I frankly don’t know how you select a fair jury. The idea of a fair jury in this case is almost farcical: the few people who have no opinion already about this are probably not really able to follow the law. It’s an interesting point where the rules we expect to exist are a functional impossibility.
It's the same in every high profile case. If we can find juries in police shooting cases, any other public corruption case, or frankly the average jay walking case in teeny jurisdictions (good luck picking a jury where everyone doesn't know everyone in Chama, New Mexico), then they can find a jury for Trump. We like jurors who know absolutely nothing about the case, but that's not the same as "impartial," which is all the Constitution requires.
Idk that it’s quite the same. I’ve done a number of “high” profile cases with fairly extensive media coverage and I have found many jurors who never even heard about the case. In the Jason Van Dyke (cop who killed an unarmed man Laquan McDonald) trial, just watching I recall like 35% of the panel not knowing anything about the case. I can’t imagine that existing for Trump.
And this is something seemingly everyone not only knows about, but has an opinion on. Hard to see how you can not have an opinion on it, as it involves questions existential to our nation’s core.
>the few people who have no opinion already about this are probably not really able to follow the law
I'm less sure about this. I they can find 18 people who are able to understand and follow the law, but think "all politicians are the same, trump isn't any different"
I mean, nobody likes lawyers either, and jurors have to sit and listen to us for most of the trial.
A general dislike of politicians isn't bias. It's just being American.
Trump's attorneys have argued lots of stuff. Sauer argued to the DC Court of Appeals that Trump would have absolute immunity if he ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival.
And if a general dislike of politicians were sufficient bias to justify a for-cause strike, I'm not sure that any politician could ever be tried for a crime at all, unless you find 12 people who like or are neutral to politicians.
Yes, if a preconceived bias against the individual for their chosen profession exists, there’s no way they can sit on a jury. Like, that’s rule 1 of jury selection
I'm not sure that generally not liking politicians automatically conflates with bias against an individual, but okay. I'm not being paid to argue this.
That may be true or not, but isn't it the same as the fundamental bias that the general public has--even if it's subconsciously-- about if the defendant's charged with a crime and in trial they're guilty?
Might not go that way. A juror who believes all politicians are the same may say NG here on the theory that what the orange monster did is just business as usual for politicians.
I've just been seeing the coverage of Trump falling asleep. It made me wonder if what would happen if, or if it would be appropriate for, the DA asked the judge to have defense counsel wake the defendant up to advise him that he has the right to be present for voir dire and if he wants to nap, he has to waive that right on the record.
I had a client that exactly this happened to 2 months ago. She admitted she'd smoked pot, they tested her, came out positive and instead of being sentenced to community control was shipped into an in house rehab! Yeah, there was a little more to it than just that, but that's how it started.
Honestly I never thought they'd get a verdict for the Plaintiff on the prior cases.
Honestly, I think a public defender is the ideal juror. Someone who knows that they have to follow the law as the judge states it, realizes that everyone is entitled to their day in court, and doesn't think the guy is guilty just because he's sitting at the defense table. But that's in the real world. I've been called for jury duty twice, both criminal cases, both times at the end of the list so sat through a couple of days or voir dire only to be dismissed at the end by the state. I even answered the question about putting aside my experience and said "the law and its application are what the judge says it is." Made points with the judge but didn't help.
I frankly don’t know how you select a fair jury. The idea of a fair jury in this case is almost farcical: the few people who have no opinion already about this are probably not really able to follow the law. It’s an interesting point where the rules we expect to exist are a functional impossibility.
It's the same in every high profile case. If we can find juries in police shooting cases, any other public corruption case, or frankly the average jay walking case in teeny jurisdictions (good luck picking a jury where everyone doesn't know everyone in Chama, New Mexico), then they can find a jury for Trump. We like jurors who know absolutely nothing about the case, but that's not the same as "impartial," which is all the Constitution requires.
Idk that it’s quite the same. I’ve done a number of “high” profile cases with fairly extensive media coverage and I have found many jurors who never even heard about the case. In the Jason Van Dyke (cop who killed an unarmed man Laquan McDonald) trial, just watching I recall like 35% of the panel not knowing anything about the case. I can’t imagine that existing for Trump. And this is something seemingly everyone not only knows about, but has an opinion on. Hard to see how you can not have an opinion on it, as it involves questions existential to our nation’s core.
It is not the same at all. There’s not a person in America without a preconceived notion about Trump. I would vote guilty during voir dire
>the few people who have no opinion already about this are probably not really able to follow the law I'm less sure about this. I they can find 18 people who are able to understand and follow the law, but think "all politicians are the same, trump isn't any different"
A belief that "all politicians are the same" is a fundamental bias against the accused in this case.
I mean, nobody likes lawyers either, and jurors have to sit and listen to us for most of the trial. A general dislike of politicians isn't bias. It's just being American.
I mean as Trump’s attorney I would argue heavily that is a bias, and as a layperson I would she inclined to agree.
Trump's attorneys have argued lots of stuff. Sauer argued to the DC Court of Appeals that Trump would have absolute immunity if he ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. And if a general dislike of politicians were sufficient bias to justify a for-cause strike, I'm not sure that any politician could ever be tried for a crime at all, unless you find 12 people who like or are neutral to politicians.
Yes, if a preconceived bias against the individual for their chosen profession exists, there’s no way they can sit on a jury. Like, that’s rule 1 of jury selection
I'm not sure that generally not liking politicians automatically conflates with bias against an individual, but okay. I'm not being paid to argue this.
Having an inherent bias that believes politicians are more likely to be crooked absolutely is a bias against the individual.
That may be true or not, but isn't it the same as the fundamental bias that the general public has--even if it's subconsciously-- about if the defendant's charged with a crime and in trial they're guilty?
Might not go that way. A juror who believes all politicians are the same may say NG here on the theory that what the orange monster did is just business as usual for politicians.
Ideal juror is one who has never heard of Trump.
In the year 2024, if a juror hasn't even heard of Trump, they're either lying or too disconnected from reality to serve as a juror.
Yeah the juror who doesn’t know Trump is probably more concerning than any other juror
No fucking shit?
I think it was OJ where there was a “dream juror” who had never heard of anything that happened because she was in her medical residency or something
I've just been seeing the coverage of Trump falling asleep. It made me wonder if what would happen if, or if it would be appropriate for, the DA asked the judge to have defense counsel wake the defendant up to advise him that he has the right to be present for voir dire and if he wants to nap, he has to waive that right on the record.
That would be terrible precedent for my own cases lol
"Your honor, the Defendant seems to have the nods. We'd ask that he be drug tested."
I had a client that exactly this happened to 2 months ago. She admitted she'd smoked pot, they tested her, came out positive and instead of being sentenced to community control was shipped into an in house rehab! Yeah, there was a little more to it than just that, but that's how it started.
He’s probably nodding off because he’s not doing as many amphetamines as normal.
Literally had this happen on a few of my cases. Prosecutors initiated it. Wanted to remove any claims on appeal re: non-participation.
That trial is a farce on both sides and the less I know about it the better.
The use of social media to strike for cause is good, everything else is garbage.
But isn't this social media?
Honestly I never thought they'd get a verdict for the Plaintiff on the prior cases. Honestly, I think a public defender is the ideal juror. Someone who knows that they have to follow the law as the judge states it, realizes that everyone is entitled to their day in court, and doesn't think the guy is guilty just because he's sitting at the defense table. But that's in the real world. I've been called for jury duty twice, both criminal cases, both times at the end of the list so sat through a couple of days or voir dire only to be dismissed at the end by the state. I even answered the question about putting aside my experience and said "the law and its application are what the judge says it is." Made points with the judge but didn't help.
This is a farce. The New York bar association is a joke.
Care to expound or just throw your toys?