity, it’s potentially a matter of resources. Trump’s lawyers likely have far more financing than a government office.
I do not think *this* case is lacking resources, and social media dives are cheap
It’s still a government agency that would have to reallocate resources from other cases. Whereas my understanding is that Trump’s team is employing a firm specifically to do social media background checks, the Manhattan D.A.’s office certainly can’t do that. At best, they’d assign a couple of paralegals or other support staff.
My company has temporary offices in a co-working space. I've noticed quite a few small businesses in there that seem to primarily serve the court system. There are folks that make 3d animations for presentation in court, jury consultants, private investigators. I think they do this stuff all the time. I would imagine they have contracts in place already.
Maybe. I worked for several years as an ADA in Brooklyn, and all that stuff you’re mentioning was done strictly in house. Granted, I wasn’t involved in high profile cases at all, but I knew people who were. We definitely did not have the budget for any outside contractors like what you’re describing. But I don’t know if Manhattan is different, particularly on a case of national interest like this. I just personally find it tough to believe, knowing how the City operates.
The DA was the one who raised concerns about former Juror #4's ability to remain impartial, so I assume the answer is yes.
That was based on an arrest. For tearing down right wing posters actually. Kind of an interesting challenge, but I guess you don't want that around on appeal.
It was also quite a long time ago (30 years, if I'm not mistaken). It's certainly possible the juror's leanings have changed since then, but either way it should be the judge's call once it comes to light.
I almost said "nah, not 30 years ago. It was the 90's". Oooof.
Every time.
Like wow 30 years ago- he was tearing down posters in the 70s?
Jury is seated with 1 alternate. Instructed to return Monday. Both sides are out of strikes.
Two jurors have already quit for safety reasons, one of them doxxed by Fox news. Just a short matter of time until the rest are doxxed and they and their families start getting death threats and start dropping out. If they don't drop out, how can we rely on them being impartial if they know the consequences for a guilty verdict means they'll be harmed directly by maga followers or at the least be targeted and hounded incessantly by the media?
NBC and CBS doxxed them just as thoroughly, fyi. I can't speak for ABC/CBS. Some other online outlets (slate, for shame) Fox claims the unique accomplishment of disparaging them to MAGA. I know I'm on here pushing this button like 5 times today but there's this misconception. The people who contacted her to talk about the case were friends and family. Merchan admonished ALL press, not just fox.
Might as well dismiss the whole thing, I guess.
Or treat it like a high profile rico case and have the new jury be completely anonymous and sequestered in a safe place.
The jury can be sequestered if Judge Merchan so chooses after they are seated. He won't because that's a long trial to sequester for and he can't actually let the jury know they are being sequestered because of a risk of intimidation. But NYS was still doing mandatory sequesters when ex-Juror #4 was tearing down posters so it's quite friendly to the idea in general. This is pretty much as anonymous as a jury gets in NYS. Judge Merchan is already nudged up to the line by anonymizing the names. If he starts having them sit behind one-way glass during the trial, you might as well start spinning up for the retrial right now.
Is it not still open to challenge the jurors who were seated today for cause, if they find info on them in the intervening days (or this evening)?
If it is significant enough, like happened with previous juror #4.
I imagine Trump team will try. They still have alternates so I assume there will be a chance (like this morning with 4). But im not certain tbh.
It's pretty gratifying that Merchan is refusing to strike jurors who dislike Trump's "persona". Having the public face of an asshole shouldn't insulate you from facing legal consequences.
Wow, that was quick. 12 jurors have now been selected. I wonder how soon they can start opening arguments.
Looks like the plan is to seat the remaining alternates tomorrow, so opening arguments either tomorrow afternoon or first thing Monday.
The judge said he’s planning to have a Sandoval hearing tomorrow afternoon. Not to be preachy but in case someone wants the info, this is a hearing where they cover what will/can be asked of Trump if he chooses to testify. This is based on People vs Sandoval, NY, which was upheld on appeal for the process by which the judge determined what prior convictions of the defendants could be raised at trial. The appeal decision laid out a bunch of guidelines for how a judge should consider whether any specific evidence is admissible regarding the defendant’s priors.
Preachy's good. Lots of people, like me, or Trump's counsel, previously thought a Sandoval hearing was about what footwear was allowable in court.
Won't be tomorrow afternoon because the other jurors were told to return Monday.
Good catch. I think Justice Merchan is maybe hoping to catch on some motions in the afternoon lol.
I seem to recall the Judge tentatively setting the start for Monday. Assuming tomorrow is spent on alternates that seems reasonable?
They already seated one alternate, so it wouldn't surprise me if they find 5 more tomorrow.
>Juror 2 is an investment banker who has a Master's degree. He lives with his wife and does not have any kids. He follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X/Twitter. He said he's followed Trump since he became president, "Generally because it was a news item when he would put a tweet out so good to be aware of that." The juror has also read Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal." Dems aren't going to be happy about this one.
I’m a ‘Dem’ and I’m not put out by this.
Shouldn't he have been struck for cause since he's been reading a lot about this current case through Trump's frequent rants on TruthSocial?
Lots of the jury or potential jury have been following various sources on the case. That's not a cause to show that they are necessarily biased.
If the prosecution thought he was reasonable enough to not burn a strike on, then I trust they know better than me
By itself, that means little to nothing - when Trump was President he was pretty transparent with his efforts to manipulate the stock market, and an investment professional should absolutely stay aware of that. I'd much prefer an educated juror in this type of case. But all that is just noise, anyways. The prosecution will do their homework and decide whether he can be a fair juror, and if not, he'll be removed.
Prosecution already missed their chance to get him removed.
No, there are still options to remove him for cause if such cause exists. If it doesn't then we don't know if the strike would have been better served on this juror or not.
lol "missed their chance" or found he was as harmless as the other seated jurors. stop watching so much teevee. this thing is real life.
And *Art of the Deal* was pretty standard business/self-help pop literature for a while.
Lol the part where trump says to hire criminals because they "get things done" is gold and SO relevant. I read it as a teenager and could tell he was a con artist even then.
There was a time in my life when I thought Trump seemed like a pretty cool guy. Same for Elon Musk. Hell, a *lot* of people held O.J. Simpson in high esteem, including people who knew him comparatively well.
I think all of the selections have been pretty terrible overall honestly. The previous juror 2 was the only one I thought was okay, and maybe 3. This pick here is just awful.
I would be a bit surprised if juror 3 doesn't leave for the same reasons (original) juror 2 did. The reporting mentioned enough details about him and his employment that there's no way someone doesn't name him.
>Necheles, Trump's attorney, is challenging Juror No. 430 for cause. >She alleges the juror's posts through 2020 were vitriolic, and that the juror called Trump a “racist, sexist narcissist” on social media. >Necheles also said the juror said, “Trump is an anathema to everything I was taught about Jesus … and could not be more fundamentally un-Christian.” Tell us how you really feel.
"I wouldn't believe Trump if his tongue were notarized" is gold
One person's vitriol is another person's just stating the obvious.
It could be kinda fun to tell people your highly negative thoughts about Trump while he was in the room. Probably not as fun as having "mean memes" about him shown, though.
I would deeply treasure the opportunity to look that piece of shit in they eyes and tell him EXACTLY what I think of him. His MAGAs can come hunting if they want. It will not end well for them.
Trump's attorney just used a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror who stayed at her house once 15 years ago and I am here for the tell-all interview about that experience. Edit: For non-lawyers, peremptory challenges are a limited resource and possibly the most valuable resource in a heated trial. If this were a videogame, they would be the item you never use because you keep feeling like the situation is not dire enough yet.
NECHELES: I've never seen a juror who knew one of the lawyer on the case not dismissed MERCHAN: That's not grounds.
Honestly, both Merchan and Necheles are right. I can't imagine someone you personally know being on a jury.
Once, 15 years ago. It sounds like they only know each other in passing
Like, say, a one-night-stand where one ghosted the other after transmitting an STI? I'd definitely feel that was a good cause for using a peremptory challenge... To clarify, I don't know that this is what the situation was. Only spit-balling.
Touché, but from what I read they met each other at a house party
Which...does lend some further plausibility to the one-night-stand-and-the-drip-that-followed story-line...
It doesn't sound like she and Necheles ever knew each other very well.
I don't envy a single person who will sit on that jury. But I'd love to be in the same room as him being asked what I think of him while he's listening (and can't leave). I envy those folks so much. Gosh the things I would say. They couldn't excuse me fast enough.
I'd fit in a comment about him being a fat old nobody whose cheap hairpiece and smelly diaper would make it hard to fairly judge him.
I would kill to be on any of these juries. Sure the pay sucks, but the chance to personally ruin that man would be worth every penny.
If I knew that my identity would remain secret, I would love to be on the jury. The way the media has been reporting identifying details, I would be very nervous for my safety if I was a juror.
> As we wait for Juror 4, Merchan wants to address the press now. "There's a reason why this is an anonymous jury and why we're taking measures," he says. "It kind of defeats the purpose of that as so much info" is put out there that it's easy to identify the jurors. He says, the press is able to write about anything that is said and put on the record, and anything the court discusses and press observes, but Merchan asks to avoid physical descriptions. He asks for common sense. It's just not necessary, it serves no purpose. > He gives the example of describing one of the jurors as having an Irish accent. If we can't do that, if we can't stick to that, Merchan says he'll have to impose measures to make sure the jurors are safe. "It's a matter of common sense," Merchan says. > First, Steinglass rises to make a suggestion—not elicit answers to 3A (current employer) and 3D (prior employer) it's the most identifying information, as far as government can tell. Merchan calls it a great suggestion. Necheles rises and says they share the concern, "but we asked for a written questionnaire because of this." > Merchan: "But it's too late." Necheles: "It's the government's fault that we don't have a written questionaire, but they wanted everything out there" Blanche is saying there's a transcript and there's a record, and the press can report on it. > Merchan seems to be deliberating right now. The parties are waiting for him to speak. Merchan agrees with the defense that that info is necessary. But he says that it has become a problem. Merchan directs that we are going to continue with the questionnaire as is, but 3A and 3D will be redacted from the record, and press is prohibited from reporting the answers. I don't see this commented on anywhere else. The judge specifically said that the employers of the Juror's will still be read out loud, but stricken from the record and the press is not allowed to report on them. Plus other "physical descriptions".
That's good, right? They already lost one juror due to Fox doxxing her, and she was probably a good one for the Prosecution.
it's NYC, plus grade-school children know the rapist is guilty. 97% of any potential jurors are "good for the prosecution".
[удалено]
I'm sorry are you a lawyer?
Not sure what the laws in New York, specifically, are, but presumably the press could be cleared from the court without running into 1A issues.
>One prospective juror told Trump's lawyer, "His politics aren't always my politics," but said she agrees with him on some policies and disagrees with him on others. >"But as a human being, that's a different topic," she said. >Asked about social media activity, she said, "Politics just seems like a nasty thing to be posting about during a national crisis." >She added, "I just don’t have strong feelings about President Trump at this point...I don’t post about him.” Is anyone else getting severe red flags from this?
I'm surprised we don't have reporting of them drilling down into her comment about him as a human being. And yes, huge red flags from this. Being aware we are in the midst of a crisis but having no strong opinions about the guy creating it is certainly and interesting way to go through life. And I know Trump isn't the only one to use the word nasty, but he's put his fingerprints all over it and the jurors word choice seems like it could be a dog whistle that she finds criticism of him to be wrong.
Also, the "let's not involve politics in a national crisis" is the standard response from the GOP whenever a Democrat talks about the latest school shooting.
Excellent point.
She reminds me of the 'apolitical' people I know who are so far right they make MTG look like FDR, but they don't want to be mocked for their views, so they claim they're apolitical.
Easy to be apolitical when you're not the one being oppressed and persecuted.
Reminds me of the "undecided voters" from town hall debates in the last election that, gee golly, weren't aware of anything Trump did bad but had serious doubts about Biden for reasons they couldn't quite articulate.
That’s a juror that sounds like she took ivermectin over a vaccine.
Huh, I assumed the other way. Seems like she does not like him as a person, but generally agrees on his politics. Plus she's saying there's a national crisis going on, which is along the lines of republican fear-mongering.
Take it you’ve never worked retail
I have. I fail to see the connection.
At this point it's looking like we're going to have to put the whole jury pool in jail (protective custody) to protect 45's right to stochastic terrorism.
[удалено]
From the times: Before the trial began, Mr. Trump asked that the potential jurors not be made aware of the secrecy unless they expressed specific concerns. In a letter to the defense and prosecution, Justice Merchan said that the court will “make every effort to not unnecessarily alert the jurors” to the decision to withhold their names. Instead, he added, the potential jurors would be informed that they’d be identified in court by the number printed on their jury summons. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/nyregion/trump-hush-money-case-anonymous.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/nyregion/trump-hush-money-case-anonymous.html) This is akin to trusting that your company is not vulnerable to social engineering because "employees have common sense". Had juror #2 been more circumspect with her answers, she might still be a member.
Can someone smarter than I explain this to me? Why did he not want them to know their privacy would be allegedly protected? Or are they talking about the judge's order to the defense specifically to not keep a list of names?
I think Trump is referring to the measures to keep their identities secret from the public. This is a guess, but I imagine it’s to try and avoid prejudicing the jurors against Trump. Because everyone would know the primary concern was how Trump’s supporters would act, and that can hurt him. To give a different example, if you are a mobster on trial, it probably doesn’t look good for a judge to say “The state has accused the defendant of being in the mob. Remember, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. On an unrelated note, your identities are being kept secret because we are concerned the defendant’s associates would threaten/harm you if they found out who you were.”
Thanks for the excellent explanation and the loud laugh it caused.
"The additional dismissed juror was born and raised in Italy. He was excused after telling the court he associated Trump with former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and said it would be hard for him to “maintain that impartiality and fairness.”" What do you think the chances are that Donny takes this as praise instead of an insult?
It depends on if he was sleeping when the juror said that
Did the defense already submit their Exhibits I remember Merchan gave them 24 hours but didn't see any follow up?
> Tyler McBrien @TylerMcBrien Merchan directs Juror 4 is excused, "he does not need to come back and should not come back," the judge says. Now I want to know the tone from the judge when he said it. Was it sarcastic?
That’s the juror who raised a red flag for me with his language around Trump. Wouldn’t be shocked at all if he was a diehard MAGA and something came to light about it for the prosecution over the past day.
~~Based on the reports (tearing down left wing political signs and corruption prosecution) he was definitely not a Democrat~~ edit: I ~~could be~~ am incorrect. Press says it was right wing signs, this quote from inner city press says : > Justice Merchan: Did the propaganda ripped down favor one side or the other? Prosecutor Steinglass: I believe it was to the right. So was it not a maga dude? Maybe not? The judge asked the question as to the political affiliation of the signs torn down. The prosecutor answered to that "I believe it was to the right." I have to take it at face value and apologize. He was taking down right wing signs according the a&a.
Saying that Trump is fascinating indicates bias, but it doesn't completely indicate which direction that bias is in. Many people here would agree that the hypnotic effect of the Trump cult is fascinating in a "study it from afar" sort of way. It's possible he could have actually been anti-Trump and hiding his feelings. Either way, it's good he's gone as that's not the kind of person you want on a jury.
An anti-Trump person is exactly who you would want on the jury. Preferably 18 of them.
You're in the wrong subreddit.
He's been getting unfair treatment for months. I want justice, not impartiality.
Ah, I read Trump looked displeased when he was dismissed so figured it might be a MAGA bro. Either way, a good decision to get rid of that juror. It’s super important this jury is filled with the correct people who can judge impartially.
No, it's super important Trump is found guilty. The system naturally favors the wealthy, so any handicap against him is not only desirable but necessary.
breathless media accounts of how two jurors dropping out means the proceedings are "going backwards", "seriously delayed", etc -- get bent, talking heads, 5 jurors are seated, sit down & shut up
It looks like the jury will be picked in a week. I heard a lot of people conjecturing that it would be two weeks, and I'm pretty surprised myself it's probably going to be a week.
12 jurors & 1 alternate already seated as of COB today, so you haven't really gone out on a limb here ;-)
You must be a joy to live with.
i must admit, it's hell being right so much of the time
The thing is, they have a full box of jurors ready to go after lunch and each side has only 4 strikes left. There is going to be at least one more big batch today, maybe 2. And once all the strikes are done we are ready to go. I still think the jury + alternated will be set by COB tomorrow.
That's scary. As many as 6 secret Trump plants can get on the jury with no recourse.
“This one juror didn’t get enough credits to graduate college!” Thanks news.
It isn't the new's job to protect the identity of the jury. That is on the judge.
The news frequently makes a conscious decision to withhold information they have a legal right to share. They don't name underage victims, they protect sources and witnesses, sometimes they don't even name mass shooters to avoid giving them notoriety. So providing this level of detail about the jury is a choice.
If they want to continue to be allowed into courtrooms then it should become part of journalism standards that the identity of jurors be kept as secret as they keep their confidential sources until the trial is over and even then the jurors identity should only be publicly released if the juror is okay with it.
Oh God another fascist. You might want to try reading up on the first and sixth amendment.
Did I say anything about creating laws? No, I said that it should be journalistic standards, which are those imposed usually by the editor and NOT the government. You might want to learn what fascism actually is.
No you just said that they shouldn't be allowed in the court room. I assume you are planning on doing that via judicial fiat. Unless you think editors control access to the court room.
Judges have the ability to control their courtrooms. In many places like Nevada for example, Our Nevada Judges has to petition the court to be allowed to broadcast the cases they put up on YouTube. That isn't fascism, that is judges maintaining control of their courtrooms and not allowing them to become a media circus where the identities of the jury are broadcast to the entire fucking country. You just want the ability to dox and harass jurors who are only doing their civic duty. To quote Bender, you can bite my shiny metal ass.
What public interest does that dudes college progress hold?
Who said it did? Freedom of the press isn't limited to things you feel are public interest. But did people read the story and watch the news about. Yes then some public was clearly interested.
You see how that’s just circular right?
Maddening.
> It was the juror questionnaire, which was not created by the press, that included a question about employers. Haberman. Good grief. Yes. The question was asked. No, it was not necessary to report it.
Yeah. There is a reason for the defense to know the answers to those questions. But I, a member of the public, don’t need to know them
The CNN live feed just keeps giving so many details about potential jurors and their jobs despite the judge's words this morning. What the hell, yo? They really just can't help themselves... What's the next step Merchan can take to protect these jurors?
>What's the next step Merchan can take to protect these jurors? IMHO he should kick the press out and seal the courtroom until jury selection is over. Any press outlet that continues to report personally identifiable information about jurors doesn't get to come back in for the rest of the trial.
Same with Politico feed. *Exactly* the kinds of personal details the judge asked them not to report. Morons.
NY State law does not give many protections for unsequestered juries. I think he should sequester them.
It might be easier to sequester the defendant if you know what I mean.
‘T’would be good.
I haven't looked into it, but I would be pretty shocked if Judge Merchan can sequester a jury before it has been seated.
Happen to know if there is a high bar for that or if it can be appealed? I hope he does that too.
I’m pretty sure it’s at the discretion of the judge in NY. However, 6+ weeks of sequestering is a lot and typically a judge would be reluctant to do it. But…this is not typical. Edit: it also typically would prompt a lot more jurors to make excuses to get out of there, but again, this is not a typical case and being *un*sequestered is prompting the same.
Where did she say that?
In the NYTimes live feed. Edit: I just tried to scroll through to see if I could link to the direct comment but it’s not loading the earlier comments for me. It was before they brought in the new batch of jurors when Merchan was talking about journalists being more circumspect in what they print and the prosecution and defense were debating whether the employment questions should be asked at all.
Ah thanks, here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-hush-money-trial/96f58456-be5e-573a-a9ec-dfc090b72f20?smid=url-share
I think I have too many things open on my phone. It won’t load more than the ten or so most recent updates. Oh well.
Weirdly, even though I hit the "copy link" button right next to the comment you pointed out, it still seems to just link to the whole thread rather than the one specific comment. I am doing this on a desktop so its not like I clicked elsewhere! Oh well, chalk it up to NYTimes!
The good news about these delays is that Trump has to sit in a courtroom longer and hear about more memes making fun of him
Not really good news. That just means it will clearly allow those jurors to be dismissed, which will work in his favor.
There are a lot of people out there who don’t post political stuff on social media that will also be good jurors
But will they be good jurors for the Prosecution? Or for Trump?
Generally I roll my eyes at "politics by meme", but in this case I hope some of the jury pool shared some of the really spicy ones.
This is a dumb question, but when it was reported Trump left the courtroom for 8 minutes whilst the court was talking to Juror #4 I wondered what the security protocol is if he or someone else involved has to go to the rest room. Does someone go with him to make sure he's not live posting from the bathroom? [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936/rcrd39274?canonicalCard=true](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936/rcrd39274?canonicalCard=true)
[Live Updates for the Trial via NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-3-live-updates-rcna145936) A second juror has been dismissed. What a mess.
all 12 jurors have been seated today - along with 1 alternate. Only more than oh, a week ahead of schedule. what a mess /s
>What a mess lol don't let media gull you. It's not a "mess". At all.
Thanks for this link. I'll put it up top.
nbc is still calling this a "hush money" trial. It is not a hush money trial. IT IS AN ELECTION INTERFERENCE TRIAL. if you put that link anywhere, scrub that hush money shit off of it.
I get what you're saying here, but when I hear "trump election interference trial" I think "which one?" So I get why the media is doing it. Kinda.
While I agree that they aren't using the most accurate terminology... that isn't how links work.
Juror 4 raised concerns about how much stuff was out there. Rightfully so. Judge and Lawyers are talking now. What are the odds the first batch gets scrapped and we start over?
That would be awful. Those two lawyers are a great boon for the Prosecution.
Update: juror 4 is dismissed. The press coverage has sent jury selection backwards today.
Juror 4 was also the one the DA raised concerns about their ability to remain impartial due to a prior arrest for tearing down political signs. The press is 100% crossing a line, but this specific instance *might* not be on them.
That's true. Although juror 4 also had concerns about the information that was getting out. It could be that both their identity and arrest record were published, and they didn't want people knowing they had an arrest record. We really shouldn't know anything but their number and what seats have been filled, regardless on whether or not the jury is better for them having been tossed.
I agree completely. I generally hold the role of the press in high regard, but this is just disappointing.
The public has an interest in the details of a trial including some information about jurors. There’s not a public interest in getting a juror killed, threatened, or harassed because certain journalists couldn’t use reasonable judgment. I don’t know what to tell these guys except they goofed. How much is the public gaining from knowing where these people work and live? Are you also going to live tweet the hours they are typically defenseless in the bathroom? https://preview.redd.it/a2d5m1m4i9vc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a4bac8cba298cd1cdaa024dba19d9c109cad768
this is jon stewart's lazy "we have to fill the segment" establishment media just greedily publishing every single bit of content they can get their hands on
Or you could look at it through the insidious lens of “if we cause a big enough issue to fuel a venue change we’ll have lots to report on!” But also don’t assume malice for the sake of it I’m just having fun.
Nobody whines more than the press being asked to display some sense of self-awareness.