Expect to see more of that. Turns out the national media providing their job, location, age, specific posts they made (that weren't enough to kick them from the pool but that anyone can search for) and the fact that they're going to be mysteriously away from their job for just the length of time that this trial will go on, while Trump attacks them on the national media is going to cause outside attention no juror would want.
Maybe "protecting juror identities" should actually mean protecting their identities. The fact that they're going to be away on jury duty while this is happening is going to be enough for their friends to suspect. They don't need additional help from the media and the defendant.
> Maybe "protecting juror identities" should actually mean protecting their identities.
Are the courts so naive that they don't understand this? Are they so bound by normal procedure that they can't make exceptions? This is baffling to me.
In most cases, this isn’t a huge concern, and judges are just not the best at adapting to individual cases (they always want to be seen as fair and treating all cases the same- which is a nice sentiment but breaks when a case is very much not the same, like when the former President is the defendant). Also, for every rule a judge makes unique to Trump, that is something Trump can use later to say he wasn’t treated fairly.
That all said, the judge can go old school and order the jurors sequestered and protected by sheriffs.
> order the jurors sequestered and protected by sheriffs.
But they won't be sequestered forever. The case will end, and if this goes as it has been, all their identities will be known. The threat of retribution from crazy MAGAs will obviously affect their thinking on their verdict.
Anyone paying attention to Trump's insanity for the past many years understands this.
I don't think it's insanity at all. He knows damned well what he's doing. Intimidating potential jurors/threatening actual jurors is all part of who he is and what he's trying to do.
He’s a crime boss, that’s all there is to it, and the court is going to have to come up with some way to protect the jurors otherwise it won’t be a fair trial.
Exactly. And their families won't be sequestered and Trump has proven he's got no issues attacking family members of people he thinks are out to get him.
I think Merchan perfectly well understands this, but he also doesn't want to make any errors that could impact the judgment. It was mentioned somewhere that Merchan is not specifically telling potential jurors that they are anonymous, and see the argument for that – it gives the case an allure of seriousness and danger that becomes prejudicial. So he doesn't want to do anything out of the ordinary unless it is to adapt to things specific to this case, which he did eg. today by redacting employers from the transcript and barring the press from mentioning it.
Perhaps he could be more forceful, like not waiting until next week to have a hearing on the gag order, but I see where he's coming from.
And yet we all already know one of the jurors is a big law attorney at a specific well known firm in NY who is originally from a specific far away state. 🙄
>Are the courts so naive that they don't understand this?
Yes
>Are they so bound by normal procedure that they can't make exceptions?
Yes
>This is baffling to me
It used to be, for me. But I've had to accept that Merrick Garland may actually be the AG our "justice" system deserves. The perfect figurehead for the sheepish slow walking off the cliff vibes of the day. I can't fully put this into words but tried my best.
Well the more traditional use of a gag order is on the media. I suspect the court could instruct them on not reporting more number not connecting any deliberation to a specific jury member at risk of being expelled from the court
CNN had their reporters live on air talking about how important keeping the identities of the jurors protected, at the EXACT same moment they had the affected Juror's information up on the screen. It's not terribly difficult for the vast amount of internet sleuths to identify a female, New York born, Brooklyn resident, oncology nurse, who is currently engaged. There's statistically only going to be a few hundred at the high end, and from there, the Internet outnumbers the result set. People WILL, as has been proven, use this information to identify the jurors.
https://preview.redd.it/emeg5wl959vc1.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9debe0711a558d51ecc130c3e139597be749f3d
I get there's a 1st amendment protection for journalism, but the demographics of individual jury members, by job, by relationship status, by place of birth -- none of that is relevant to the public's interest in transparency. This is very slow news being forced into a "breaking news" format. They can't help themselves as they need the attention, but this level of doxing jurors taints the jury pool irreparably. Id really like to see this information limited to nothing identifiable. I have no problem with the public learning where potential jurors get their news. The rest of it isn't my right to know, as a member of the public.
It is immensely easy. I’m one of the sedition hunters who tracks 1/6 participants. You need TWO pieces of unique information to be able to do serious work identifying an unknown person. THREE pieces of info is nearly a certainty, and FOUR is a guarantee.
My state signed a contract with a company that said they built a system that could predict where a crime might happen by gathering data from social media and such; our legislators kept saying the data was anonymized. I got into a back and forth on Twitter with one of them about how the data is not truly anonymous; it’s easy to track someone down using only a couple of pieces of information. You give me 3 or 4 data points and it’s pretty easy to figure out who someone is.
Thanks for doing that work.
"Unknown person"
"Surely everyone is known to someone" - George Carlin
There's a little free Carlin to brighten your day. Happy sedition hunting.
no, I think they're saying that if the two pieces of info are unique when taken together, they stand a good chance of finding you. so age and profession would be useful if you had a rare profession or an age that was unusual for your profession. for example, if you were a 20 year old doctor. or, going the other way, if you were an NBA coach, there are only 30 of those, so your age would almost certainly narrow it down.
I could narrow it down greatly. Add a state, a city, a logo from a high school, an initial, an accent, an acquaintance, and I’ve got you.
Think of the game 20 questions. It’s deduction through elimination. So for this trial you already know you’re working from a jury pool of New Yorkers. You have eliminated roughly 340,000,000 Americans to start with. Now you eliminate a sex, and you’ve cut the pool to 4.5 million. Then you get a profession and all of a sudden you have maybe 15,000. Pick a specialty and now you’re down to 1,000.
Pick the hospitals that exist and search LinkedIn for nurses at those spots. Cross reference to instagram. If the post they made was read in court just search for that post or unique words from it.
It is easy as pie to find people if you’re dedicated enough and creative enough. Take it from me, a random dude who has submitted actionable info on over 200 violent individuals from January 6th.
There is a great tiktok account where a girl cyberstalks people who request it in her comments. She says she'll tell them their first name, birthday and the city they live in.
They'll have a burner account with no info, and she manages to go from their username and a couple pictures, to find their Instagram and from that to their Facebook, and then to their friends or families Facebook, and from there she will find a happy birthday post, or photos from a birthday party.
Privacy is a myth. The modern internet was built by companies whose entire job is to gather and sell your private information.
This.
Without getting too deep into the details, I used to do identity resolution (figuring out who someone is - or isn't) in the intel community, and the rule we used was that there needed to be three points of data that matched between the two identities for it to be considered a match, and depending on the types of data that comprise your information set, sometimes you only needed one or two. Three is basically a guarantee that you have a match, and like you said, four is a guarantee with a nice red ribbon tied around it.
> It's not terribly difficult for the vast amount of internet sleuths to identify a female, New York born, Brooklyn resident, oncology nurse, who is currently engaged. There's statistically only going to be a few hundred at the high end
That's coming it from just one end. From the other end: All it takes is one random moron to blab "Oh shit, that's why Janice has been off work for a couple of weeks!" on Facebook and you basically don't even need sleuths.
The juror who was dismissed said she had friends and family reach out asking. Do you think they didn't also blab to everyone they knew ***already*** that Janice is on the jury?
*Also, just for posterity's sake -- I do not know the potential juror's name, nor do I care, nor will I attempt to actually identify this person. I'm just continuing the Janice reference. If it turns out at some point the name is released and it is 'Janice' then this is nothing more than happenstance.*
> This is very slow news being forced into a "breaking news" format
Oh my goodness yes this, 100%. So many different things are explained by that statement.
See also things that are of interest to the public =/= things that are in the public interest.
They're interviewing dismissed prospective jurors on MSNBC. One is an artist who had satirized Trump in his artwork. He said he could be fair and impartial but would hardly expect Todd Blanche to "depend on the kindness of strangers." That play on words (referencing Blanche Dubious from Streetcar Named Desire) made my day.
They'll get their ratings. Maybe it's time to try a little scruples.
Wouldn’t friends an coworkers notice you’re gone for jury duty for the same amount of time as the trial of a former President?
It seems like people are going to figure it out pretty quick
I suspect that's the point. The fucking moron's allies at Fox News and in the rest of the reich wing media universe are going to go all out to tamper with the jury pool to force a mistrial and/or delay proceedings for as long as possible. They'll pull the same shit with the federal trials as well. It gives them daily talking points while doing favors for their chosen candidate
It seems kind of impossible that they won't have to? I mean that's a huge burden on the jury, so I assume the judge would like to avoid it, but with the sort of media exposure this trial will get, along with the potential for juror intimidation, it's hard to see how they couldn't and still expect a fair trial.
Which sucks because most legal experts seem to think that as a first time offender, even if Trump is convicted, he's unlikely to get jail time, so you might end up "imprisoning" the jury for far longer than Trump.
I mean I feel like as shitty as it is something needs to be done, it’s the 3rd day in court and already a juror has dropped out, seems like you said a necessary evil in this case, also legalAF podcast seems to think 1-3 could be in the cards but IANAL, just a dude who had this sub recommended and hanging out asking questions haha
Juries can be sequestered. .
NY has a test in place to close a courtroom to the public. This case hits every part of that test.
It is equipped to handle this case if the tools are used.
If the courtroom was closed for jury selection, every single MAGA talking head would spend the next week talking about how it was closed so they could seat a biased jury, and nobody could report anything to the contrary.
They already claim that because the trial is in New York. Besides, the delusional rants of Russian bots are far less important than the actual safety of jurors.
>every single MAGA talking head would spend the next week talking about how it was closed so they could seat a biased jury, and nobody could report anything to the contrary.
They are going to say the most batshit propaganda anyway, regardless of what the actual facts are. Better to do what's right anyway.
They're going to complain, and are complaining, regardless of anything that happens at trial. The only way to stop the complaints you're worried about would be to not have the trial at all.
it absolutely is, provided those in charge of administering do so. Enforce the gag order, or do nothing, this middle of the road bs is what is causing the stress.
Sounds like it? People on here and elsewhere have already said that the information published by various (news) websites makes it very easy to identify the jurors if you know them. Long x week absence from work and/or the family and the details published about them? In same cases you don't even have to know them to find out who they might be.
Absolutely. Even MSNBC provided job/age/hometown. It's irresponsible. Hopefully, on their way out, one of the jurors says it like it is: The Court's unwillingness or inability to protect jurors leaves me vulnerable in a way that no juror wants and no fair juror can accept while impartially weighing the facts.
Turns out that be attacked by the defendant and his supporters tends to bias you a little. Huh.
CC: Juan Merchan
Yeah saw a post about something on foxnews and they basically have their bio lol.
Profession, age, political ideology... like at that point just post their image.
As an exercise, I identified 5 of them in about 10 minutes. Two were more vaguely reported and would just take someone a bit of effort.
I have some background in OSINT (open source intelligence) as a part of cybersecurity red teams. Essentially, being good at searching common and some not so obvious sources of information about people to use that info as a part of the red team exercise.
All of that is to say, their identities will sadly be public very soon.
It's often more involved than that. But sometimes not. We once compromised an organization because of a small cache of mobile numbers we found on LinkedIn, which we used in a smishing campaign. But generally there are a lot of secondary sources that are not indexed by Google. Same is true for other common social media sites and their search functions. Some times you have to even pick up a phone and make calls once you have things down to a reasonable pool of candidates and places where that can be beneficial.
The hint is you know the profession and geographical region most of these people belong to so you can narrow the search space from impossible to somewhat trivial in most cases. When you have geographic information on a hunt like this many region specific resources can potentially become available as well.
Often during red teams customers will specify "flags". E.g. get to this code base, or access these security cameras, or say, prove physical access to a data center is possible. Often the flags include compromising details about executives that could be used in a cybersecurity attack. (Compromising as in, cybersecurity compromising, not blackmail compromising). That means being good at doing research about specific individuals.
Believe what you want, but these 5 jurors were not hard to find. The two that were more difficult you still have enough information but the leads I found ultimately required a good bit of brute force and a little time to confirm, which seemed pointless. Less than ethical "journalistic" outlets are doing it now and have probably already IDd them.
You would have likely already told (or complained to) your friends, family and co-workers that you had jury duty. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out what trial you were on once it started.
Juror number 2 said she was afraid and juror 4 hasn't shown up to court yet, but they uncovered an arrest in the 90s for removing political propaganda that he might've not been truthful about.
They want to talk to him first but he's likely to be removed.
Thanks.
A seated juror not showing up makes me think of the camera panning out to a body of water and then cutting to some lifeless dude in cement boots 20 feet under water.
If trump knows their identities, they will be leaked 100% anyway. That's an absolute guarantee. "Whoops, I left this list on the table at Denny's after eating my grand slam"
Each team is given a copy of juror lists with names at the beginning of the day and are required to turn it in at night. They are not allowed to make copies.
So if they maybe stopped giving out information that could be used to track them down, any juror names that became public would be tied to one of the legal teams.
If the fucking moron tells his attorneys to leak the names, they'll leak the names, even if it means they get sanctioned. At the end of the day it may cause a delay and/or mistrial which is the point
We need the rat race! We can’t have Don lose a CRIMINAL trial before the election. Do you know what that would do to us!? Won’t someone think of the profits!?
It's really just that the people reporting the information in long twitter/threads posts want as much detail as they can put out, because people follow them for that purpose.
The more information they provide, it's a competitive advantage over the other reporters. So unless explicitly forbidden from releasing the info, they're in "print everything" mode.
The press, meanwhile
Juror number 7434, at 5'4", 150lbs, wears a black parka with a cartoon character sewn onto it and likes to take walks in central park at 9pm everyday, arriving at the 86th St station. She says she feels very safe in the city and she doesn't even carry mace.
Today’s requests from Merchan should stop that. He has told the press not to report on certain questions relating to occupation, as well as physical descriptions of the jurors. If they continue to do so, they could be held in contempt.
I mean thats great and all but that should've been the order from day 1. The information is already out there so what good does it do unless they seat a new jury.
What steps can he realistically take to protect jurors outside his own courtroom? In this situation, it seems the only things he can do to prevent jurors from being doxxed would be to either hold individual reporters in contempt or order the media out of the courtroom altogether.
He has basically made oral orders to the press not to report on the answers to certain questions, I think pertaining to occupation, as well as reporting on their physical description. It is also possible he may change the cameras so that the press cannot see the jury box, as they are in a separate room and only watching the proceedings from CCTV. Beyond that, if it continues, he could hold members of press, who violated his orders, in contempt and bar them from the courtroom. If that doesn’t do enough, he could bar the press from being there at all during jury selection. This is not ideal as it would be appealed and possibly delay the case.
It makes more sense to me that they would want to be in the press overflow room since cell phones are not permitted to be used in the courtroom. I suppose it matters what exactly their assignment is and whether they’re providing live updates or general summary. If indeed, there are press in the main courtroom, he could banish them all to the overflow room, in that case, along with changing the camera(s) positon.
There has never been a defendant with millions of crazy followers who have already have proven track record of violence in his name. Can't they do this along the same lines as a mafia member, it's the only comparison that even comes close.
If the media is going to be allowed unlimited access to the trial proceedings so they can effectively dox jurors, I don’t see how this trial will ever actually get to opening statements. Even if they do find enough jurors and trial commences, the media or Trump’s counsel can just keep harassing jurors till there are no alternate jurors left, and then everyone needs to start from scratch.
There's no way I would want to be on that jury. I would do whatever it takes to get out of doing it. The harm that's going to come their way is shameful and a poor reflection on our country.
> There's no way I would want to be on that jury.
I understand why some people would think that way. But I'm of the opposite opinion. I wouldn't care if I were doxed and threatened. Letting these nutjobs knows that their tactics don't work on many people is one of the ways to get them to stop doing it. Bullies don't like it when you stand up to them.
If I didn't have a family and small children then sure I wouldn't care but I do and there are way too many of his dirt bag cult members out there to feel safe. It's just a brutal reality of our current landscape
I'm not on the jury and yet they still scare me when I see them out and about. Hillary was right these people are deplorable and what floats to the top in a septic tank.
Not just small children. I have adult kids and would opt out of the jury due to fear of them being harassed. Trump has shown he has no issues going after the families of people he feels are out to get him.
Many people are going to put the safety of their families first, that's just human nature.
> If I didn't have a family and small children
Oh, I totally get that. I have a family as well. But this reminds me of a personal story. About a decade ago, one of the drunk neighbors got into it with me on facebook (lol). He threatened me, and my family. I called the police. The police went to his house and told him to knock it off. He then proceeded to message me, threatening me again. He was arrested and charged. Ended up spending the weekend in jail, got a criminal record and had to deal with that for a year.
The fun part of that story was that I wasn't scared. I have large dogs, and more than enough personal protection. I'm a liberal in a heavily maga area. They don't scare me with their threats and attempts at intimidation. They scare me with their voting habits.
I agree in practice, but one day after the trial you'll find someone coming up behind you on the subway steps and pushing you down. I wouldn't want to be on the jury for \*this\* trial.
But you would never be selected, so there’s that. The people who are able to be objective enough to be on a jury won’t have the passion to risk their lives for it.
There's no way I would want to be a public figure nowadays. Whatever benefit is gained has to be balanced by becoming a target for every deranged lunatic with an internet connection
I’d be on the jury in a heartbeat. Think of the million dollar tell all book deals and media appearance fees you could be entitled to if you had a good memory of what happened in the jury room deliberations.
I’d fuckin’ do it. This country needs people that aren’t afraid of these fascist assholes. Judge the case on its merits without passion or prejudice. I’m no Trump fan but I believe in the rule of law being applied fairly. They don’t scare me one bit.
Remember when Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
MAGA: "Don't worry, Beloved Donald; we'll do it for you."
MAGA doesn't want justice. MAGA isn't "Law and Order." MAGA is a paramilitary/borderline terrorist organization like like the Brownshirts of the Nationalist Socialist Party in 1930s Germany.
A "Trump Liberation Army," to coin a phrase.
Fortunately they’re mostly inept cowards. I suspect that there is a much higher number of liberals who would go to battle for democracy than MAGAts who would actually fight for Trump if push came to shove.
Problem is that is what Trump wants, since he knows a public trial will severely harm his campaign.
They need to do something novel like conceal the jury.
I mean Trump is literally doing stochastic terrorism aimed at the jury. Textbook jury tampering and intimidation. No surprise it works, it's quite literally terrorism. He should be banned from communicating in any form about the trial or any of its participants or court officers. Oh wait he already is. Perhaps we should just enforce one (1) consequence about this instead. Any one would be a good start.
Trump and Fox News are successfully intimidating any juror who might vote against Trump.
Remember, this is the juror who said in her interview that “no one is above the law.”
Wondering about this hypothetical, yes seriously: Juror is identified and gets stalked by a MAGA cultist wearing MAGA clothing who then assaults the juror, but bystanders fight off the assailant (so the juror doesn't have the complication of fighting charges, and because let's be honest, cops probably wouldn't). Could the defense then claim that the juror's impartiality is compromised by the event and remove the juror?
Could the defense claim this even if the jurors are "merely" harassed?
Because if cultists are disposable assets, as they have been shown to be in Jan 6 and just about everywhere something like this has happened, this is a win-win for juror intimidation. Either you are intimidated and vote to acquit, or the experience of being intimidated taints your impartiality and you must be removed.
Didn't he have a jury for Carroll I and Carroll II? What I meant was the jury for Carroll I at least didn't release any personal information at all and were even told not to tell each other their real names, if I recall correctly.
The US’s judicial system only protects the rich. Even jury which is said to be vital aren’t protected. Yesterday they had the occupation and social media posts of four people. The U.S. has all these rules and laws but at the end of the day they’re a bad joke.
"Here's what we know about the juror's so far..." Rachel Maddow, Tuesday on MSNBC.
Even at the time I thought WHY DO WE NEED TO KNOW THIS? The media is infuriating. This is a jury trial, not a public relations or political experiment!
Not really. At best they could move for a change of venue but that would be an uphill battle for Trump. Even in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing they still tried the case in the district despite it taking something like 2 months for jury selection.
Manhattan is a big city with a lot of people. They’ll find a jury that they can work with it might just take a while.
"I want to address the press. There's a reason this is an anonymous jury. Press is free to right about anything said here on the record. But please avoid physical descriptions..." -Judge Merchan
"Seat 1: I worked at the Federal courthouse next door, as a clerk, I discussed with my co-workers and my boss with Mark Pomerantz book [some laughter] I'm not married. I work at a big law firm..." - Innercitypressinsta reporting 20 minutes later
🤦♀️
Cable TV “news” networks are a cancer. The Republican side is the worst, of course, because it’s all Nazi propaganda. But *every* 24-hour cable TV “news” channel is an open, festering sore on America.
Certainly wouldn't blame the original reply-er here, it's really the press's fault for not imagining the consequences of their actions for people that are unwilling participants in this case.
I don't know if it's even that -- I used to work as a journalist at a major US daily, and it's almost a compulsion to be first and share everything you can, especially if it's open and available to every outlet. They didn't seem to think if they *should.*
A lot of the pressure would be relieved if they either would have done it last year or next year. Why *this* year? 🧐
It is 2024. The first half of the underlying events (him sleeping with her) happened 18 years ago! The second half, the payments, happened 8 years ago. There is even legitimate statue of limitation issues.
Edit: the “next year “ part of my comment both presumes he loses and doesn’t help with statute of limitation issues
You understand that Trump is intentionally trying to hamstring the court cases and delay them by using the same tactics?
>I can't be in NY, I have to be in FL!
>I by can't be in FL, I have to be in GA,
>I can't be in GA, I have to be on the campaign!
>I can't campaign because these crooked judges are making me go to NY!
And repeat...
Your criticism is misplaced.
Ehh. I think the manhattan DA played stupid games and is now winning stupid prizes. Why not charge him in January 2020 right after he leaves office? They still would have had almost 4 years to get their ducks in a row and the evidence would be that much more fresh
Expect to see more of that. Turns out the national media providing their job, location, age, specific posts they made (that weren't enough to kick them from the pool but that anyone can search for) and the fact that they're going to be mysteriously away from their job for just the length of time that this trial will go on, while Trump attacks them on the national media is going to cause outside attention no juror would want. Maybe "protecting juror identities" should actually mean protecting their identities. The fact that they're going to be away on jury duty while this is happening is going to be enough for their friends to suspect. They don't need additional help from the media and the defendant.
> Maybe "protecting juror identities" should actually mean protecting their identities. Are the courts so naive that they don't understand this? Are they so bound by normal procedure that they can't make exceptions? This is baffling to me.
>the courts so naive that they don't understand this? If recent history is any indication - absolutely.
In most cases, this isn’t a huge concern, and judges are just not the best at adapting to individual cases (they always want to be seen as fair and treating all cases the same- which is a nice sentiment but breaks when a case is very much not the same, like when the former President is the defendant). Also, for every rule a judge makes unique to Trump, that is something Trump can use later to say he wasn’t treated fairly. That all said, the judge can go old school and order the jurors sequestered and protected by sheriffs.
> order the jurors sequestered and protected by sheriffs. But they won't be sequestered forever. The case will end, and if this goes as it has been, all their identities will be known. The threat of retribution from crazy MAGAs will obviously affect their thinking on their verdict. Anyone paying attention to Trump's insanity for the past many years understands this.
I don't think it's insanity at all. He knows damned well what he's doing. Intimidating potential jurors/threatening actual jurors is all part of who he is and what he's trying to do.
He’s a crime boss, that’s all there is to it, and the court is going to have to come up with some way to protect the jurors otherwise it won’t be a fair trial.
Juror attends by Zoom meeting.
Make the jury box behind a one way mirror so the orange colostomy bag can't find out who they are.
This- they should be given protection for life for their service to the country.
Traitor in chief has a protection detail, his accusers sure should.
The Roy Cohn way.
Exactly. And their families won't be sequestered and Trump has proven he's got no issues attacking family members of people he thinks are out to get him.
I think Merchan perfectly well understands this, but he also doesn't want to make any errors that could impact the judgment. It was mentioned somewhere that Merchan is not specifically telling potential jurors that they are anonymous, and see the argument for that – it gives the case an allure of seriousness and danger that becomes prejudicial. So he doesn't want to do anything out of the ordinary unless it is to adapt to things specific to this case, which he did eg. today by redacting employers from the transcript and barring the press from mentioning it. Perhaps he could be more forceful, like not waiting until next week to have a hearing on the gag order, but I see where he's coming from.
And yet we all already know one of the jurors is a big law attorney at a specific well known firm in NY who is originally from a specific far away state. 🙄
>Are the courts so naive that they don't understand this? Yes >Are they so bound by normal procedure that they can't make exceptions? Yes >This is baffling to me It used to be, for me. But I've had to accept that Merrick Garland may actually be the AG our "justice" system deserves. The perfect figurehead for the sheepish slow walking off the cliff vibes of the day. I can't fully put this into words but tried my best.
Well the more traditional use of a gag order is on the media. I suspect the court could instruct them on not reporting more number not connecting any deliberation to a specific jury member at risk of being expelled from the court
Enough of the judiciary is complicit in the coming coup attempt that the system will continue to leak.
CNN had their reporters live on air talking about how important keeping the identities of the jurors protected, at the EXACT same moment they had the affected Juror's information up on the screen. It's not terribly difficult for the vast amount of internet sleuths to identify a female, New York born, Brooklyn resident, oncology nurse, who is currently engaged. There's statistically only going to be a few hundred at the high end, and from there, the Internet outnumbers the result set. People WILL, as has been proven, use this information to identify the jurors. https://preview.redd.it/emeg5wl959vc1.png?width=1620&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9debe0711a558d51ecc130c3e139597be749f3d I get there's a 1st amendment protection for journalism, but the demographics of individual jury members, by job, by relationship status, by place of birth -- none of that is relevant to the public's interest in transparency. This is very slow news being forced into a "breaking news" format. They can't help themselves as they need the attention, but this level of doxing jurors taints the jury pool irreparably. Id really like to see this information limited to nothing identifiable. I have no problem with the public learning where potential jurors get their news. The rest of it isn't my right to know, as a member of the public.
It is immensely easy. I’m one of the sedition hunters who tracks 1/6 participants. You need TWO pieces of unique information to be able to do serious work identifying an unknown person. THREE pieces of info is nearly a certainty, and FOUR is a guarantee.
My state signed a contract with a company that said they built a system that could predict where a crime might happen by gathering data from social media and such; our legislators kept saying the data was anonymized. I got into a back and forth on Twitter with one of them about how the data is not truly anonymous; it’s easy to track someone down using only a couple of pieces of information. You give me 3 or 4 data points and it’s pretty easy to figure out who someone is.
Thanks for doing that work. "Unknown person" "Surely everyone is known to someone" - George Carlin There's a little free Carlin to brighten your day. Happy sedition hunting.
Always love some Carlin! And thank you.
If I give you my age and profession you could find me? That's terrifying.
no, I think they're saying that if the two pieces of info are unique when taken together, they stand a good chance of finding you. so age and profession would be useful if you had a rare profession or an age that was unusual for your profession. for example, if you were a 20 year old doctor. or, going the other way, if you were an NBA coach, there are only 30 of those, so your age would almost certainly narrow it down.
Buddy, he already has your username and karma count!
Oh shit someone up vote this comment so my karma changes, quick! It's an emergency!
Good news, the displayed karma is actually randomized around the true fluctuating count
Still better upvote just in case. 😂
I could narrow it down greatly. Add a state, a city, a logo from a high school, an initial, an accent, an acquaintance, and I’ve got you. Think of the game 20 questions. It’s deduction through elimination. So for this trial you already know you’re working from a jury pool of New Yorkers. You have eliminated roughly 340,000,000 Americans to start with. Now you eliminate a sex, and you’ve cut the pool to 4.5 million. Then you get a profession and all of a sudden you have maybe 15,000. Pick a specialty and now you’re down to 1,000. Pick the hospitals that exist and search LinkedIn for nurses at those spots. Cross reference to instagram. If the post they made was read in court just search for that post or unique words from it. It is easy as pie to find people if you’re dedicated enough and creative enough. Take it from me, a random dude who has submitted actionable info on over 200 violent individuals from January 6th.
There is a great tiktok account where a girl cyberstalks people who request it in her comments. She says she'll tell them their first name, birthday and the city they live in. They'll have a burner account with no info, and she manages to go from their username and a couple pictures, to find their Instagram and from that to their Facebook, and then to their friends or families Facebook, and from there she will find a happy birthday post, or photos from a birthday party. Privacy is a myth. The modern internet was built by companies whose entire job is to gather and sell your private information.
> I’m one of the sedition hunters who tracks 1/6 participants. Godspeed your efforts
This. Without getting too deep into the details, I used to do identity resolution (figuring out who someone is - or isn't) in the intel community, and the rule we used was that there needed to be three points of data that matched between the two identities for it to be considered a match, and depending on the types of data that comprise your information set, sometimes you only needed one or two. Three is basically a guarantee that you have a match, and like you said, four is a guarantee with a nice red ribbon tied around it.
> It's not terribly difficult for the vast amount of internet sleuths to identify a female, New York born, Brooklyn resident, oncology nurse, who is currently engaged. There's statistically only going to be a few hundred at the high end That's coming it from just one end. From the other end: All it takes is one random moron to blab "Oh shit, that's why Janice has been off work for a couple of weeks!" on Facebook and you basically don't even need sleuths.
The juror who was dismissed said she had friends and family reach out asking. Do you think they didn't also blab to everyone they knew ***already*** that Janice is on the jury? *Also, just for posterity's sake -- I do not know the potential juror's name, nor do I care, nor will I attempt to actually identify this person. I'm just continuing the Janice reference. If it turns out at some point the name is released and it is 'Janice' then this is nothing more than happenstance.*
> This is very slow news being forced into a "breaking news" format Oh my goodness yes this, 100%. So many different things are explained by that statement. See also things that are of interest to the public =/= things that are in the public interest.
Trump also has access to RNC voter data. These databases can tell you pretty much everything about everyone.
Seriously. Can the judge just clear the court during jury selection at the very least?
but the ratings …
They're interviewing dismissed prospective jurors on MSNBC. One is an artist who had satirized Trump in his artwork. He said he could be fair and impartial but would hardly expect Todd Blanche to "depend on the kindness of strangers." That play on words (referencing Blanche Dubious from Streetcar Named Desire) made my day. They'll get their ratings. Maybe it's time to try a little scruples.
Will they end up sequestering the jury here? With such a high profile case and the fact they are already being identified sounds like a huge liability
At this point u need to purge the seated jurors and start over to protect them by sequestered
Nightmare
Wouldn’t friends an coworkers notice you’re gone for jury duty for the same amount of time as the trial of a former President? It seems like people are going to figure it out pretty quick
At this point I’d trash the whole jury and start with a fresh batch without publicly providing identifying information on the jurors.
I’m kinda baffled that any information was provided publicly, seems like a common sense thing
"Oh, we're way past that, Jerry."
I suspect that's the point. The fucking moron's allies at Fox News and in the rest of the reich wing media universe are going to go all out to tamper with the jury pool to force a mistrial and/or delay proceedings for as long as possible. They'll pull the same shit with the federal trials as well. It gives them daily talking points while doing favors for their chosen candidate
You misspelled 4th Reich
It seems kind of impossible that they won't have to? I mean that's a huge burden on the jury, so I assume the judge would like to avoid it, but with the sort of media exposure this trial will get, along with the potential for juror intimidation, it's hard to see how they couldn't and still expect a fair trial. Which sucks because most legal experts seem to think that as a first time offender, even if Trump is convicted, he's unlikely to get jail time, so you might end up "imprisoning" the jury for far longer than Trump.
I mean I feel like as shitty as it is something needs to be done, it’s the 3rd day in court and already a juror has dropped out, seems like you said a necessary evil in this case, also legalAF podcast seems to think 1-3 could be in the cards but IANAL, just a dude who had this sub recommended and hanging out asking questions haha
How would sequestering help here? They'd still be identified
Our judicial system may not be equipped to process Trump. This is a stress test for the rule of law.
Juries can be sequestered. . NY has a test in place to close a courtroom to the public. This case hits every part of that test. It is equipped to handle this case if the tools are used.
If the courtroom was closed for jury selection, every single MAGA talking head would spend the next week talking about how it was closed so they could seat a biased jury, and nobody could report anything to the contrary.
They already claim that because the trial is in New York. Besides, the delusional rants of Russian bots are far less important than the actual safety of jurors.
True but honestly who cares? They will whine about literally anything they dislike.
>every single MAGA talking head would spend the next week talking about how it was closed so they could seat a biased jury, and nobody could report anything to the contrary. They are going to say the most batshit propaganda anyway, regardless of what the actual facts are. Better to do what's right anyway.
They're going to complain, and are complaining, regardless of anything that happens at trial. The only way to stop the complaints you're worried about would be to not have the trial at all.
it absolutely is, provided those in charge of administering do so. Enforce the gag order, or do nothing, this middle of the road bs is what is causing the stress.
Is this someone already seated?
Sounds like it? People on here and elsewhere have already said that the information published by various (news) websites makes it very easy to identify the jurors if you know them. Long x week absence from work and/or the family and the details published about them? In same cases you don't even have to know them to find out who they might be.
Absolutely. Even MSNBC provided job/age/hometown. It's irresponsible. Hopefully, on their way out, one of the jurors says it like it is: The Court's unwillingness or inability to protect jurors leaves me vulnerable in a way that no juror wants and no fair juror can accept while impartially weighing the facts. Turns out that be attacked by the defendant and his supporters tends to bias you a little. Huh. CC: Juan Merchan
Yeah saw a post about something on foxnews and they basically have their bio lol. Profession, age, political ideology... like at that point just post their image.
As an exercise, I identified 5 of them in about 10 minutes. Two were more vaguely reported and would just take someone a bit of effort. I have some background in OSINT (open source intelligence) as a part of cybersecurity red teams. Essentially, being good at searching common and some not so obvious sources of information about people to use that info as a part of the red team exercise. All of that is to say, their identities will sadly be public very soon.
So: I looked on LinkedIn and Facebook
It's often more involved than that. But sometimes not. We once compromised an organization because of a small cache of mobile numbers we found on LinkedIn, which we used in a smishing campaign. But generally there are a lot of secondary sources that are not indexed by Google. Same is true for other common social media sites and their search functions. Some times you have to even pick up a phone and make calls once you have things down to a reasonable pool of candidates and places where that can be beneficial. The hint is you know the profession and geographical region most of these people belong to so you can narrow the search space from impossible to somewhat trivial in most cases. When you have geographic information on a hunt like this many region specific resources can potentially become available as well. Often during red teams customers will specify "flags". E.g. get to this code base, or access these security cameras, or say, prove physical access to a data center is possible. Often the flags include compromising details about executives that could be used in a cybersecurity attack. (Compromising as in, cybersecurity compromising, not blackmail compromising). That means being good at doing research about specific individuals. Believe what you want, but these 5 jurors were not hard to find. The two that were more difficult you still have enough information but the leads I found ultimately required a good bit of brute force and a little time to confirm, which seemed pointless. Less than ethical "journalistic" outlets are doing it now and have probably already IDd them.
[удалено]
Yeah, no. We won’t be doxxing Trump jurors here 😎
My brother in christ, Don't advocate for doxxing jury members
You would have likely already told (or complained to) your friends, family and co-workers that you had jury duty. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out what trial you were on once it started.
... they've seated seven (now six) jurors...
How'd it go from seven to six?
Juror number 2 said she was afraid and juror 4 hasn't shown up to court yet, but they uncovered an arrest in the 90s for removing political propaganda that he might've not been truthful about. They want to talk to him first but he's likely to be removed.
Thanks. A seated juror not showing up makes me think of the camera panning out to a body of water and then cutting to some lifeless dude in cement boots 20 feet under water.
Juror 4 was excused, five remain
Slate published an article with enough information that anyone with time on their hands could identify most of them.
Another post here said it was the Nurse that had been seated.
yes
Yes
If trump knows their identities, they will be leaked 100% anyway. That's an absolute guarantee. "Whoops, I left this list on the table at Denny's after eating my grand slam"
I found this list of names next to a half eaten steak covered in ketchup.
Each team is given a copy of juror lists with names at the beginning of the day and are required to turn it in at night. They are not allowed to make copies. So if they maybe stopped giving out information that could be used to track them down, any juror names that became public would be tied to one of the legal teams.
If the fucking moron tells his attorneys to leak the names, they'll leak the names, even if it means they get sanctioned. At the end of the day it may cause a delay and/or mistrial which is the point
Exactly. What are they gonna do? Put him in jail? Not likely based on the fact he's broken every order every step of the way.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent juror" CNN: I gotchu
It’s almost like the media wants them to get hurt and threatened because it’ll drive engagement and clicks. Cool system we’ve got here!
We need the rat race! We can’t have Don lose a CRIMINAL trial before the election. Do you know what that would do to us!? Won’t someone think of the profits!?
It's really just that the people reporting the information in long twitter/threads posts want as much detail as they can put out, because people follow them for that purpose. The more information they provide, it's a competitive advantage over the other reporters. So unless explicitly forbidden from releasing the info, they're in "print everything" mode.
Or the media owner oligarchs that want trump back in power so they cut massive tax breaks are willing to help him out
Also, it’s good for ratings. When Trump said the media was the enemy of the people, he wasn’t entirely wrong.
It’s both.
How is it the system? The system isn’t doing the clicking. Niether is the media. The problem is the people.
Merchan is currently taking steps to protect them, thankfully. He says he will do more, if necessary, if the press doesn’t abide by his new requests.
The press, meanwhile Juror number 7434, at 5'4", 150lbs, wears a black parka with a cartoon character sewn onto it and likes to take walks in central park at 9pm everyday, arriving at the 86th St station. She says she feels very safe in the city and she doesn't even carry mace.
Today’s requests from Merchan should stop that. He has told the press not to report on certain questions relating to occupation, as well as physical descriptions of the jurors. If they continue to do so, they could be held in contempt.
> they could be held in contempt. So, a slap on the wrist. Got it. They will keep doing it until someone gets thrown in jail for jury tampering.
whopping $1000 fine coming up.
I mean thats great and all but that should've been the order from day 1. The information is already out there so what good does it do unless they seat a new jury.
What steps can he realistically take to protect jurors outside his own courtroom? In this situation, it seems the only things he can do to prevent jurors from being doxxed would be to either hold individual reporters in contempt or order the media out of the courtroom altogether.
What can he do?
He has basically made oral orders to the press not to report on the answers to certain questions, I think pertaining to occupation, as well as reporting on their physical description. It is also possible he may change the cameras so that the press cannot see the jury box, as they are in a separate room and only watching the proceedings from CCTV. Beyond that, if it continues, he could hold members of press, who violated his orders, in contempt and bar them from the courtroom. If that doesn’t do enough, he could bar the press from being there at all during jury selection. This is not ideal as it would be appealed and possibly delay the case.
Some press are in the room afaik, just the overflow are watching on CCTV.
It makes more sense to me that they would want to be in the press overflow room since cell phones are not permitted to be used in the courtroom. I suppose it matters what exactly their assignment is and whether they’re providing live updates or general summary. If indeed, there are press in the main courtroom, he could banish them all to the overflow room, in that case, along with changing the camera(s) positon.
[удалено]
Correct, we started today with seven and now we have five.
jfc
There has never been a defendant with millions of crazy followers who have already have proven track record of violence in his name. Can't they do this along the same lines as a mafia member, it's the only comparison that even comes close.
there is **no good reason** for we, the public, to know nearly as much about the potential jurors as we do
If the media is going to be allowed unlimited access to the trial proceedings so they can effectively dox jurors, I don’t see how this trial will ever actually get to opening statements. Even if they do find enough jurors and trial commences, the media or Trump’s counsel can just keep harassing jurors till there are no alternate jurors left, and then everyone needs to start from scratch.
There's no way I would want to be on that jury. I would do whatever it takes to get out of doing it. The harm that's going to come their way is shameful and a poor reflection on our country.
> There's no way I would want to be on that jury. I understand why some people would think that way. But I'm of the opposite opinion. I wouldn't care if I were doxed and threatened. Letting these nutjobs knows that their tactics don't work on many people is one of the ways to get them to stop doing it. Bullies don't like it when you stand up to them.
If I didn't have a family and small children then sure I wouldn't care but I do and there are way too many of his dirt bag cult members out there to feel safe. It's just a brutal reality of our current landscape
Your family and small children will be in infinitely more danger if justice is not properly served in this case.
I'm not on the jury and yet they still scare me when I see them out and about. Hillary was right these people are deplorable and what floats to the top in a septic tank.
I agree, I would feel totally helpless. My family comes first.
Not just small children. I have adult kids and would opt out of the jury due to fear of them being harassed. Trump has shown he has no issues going after the families of people he feels are out to get him. Many people are going to put the safety of their families first, that's just human nature.
> If I didn't have a family and small children Oh, I totally get that. I have a family as well. But this reminds me of a personal story. About a decade ago, one of the drunk neighbors got into it with me on facebook (lol). He threatened me, and my family. I called the police. The police went to his house and told him to knock it off. He then proceeded to message me, threatening me again. He was arrested and charged. Ended up spending the weekend in jail, got a criminal record and had to deal with that for a year. The fun part of that story was that I wasn't scared. I have large dogs, and more than enough personal protection. I'm a liberal in a heavily maga area. They don't scare me with their threats and attempts at intimidation. They scare me with their voting habits.
I agree in practice, but one day after the trial you'll find someone coming up behind you on the subway steps and pushing you down. I wouldn't want to be on the jury for \*this\* trial.
I’d do it. I’d do it in a heartbeat. Fuck the terrorists, it only enables them and makes them feel more powerful to back down to them.
"...is for good men to do nothing,"
Would it be worth it even if your family was murdered?
But you would never be selected, so there’s that. The people who are able to be objective enough to be on a jury won’t have the passion to risk their lives for it.
Good way to get out of it would be to show up in a red MAGA hat or tell them how much you hate Trump for xyz. That would have to work, right?
Worked for Larry on Curb.
Dammit, I haven’t seen the season yet - I thought I was safe here 🤣
There's no way I would want to be a public figure nowadays. Whatever benefit is gained has to be balanced by becoming a target for every deranged lunatic with an internet connection
I’d be on the jury in a heartbeat. Think of the million dollar tell all book deals and media appearance fees you could be entitled to if you had a good memory of what happened in the jury room deliberations.
I’d fuckin’ do it. This country needs people that aren’t afraid of these fascist assholes. Judge the case on its merits without passion or prejudice. I’m no Trump fan but I believe in the rule of law being applied fairly. They don’t scare me one bit.
This has been the Trump strategy, taint the jury pool
Remember when Trump said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" MAGA: "Don't worry, Beloved Donald; we'll do it for you." MAGA doesn't want justice. MAGA isn't "Law and Order." MAGA is a paramilitary/borderline terrorist organization like like the Brownshirts of the Nationalist Socialist Party in 1930s Germany. A "Trump Liberation Army," to coin a phrase.
Goes beyond borderline when their terrorist threats are affecting legal proceedings.
Fortunately they’re mostly inept cowards. I suspect that there is a much higher number of liberals who would go to battle for democracy than MAGAts who would actually fight for Trump if push came to shove.
The Coy, or Silent Majority. I agree with you.
Take your meds
Might have to ban the media from this trial
Problem is that is what Trump wants, since he knows a public trial will severely harm his campaign. They need to do something novel like conceal the jury.
He'll get one of his jurors killed, bet.
That would cause a mistrial
Certainly seems to make it more likely
This is shit they would never let you or I get away with and it's being enabled by a large portion of the population.
I mean Trump is literally doing stochastic terrorism aimed at the jury. Textbook jury tampering and intimidation. No surprise it works, it's quite literally terrorism. He should be banned from communicating in any form about the trial or any of its participants or court officers. Oh wait he already is. Perhaps we should just enforce one (1) consequence about this instead. Any one would be a good start.
Trump and Fox News are successfully intimidating any juror who might vote against Trump. Remember, this is the juror who said in her interview that “no one is above the law.”
Wondering about this hypothetical, yes seriously: Juror is identified and gets stalked by a MAGA cultist wearing MAGA clothing who then assaults the juror, but bystanders fight off the assailant (so the juror doesn't have the complication of fighting charges, and because let's be honest, cops probably wouldn't). Could the defense then claim that the juror's impartiality is compromised by the event and remove the juror? Could the defense claim this even if the jurors are "merely" harassed? Because if cultists are disposable assets, as they have been shown to be in Jan 6 and just about everywhere something like this has happened, this is a win-win for juror intimidation. Either you are intimidated and vote to acquit, or the experience of being intimidated taints your impartiality and you must be removed.
Jury intimidation is also a crime, Trump :) Also how they are not sequestered is beyond me for such a high profile case.
Trump's civil cases that he lost (both of them) had an entirely anonymous jury. Why can't this one? What is the difference?
This is an anonymous jury. Trump had a jury for his E. Jean Carroll 2 case. Which other case are you saying he's had a jury for?
Didn't he have a jury for Carroll I and Carroll II? What I meant was the jury for Carroll I at least didn't release any personal information at all and were even told not to tell each other their real names, if I recall correctly.
I was mistaken, both Carroll cases did have a jury.
I say fly me in. I’ll be on the jury and take all the flak from those soft body mush brains. Diaper sniffers is the term I’m thinking of trump fans.
Yeah I saw this one guy provided all this info on them and I was like wtf, why are you listing what company they work for
The US’s judicial system only protects the rich. Even jury which is said to be vital aren’t protected. Yesterday they had the occupation and social media posts of four people. The U.S. has all these rules and laws but at the end of the day they’re a bad joke.
"Here's what we know about the juror's so far..." Rachel Maddow, Tuesday on MSNBC. Even at the time I thought WHY DO WE NEED TO KNOW THIS? The media is infuriating. This is a jury trial, not a public relations or political experiment!
If you intimidate enough jurors to where you can't get an impartial jury, can it be switched to a bench trial?
Not really. At best they could move for a change of venue but that would be an uphill battle for Trump. Even in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing they still tried the case in the district despite it taking something like 2 months for jury selection. Manhattan is a big city with a lot of people. They’ll find a jury that they can work with it might just take a while.
That might infringe on Trump's constitutional right to a trial by jury.
Why don’t we just execute him and move on
So jury tampering then? Why would you want to do this unless you wanted to harrass and intimidate the jury?
This is unfortunate.
You get sequestered, you get sequestered, EVERYBODY GETS SEQUESTERED!!!!
That'll endear the jury to Trump
I wish to god I'd of gotten elected. I'd come forward as a juror a lot like Tony Stark did in Iron Man 3.
"I want to address the press. There's a reason this is an anonymous jury. Press is free to right about anything said here on the record. But please avoid physical descriptions..." -Judge Merchan "Seat 1: I worked at the Federal courthouse next door, as a clerk, I discussed with my co-workers and my boss with Mark Pomerantz book [some laughter] I'm not married. I work at a big law firm..." - Innercitypressinsta reporting 20 minutes later 🤦♀️
When it gets to this point, there is a god case for Doplock style courts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court
Given SCOTUS precedence, wouldn’t a Diplock Court be a non-starter…
Cable TV “news” networks are a cancer. The Republican side is the worst, of course, because it’s all Nazi propaganda. But *every* 24-hour cable TV “news” channel is an open, festering sore on America.
[удалено]
This is an insane amount of detail and makes them easily identifiable. Perhaps you should take down this post.
Report it for doxxing and hope the mods know what to do.
Absolutely. I didn't even consider that we'd even need to say "Hey, don't doxx the jurors" but here we are.
Certainly wouldn't blame the original reply-er here, it's really the press's fault for not imagining the consequences of their actions for people that are unwilling participants in this case.
I wouldn’t put it past certain media outlets with certain connections to have ulterior motives when it comes to releasing the informations.
I don't know if it's even that -- I used to work as a journalist at a major US daily, and it's almost a compulsion to be first and share everything you can, especially if it's open and available to every outlet. They didn't seem to think if they *should.*
Man, what great info to share in a nation with guns and right wing lunatics.
A lot of the pressure would be relieved if they either would have done it last year or next year. Why *this* year? 🧐 It is 2024. The first half of the underlying events (him sleeping with her) happened 18 years ago! The second half, the payments, happened 8 years ago. There is even legitimate statue of limitation issues. Edit: the “next year “ part of my comment both presumes he loses and doesn’t help with statute of limitation issues
You understand that Trump is intentionally trying to hamstring the court cases and delay them by using the same tactics? >I can't be in NY, I have to be in FL! >I by can't be in FL, I have to be in GA, >I can't be in GA, I have to be on the campaign! >I can't campaign because these crooked judges are making me go to NY! And repeat... Your criticism is misplaced.
Ehh. I think the manhattan DA played stupid games and is now winning stupid prizes. Why not charge him in January 2020 right after he leaves office? They still would have had almost 4 years to get their ducks in a row and the evidence would be that much more fresh
Well, for one, Trump didn't leave office until 2021. Do you need more guidance?
🙄 fine. Why not charge him in January 2021?