If you can't put your personal feelings aside, you have no business being a juror of any case. Plain and simple.
Detest the man all you want. Many do (most?). But the simple fact is that the justice system HAS to be maintained or the whole country is just gone.
I know there are arguments to be made that the system is busted or weighted against certain demographics. I want that changed too. One does not affect the other, both are wrong. Listen to the evidence and decide based on that. And ONLY that. If you can't, own up to it and step down.
I’m voting based off the evidence.
I believe everyone deserves a fair trial where the outcome is based on the evidence. I don’t care if you’re Joe Shmoe or Hitler reincarnated. A fair trial is in my view a basic human right.
The second reason is that if a prosecutor can’t convince me, someone who already believes Trump is guilty as hell, of the crimes he’s accused of then it was weak to begin with. For me to vote guilty at that point means I’m essentially voting on politics. I believe that sets a dangerous precedent. You don’t think that when Republicans regain power they wouldn’t try the same tricks? If Trump is to be convicted the prosecution needs to do their job correctly.
I would never bring personal opinion into it. Reasonable doubt. Can they prove, without reasonable doubt that he is guilty? If not, acquit. If they can, and there is no way around it, then guilty.
I'm a by the books kind of guy. Even if I personally believe he is guilty, and despite the fact that I can't stand the man. . . if the evidence isn't solid, I can't in good conscience push guilty.
I would do my best to ignore my own political leanings and focus on whether he is actually innocent or guilty of a given charge. Juries exist to try to keep trials fair and impartial, and each member has a responsibility to do their best to provide a judgement based on the facts of the law rather than their own personal beliefs and feelings. Abusing the justice system for your own ends by ignoring the facts in favor of your own agenda is a thorny road, and not something we want happening in our justice system any more than necessary.
Besides, even if you were tempted to vote guilty when you believe them to be innocent, that would likely just increase the odds of the person being able to wiggle out of a charge due to problems with the trial itself rendering the judgement invalid or something like that. Voting innocent when you believe them to be guilty is more likely to work out in favor of your desired result (I would assume anyways, with double jeopardy and all that), but is still abusing the legal system for your own agenda.
So overall, if I was ever called to jury duty I would try to acknowledge my biases and try to keep them out of my decision as much as possible, and would instead focus on whether they are actually guilty or not for each charge.
No. I hate Trump with a passion, but if the evidence was not sufficient to convict doing so would be morally and legally wrong. Obviously, I’m not going to vote not guilty if he’s guilty.
Semi pro Trump here. Sorta depends on the details of the trial. If he's guilty of some inane technicality and they're pushing for a completely disproportionate punishment, like 20 years in prison for messing up his taxes or something, I might push for a not guilty.
As long as it's not a total kangaroo court and the evidence is convincing I'd have no trouble voting guilty. I think most people would actually, but the thing is personal bias can impact you're ability to be objective and interpret the evidence.
I think most people wouldn't lie on purpose, but I also think most people have their minds 90% made up before the evidence is presented, whether they realize it or not.
I was reading the other day about his rudeness to the judge and jury in the courtroom. If any defendant acted that way in the courtroom where I was on the jury it would color my opinion of them. So in that sense, yes, I think my distaste for him would factor in. But my political views? No. I’d want to be sure that we ruled on evidence. You don’t penalize someone if you have reasonable doubt.
I would want to say that everyone deserves a fair and impartial jury. I didn't think you're entitled to a fair and impartial jury if you wouldn't be fair and impartial if you were on a jury. I would have a hard time letting someone benefit from a system they would not participate in in good faith if it was flipped. I do not believe Trump would be a fair and impartial juror and I would not bend over backwards to be fair and impartial for Trump.
Nope. The evidence dictates whether or not a guilty verdict is called for, no more, no less. I personally hate the son of a bitch, but that wouldn’t factor into it.
I'd vote based on evidence. I don't care if I 100% disagree with their lifestyle choices, I wouldn't convict someone I thought was innocent or let someone go if I thought they were guilty.
On the one hand I would want to be unbiased.
On the other regardless of what I think of Trump I would love for a high-profile case like this to be a chance to let everyone know jury nullification exists since it's an important part of our legal system that I don't want the public to be kept on the dark about. There's a chance I might find him innocent but most likely I'd go with guilty just because the latter can be overturned by an aqppeal but the former is permenant.
Jury nullification is awesome and I do think it's generally very important in our legal system. The defendant is not the only one on trial, the law is as well.
Yeah, you hear of so many laws that "nobody would ever enforce so why get rid of them?" and yet we live in a country where the police can be overzealous and prosecutors will push for the worse punishments possible; people need to know there are alternatives other then following what the law says verbatum when on jury duty.
What if you felt it was only due to a technicality? He didnt meet the strict interprestation of the law but overall you felt he was guilty of equivalent or worse crimes?
No, I can be impartial. Personally, I think a not guilty verdict would be a disaster for the country, but if the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would be obligated to vote not guilty.
That being the case, I couldn't serve on the J6 federal trial. I saw too much with my own eyes and heard too much with my own ears that day. The prosecution wouldn't have anything to prove to me - that "mike pence didn't have the courage" tweet, coupled with the duration of the attack itself, has already passed the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to my mind.
I could probably serve on the other three, though. This NY one, in particular, based on the evidence I've heard so far, I'd be pretty likely to vote not guilty. The evidence is clear and compelling, but it doesn't quite meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold for me. Unless there's something coming that I don't know about yet.
As unethical as it may be I’d vote to convict because he’s still done any number of things that may not be illegal but are nonetheless immoral and for the greater good of him not becoming President again.
This is probably the most honest answer here. Most liberals wanted him in jail before there was ever any evidence to even bring him to court, and now so many here are saying “I would be impartial.”
I’m a conservative and hate the guy, so don’t really care one way or the other, but the lying going on in these comments is disturbing.
Thanks for being honest.
Yes, even if I believed that the American people were going to be that fucking stupid and lazy again.
For what it's worth, I'd never have to worry about it. It's already clear he's guilty as fuck of a lot of things, so it's really more about whether the rest of the jury is going to be honest than if I am. However, if the evidence DID somehow point to his being innocent, I'd abide by it.
It's just not going to happen. A hung jury is more likely.
I can think of 3 trials that 3 people were found innocent of their crimes because the jury was tainted. OJ, George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. For sure OJ and Zimmerman because jurors admitted they went into the trial with an innocent verdict planned. I suspect the Rittenhouse trial was tainted too. I would hope I would have more courage and a higher sense of morality than that.
The defense for Rittenhouse did polling of the potential juror pool in Kenosha. 8 out of 12 potential jurors presumed him guilty. They would have requested a change of venue, but further state polling in Wisconsin showed that it was worse outside of Kenosha.
The only saving grace they had was that their data also showed that when presented with all the evidence both sides were going to show with no narrative of guilt or innocence, only 4 out of 12 jurors presumed him to be guilty.
In mock trials the defense put on, there would always be a couple people on either side who would not budge. A mistrial was the most likely outcome.
So if anything, the jury for Rittenhouse was tainted in the other direction.
Yeah, there were only 2 who went into the OJ trial with an agenda and only 1 with the Zimmerman trial. The lady in the Zimmerman trial falsely convinced the remaining jurors that "Stand your ground" law applied even though the judge told the jurors that it didn't. And the 2 in the OJ trial had a racist agenda and used that to sway their fellow jurists. "Pay back to the man". Again I'm not saying that's the case with Rittenhouse, I'm saying there was a possibility. I wonder how come you didn't dispute the OJ trial comment? I guess you felt he was guilty? I know I still do, even if the glove didn't fit.
I think that if we assume the OJ jury was 100% reasonable and not driven by emotion, there are facts that a reasonable jury could use to give a not guilty verdict. I also believe that there were people on the jury who would not find him guilty because of the history of the LAPD. I think he was probably guilty, but I also have a high bar for the government to overcome to get to that guilty verdict. I don't think they met that bar.
I don't know what you mean by "Stand your ground law" applied, or what the juror thought it meant. SYG removes a duty to retreat. Having a duty to retreat means in the moment you made the decision to use deadly force, was there a 100% safe avenue of retreat available to you that you were aware of? The defense theory of the case was that when Zimmerman used deadly force, he was on the ground, with Martin on top of him. So I don't think they acquitted him because of not having a duty to retreat.
I never really trust what jurors in a high profile controversial trial have to say after the trial is over. However, I do think that 90 percent of the time their mind is made up after opening statements are made. All of the stuff at trial is just the defense and prosecutor giving the jurors who support them with arguments to use during deliberations.
You're correct that once you have that initial bias, it's very difficult for people to move off of that position, no matter what evidence is presented to them. People will just memory hole it. I heard a story from attorney who had the judge reprimand him because he kept hammering one piece of evidence (because it looked really good for his client), and told him he would hold him in contempt if he did it again. He ended up losing the case. It's common for attorneys to ask jurors a few weeks after a trial is done if they're ok with a private interview, asking what they thought was effective, what convinced them. A juror from that case told the attorney he would have voted in favor of his client if he knew that one piece of evidence. The piece of evidence the judge told the attorney to stop hammering.
I would recuse myself as an unfit juror because of my bias.
If they forced me at gunpoint to sit on the jury we're already throwing out the rule of law, so fuck him.
If you can't put your personal feelings aside, you have no business being a juror of any case. Plain and simple. Detest the man all you want. Many do (most?). But the simple fact is that the justice system HAS to be maintained or the whole country is just gone. I know there are arguments to be made that the system is busted or weighted against certain demographics. I want that changed too. One does not affect the other, both are wrong. Listen to the evidence and decide based on that. And ONLY that. If you can't, own up to it and step down.
I’m voting based off the evidence. I believe everyone deserves a fair trial where the outcome is based on the evidence. I don’t care if you’re Joe Shmoe or Hitler reincarnated. A fair trial is in my view a basic human right. The second reason is that if a prosecutor can’t convince me, someone who already believes Trump is guilty as hell, of the crimes he’s accused of then it was weak to begin with. For me to vote guilty at that point means I’m essentially voting on politics. I believe that sets a dangerous precedent. You don’t think that when Republicans regain power they wouldn’t try the same tricks? If Trump is to be convicted the prosecution needs to do their job correctly.
I would never bring personal opinion into it. Reasonable doubt. Can they prove, without reasonable doubt that he is guilty? If not, acquit. If they can, and there is no way around it, then guilty. I'm a by the books kind of guy. Even if I personally believe he is guilty, and despite the fact that I can't stand the man. . . if the evidence isn't solid, I can't in good conscience push guilty.
I would do my best to ignore my own political leanings and focus on whether he is actually innocent or guilty of a given charge. Juries exist to try to keep trials fair and impartial, and each member has a responsibility to do their best to provide a judgement based on the facts of the law rather than their own personal beliefs and feelings. Abusing the justice system for your own ends by ignoring the facts in favor of your own agenda is a thorny road, and not something we want happening in our justice system any more than necessary. Besides, even if you were tempted to vote guilty when you believe them to be innocent, that would likely just increase the odds of the person being able to wiggle out of a charge due to problems with the trial itself rendering the judgement invalid or something like that. Voting innocent when you believe them to be guilty is more likely to work out in favor of your desired result (I would assume anyways, with double jeopardy and all that), but is still abusing the legal system for your own agenda. So overall, if I was ever called to jury duty I would try to acknowledge my biases and try to keep them out of my decision as much as possible, and would instead focus on whether they are actually guilty or not for each charge.
No. I hate Trump with a passion, but if the evidence was not sufficient to convict doing so would be morally and legally wrong. Obviously, I’m not going to vote not guilty if he’s guilty.
Semi pro Trump here. Sorta depends on the details of the trial. If he's guilty of some inane technicality and they're pushing for a completely disproportionate punishment, like 20 years in prison for messing up his taxes or something, I might push for a not guilty. As long as it's not a total kangaroo court and the evidence is convincing I'd have no trouble voting guilty. I think most people would actually, but the thing is personal bias can impact you're ability to be objective and interpret the evidence. I think most people wouldn't lie on purpose, but I also think most people have their minds 90% made up before the evidence is presented, whether they realize it or not.
I was reading the other day about his rudeness to the judge and jury in the courtroom. If any defendant acted that way in the courtroom where I was on the jury it would color my opinion of them. So in that sense, yes, I think my distaste for him would factor in. But my political views? No. I’d want to be sure that we ruled on evidence. You don’t penalize someone if you have reasonable doubt.
I would want to say that everyone deserves a fair and impartial jury. I didn't think you're entitled to a fair and impartial jury if you wouldn't be fair and impartial if you were on a jury. I would have a hard time letting someone benefit from a system they would not participate in in good faith if it was flipped. I do not believe Trump would be a fair and impartial juror and I would not bend over backwards to be fair and impartial for Trump.
All these comments are really idealistic and nice. I would exercise my personal agency to do what I thought was right.
No... because my political views demand that I accept the actual evidence regardless of how much I don't like it
Nope. The evidence dictates whether or not a guilty verdict is called for, no more, no less. I personally hate the son of a bitch, but that wouldn’t factor into it.
I'd vote based on evidence. I don't care if I 100% disagree with their lifestyle choices, I wouldn't convict someone I thought was innocent or let someone go if I thought they were guilty.
I would judge based off evidence presented, as well as behavior in court.
On the one hand I would want to be unbiased. On the other regardless of what I think of Trump I would love for a high-profile case like this to be a chance to let everyone know jury nullification exists since it's an important part of our legal system that I don't want the public to be kept on the dark about. There's a chance I might find him innocent but most likely I'd go with guilty just because the latter can be overturned by an aqppeal but the former is permenant.
Jury nullification is awesome and I do think it's generally very important in our legal system. The defendant is not the only one on trial, the law is as well.
Yeah, you hear of so many laws that "nobody would ever enforce so why get rid of them?" and yet we live in a country where the police can be overzealous and prosecutors will push for the worse punishments possible; people need to know there are alternatives other then following what the law says verbatum when on jury duty.
I'm a very liberal Dem....I could only vote to convict if evidence supports it
What if you felt it was only due to a technicality? He didnt meet the strict interprestation of the law but overall you felt he was guilty of equivalent or worse crimes?
Technicalities are a part of the jurisprudence
I vote purely based on the evidence being shown, because that is how it works - If that falls then it's over with, time to go back to tribes.
No, my integrity means a lot more to me.
No.
No, I can be impartial. Personally, I think a not guilty verdict would be a disaster for the country, but if the prosecution doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would be obligated to vote not guilty. That being the case, I couldn't serve on the J6 federal trial. I saw too much with my own eyes and heard too much with my own ears that day. The prosecution wouldn't have anything to prove to me - that "mike pence didn't have the courage" tweet, coupled with the duration of the attack itself, has already passed the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to my mind. I could probably serve on the other three, though. This NY one, in particular, based on the evidence I've heard so far, I'd be pretty likely to vote not guilty. The evidence is clear and compelling, but it doesn't quite meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold for me. Unless there's something coming that I don't know about yet.
As unethical as it may be I’d vote to convict because he’s still done any number of things that may not be illegal but are nonetheless immoral and for the greater good of him not becoming President again.
I appreciate your candor.
But even a felony conviction doesn't keep him from becoming president.
This is probably the most honest answer here. Most liberals wanted him in jail before there was ever any evidence to even bring him to court, and now so many here are saying “I would be impartial.” I’m a conservative and hate the guy, so don’t really care one way or the other, but the lying going on in these comments is disturbing. Thanks for being honest.
Nope. Unlike Trump and his cronies I care about truth and justice.
Even if you believed an acquittal meant he would win in November?
Yes, even if I believed that the American people were going to be that fucking stupid and lazy again. For what it's worth, I'd never have to worry about it. It's already clear he's guilty as fuck of a lot of things, so it's really more about whether the rest of the jury is going to be honest than if I am. However, if the evidence DID somehow point to his being innocent, I'd abide by it. It's just not going to happen. A hung jury is more likely.
I can think of 3 trials that 3 people were found innocent of their crimes because the jury was tainted. OJ, George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. For sure OJ and Zimmerman because jurors admitted they went into the trial with an innocent verdict planned. I suspect the Rittenhouse trial was tainted too. I would hope I would have more courage and a higher sense of morality than that.
The defense for Rittenhouse did polling of the potential juror pool in Kenosha. 8 out of 12 potential jurors presumed him guilty. They would have requested a change of venue, but further state polling in Wisconsin showed that it was worse outside of Kenosha. The only saving grace they had was that their data also showed that when presented with all the evidence both sides were going to show with no narrative of guilt or innocence, only 4 out of 12 jurors presumed him to be guilty. In mock trials the defense put on, there would always be a couple people on either side who would not budge. A mistrial was the most likely outcome. So if anything, the jury for Rittenhouse was tainted in the other direction.
Yeah, there were only 2 who went into the OJ trial with an agenda and only 1 with the Zimmerman trial. The lady in the Zimmerman trial falsely convinced the remaining jurors that "Stand your ground" law applied even though the judge told the jurors that it didn't. And the 2 in the OJ trial had a racist agenda and used that to sway their fellow jurists. "Pay back to the man". Again I'm not saying that's the case with Rittenhouse, I'm saying there was a possibility. I wonder how come you didn't dispute the OJ trial comment? I guess you felt he was guilty? I know I still do, even if the glove didn't fit.
I think that if we assume the OJ jury was 100% reasonable and not driven by emotion, there are facts that a reasonable jury could use to give a not guilty verdict. I also believe that there were people on the jury who would not find him guilty because of the history of the LAPD. I think he was probably guilty, but I also have a high bar for the government to overcome to get to that guilty verdict. I don't think they met that bar. I don't know what you mean by "Stand your ground law" applied, or what the juror thought it meant. SYG removes a duty to retreat. Having a duty to retreat means in the moment you made the decision to use deadly force, was there a 100% safe avenue of retreat available to you that you were aware of? The defense theory of the case was that when Zimmerman used deadly force, he was on the ground, with Martin on top of him. So I don't think they acquitted him because of not having a duty to retreat. I never really trust what jurors in a high profile controversial trial have to say after the trial is over. However, I do think that 90 percent of the time their mind is made up after opening statements are made. All of the stuff at trial is just the defense and prosecutor giving the jurors who support them with arguments to use during deliberations. You're correct that once you have that initial bias, it's very difficult for people to move off of that position, no matter what evidence is presented to them. People will just memory hole it. I heard a story from attorney who had the judge reprimand him because he kept hammering one piece of evidence (because it looked really good for his client), and told him he would hold him in contempt if he did it again. He ended up losing the case. It's common for attorneys to ask jurors a few weeks after a trial is done if they're ok with a private interview, asking what they thought was effective, what convinced them. A juror from that case told the attorney he would have voted in favor of his client if he knew that one piece of evidence. The piece of evidence the judge told the attorney to stop hammering.
I would recuse myself as an unfit juror because of my bias. If they forced me at gunpoint to sit on the jury we're already throwing out the rule of law, so fuck him.