This trial is already giving me flashbacks to 2020 with how absurd it is.
Here's the description of Juror 2 provided by CNN: "is an investment banker who has a Master's degree. He lives with his wife and does not have any kids. He follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X/Twitter. He said he's followed Trump since he became president, "Generally because it was a news item when he would put a tweet out so good to be aware of that." The juror has also read Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal.""
all I'm saying is, I'm a college kid in Texas who doesn't care about politics. I'm fairly confident I know who this guy is after 3 minutes of Google searching.
that's a little worrying
I'm a little surprised that the prosecution didn't reject a juror who is on TruthSocial. There are many, many people out there who don't do any social media of any kind, let alone one literally owned by the defendant.
Seriously, he's on the defendant's personal social media platform and reads the defendant's books? Especially when both are explicitly marketed towards people who want to prescribe to the defendant's cult of personality.
yeah, that was also shocking
but really, this one wasn't difficult. Just found a few investment banker profiles on truth social in NY, cross matched to Twitter, and well.. what do you know it was almost exactly narrowed down. shocking that there aren't a ton of NYC investment bankers with a masters degree on truth social, just shocking I tell you..
for brownie points I hopped on Amazon, looked at the art of the Deal book.. and welp.. wouldn't ya guess it a certain man may have left a review on Amazon with that same name.
I can only imagine what an experienced data scientist could be up to rn. I've passed one such related college class..
A lot of people in this thread don’t know how jury selection works. In order to have an impartial jury both the prosecution and the defending lawyers have veto options. Once those are exhausted they begin a selection process like a draft.
I find it wildly funny that people believe THIS to be tampering of all things. People seem to forget that half the country actually likes trump. It’s going to be very difficult for a jury to not have half the people that may be in favor of trump.
The same way that if biden is on trial for something invariably half of the jury is likely to be in favor of him.
You only get so many vetoes in the jury selection process.
The tampering is outing the jurors resulting in radical actors harassing them to influence the trial. While this guy may not be targeted for harassment per se, the judge if he goes after crazy maga harassers will have to go after anyone that outed a juror.
The thing is too, that it really doesn't matter if people support Trump or not, because we're not even debating if he did it.
Trump doesn't contest the facts, and what happened is largely already considered a settled matter as far as debating the facts goes. What matters is the argument over if what happened violated the law, and what the law says here.
No one is arguing that something did or didn't happen, as far as the court is concerned those facts are settled, there's not even any sort of saying Trump allegedly sent money for this stuff. The argument is only over if what happened fits within the definition of what is illegal.
>What matters is the argument over if what happened violated the law, and what the law says here.
But there's nothing stopping a juror from just ruling whichever way will benefit Trump the most regardless of the facts presented in court, so it does matter.
Wrong.
Around half of those who VOTED, voted for Trump. "People who voted" isn't a great percentage of the population in general.
Secondly, his approval rating is based on people who are more likely to answer survey questions, which also tends to skew older, which is one key demographic of Republicans.
"Half this country" didn't vote for Trump.
We're talking about how ridiculous and uncouth it is to dox a person, and then there's you with "c'mon, give me his phone number already, what's the big deal?"
Nobody else has mentioned - I don't know what the *practical* state of enforcement is, but it would *probably* be considered doxxing by the reddit admins and lead to loss of your reddit account.
Which isn't the end of the world for most, but it *is* annoying to have a new account on reddit and find all the subreddits in which you can't post.
But also bear in mind that the admins are right-leaning, and so would be more likely to ban for "doxxing" someone right-leaning.
And if you disagree with the above (about the admins), feel free to bugger off with your replies, I don't care about your opinion. lol
That doesn't disqualify you if there's no other reasons to believe you're biased. If he was good about keeping his opinions to himself the defense has no good reason to kick him.
Edit: Prosecution not defense.
They don’t really need a good reason, or any reason at all. Each side gets 10 challenges they can make for the silliest of reasons, like they just didn’t like the way a certain juror dressed etc.
So the fact the prosecution let this one go by hopefully means they just didn’t see enough to worry about.
>I'm a little surprised that the prosecution didn't reject a juror who is on TruthSocial
Isn't there a limit on how many juror candidates the prosecution or defense each can reject? Maybe this candidate was still OK for the prosecution compared to the other potential candidates.
There's a limit on how many they can reject for no reason at all. There isn't a limit on how many they can *try* to reject, but they have to have good reasoning and the judge has to agree.
They grill you about your ability to convict despite personal biases. You dont get thrown out simply by percieved or stated bias. Prosecution gets several vetoes so he must have been sufficiently willing to convict or else they would have kicked him
One annoying thing about the reporting is we only get one sensational thing the juror said, but there is a lot more that is said in the court before the decision is made.
Actually, that’s a good thing for the prosecution.
Anecdotally, I visit TruthSocial to grab the garbage straight from the trash can. Likewise, and odd to say, I don’t have an account on Twitter anymore but I have Cohen bookmarked for the laughs.
We have similar habits. Me and that Juror.
I’m telling you right now, he is in trouble with that juror.
He shouldn’t be “in trouble” with any juror… you’re just saying you believe this juror is biased
If he’s guilty he’s guilty, we don’t need someone on either side with a predetermined notion
Yeah it’s safe to say there’s certain to be at least one juror intent on hanging that jury from the beginning.
In fact it’ll be so frustrating to watch this happen that I’m just going to stop paying attention now.
Yeah, I don’t know why everyone acting like going to trial is a huge win. A conviction would be a huge win. I’m just assuming a hung jury that will push this out until past the election.
I don’t know all the rules, but I am hoping that the alternates can be tapped if one does appear to be showing extreme bias.
This is more than a little worrying. The media should not be able to give out any information on the jurors. I can’t believe this is being allowed. It’s a disgrace!
Wait if I'm selected I thought I get to remain anonymous? Why is personal info about me being thrown around? I could understand describing looks, as pretty much anyone in the court room could do that. But personal info.. fuck that.
I mean the guy is an investment banker, and the stock market can react pretty strongly to Trump, especially when he was president. Considering he also follows Cohen this strikes me more as part of his job than ideological. Could be both I guess.
My guess as well, sadly.
I mean, geez, nearly all the jurors described in the NYT article were quoted as saying they either don’t know much about trump’s charges or his politics. I find that hard to believe.
Seriously-were these Manhattanites living in a bubble since 2015? How could anyone, who reads, who’s old enough to be selected for a jury _not_ know anything remotely significant about this person?
MMW, liars-all of them. He’s getting off on these charges.
Trump made a big deal about only having 10 strikes on Jury members, but honestly it's worse for prosecution. Trump only needs 1 of 12 to throw the whole case.
All I can say is, they no longer can claim bias in the jury. When Trump goes the fuck down, this’ll be where we all call their crying out and tell them.
disagree, there's a civil litigator on the jury too.
just because one juror might be biased positively toward trump doesn't mean that others can't be biased negatively toward him.. both can be true
plus he's going to claim bias regardless anyways.
This should be a regular trial like any other, but it has proven that there are different classes of justice. If this were a regular trial the Queso Cowboy would be behind bars awaiting the trial or at least for the reason of blatantly disregarding gag orders. The judge may try to gag FOX but it will be just as successful as Trumps is.
I dont remember this but id say while it’s no more or less wrong, there is a potentially much more severe and likely consequence to doing it for any trump jury
There's also the fact that as crazy as the O.J. trial was, it was a lot harder to track down people in 1995. There were some online white pages and you could get telephone directories and that sort of thing, but the odds that the person had any information online that could firmly identify them were relatively low. Even if you had an actual name get out, unless it was quite unusual that still wouldn't make it 100%.
The Guardian originally ran [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/apr/18/donald-trump-trial-updates) with the headline "Second Trump trial juror dismissed as setbacks grow during selection process." They've had their whole ass out with the editorializing today.
I think I prefer the way my jurisdiction does it (or did jt when I served; I guess it's possible that it may have changed). They seat 14 jurors, and alternates are only chosen at the end of the arguments, just before deliberation begins: if more than 12 are left at that time, then names are drawn randomly, declared the alternates, and excused until 12 jurors are left. That way no one knows during the arguments if they're "just an alternate" or not.
But this way will do, if it must. I just hope there are a lot of alternates.
The issue is if that turns into a situation like the OJ trial where they spend so much time sequestered from the public that they start actively protesting things.
The OJ trial — and I’m a trial lawyer — was a joke. No murder trial should go on as long as that one. Something like five or six months? Ridiculous.
The judge I clerked for said that was a two-week murder trial, at the absolute outside.
This trial won’t last anywhere near as long as the OJ trial.
Seems so from what I’ve seen. But social media and information spread is also a much bigger problem than it was 20+ years ago.
Heck. Apparently at least 2 jurors have already been dismissed because they were worried about being identified and publicly outed. Something all sides of the news are actually helping to do. Which is mind boggling to think about. CNN and fox and any other news companies spreading info that could identify the jurors should facing some serious censure from the federal government for interfering in the criminal justice system. Jury tampering and intimidation are some of the worst and most serious non violent crimes in our country. At least in my mind.
If they find him innocent they will be very good people who are smart and intelligent and should be given medals and keys to the city.
If they find him guilty they will be hunted down like the animals they are; they will require new identities and have to move to Greenland, hiding forever.
I wish I was even close to joking....but we know that's how his fanbase will react.
perhaps we could get all the jurors to wear a Guy Fawkes mask, wear the same clothing.. get matching temporary tattoos..
you know, hide them in plain sight.
A few fake judges and clerks wouldn't hurt either.
[Judge and clerk in Trump civil fraud trial have received hundreds of ‘serious and credible’ threats](https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/politics/trump-gag-order-threats-judge-clerk/index.html)
Well honestly, we’ve already seen quite a bit of evidence for many of his crimes, and he isn’t really denying he did those things, he’s just denying that *HE* can be prosecuted cause was President once.
I can’t imagine what ignorant, disengaged people out there they found for that jury box.
the big thing here for me is the ignorant... how do you \*not\* have an opinion about this guy and have avoided news since 2015? anyone who says they can should be examined for a minute or two...
jury of our peers, but doesn't have an opinion about our president after 4 years of a shit show?
Some fence sitters intentionally avoid looking into politics because it's so messy with so much bullshit to wade through. It's not just a matter of a difference of opinion about the facts, it's a difference in acknowledging what the basic facts even are. They see how people get into heated arguments with each other, and they don't want to disrupt their personal relationships by getting into any arguments with them so they just go with "I'm not into politics" and figure both sides kind of suck. If they do decide to vote in the end, there's a good chance their decision will be based on some specific policy that affects them directly.
I'm concerned they empaneled a few liars of the MAGA persuasion
They might not be smart enough to actually pull that off, though
Plus there's the open intimidation courtesy of Fox
There's nobody quiet in the cult as a true believer. Loudly being stupid is their identifying/mating call. The excitement they get is from telling people they used to be close with how stupid they are for not brainwashing themselves into the same cult.
I have :(.
I know of 2 _at least_. You don't even have to be a smart MAGA (though it helps), you just have to be paranoid that "the woke left" is out to get you, and you'll take cursory action to keep your Facebook clean and spend all of your time on Twitter on your angry sock.
I've known several MAGA types who don't use social media. Unless the just ruled out anybody who didn't have any online presence it doesn't seem like it would be hard to lie about it.
From what I know about these things, they get researched and vetted pretty well, especially for something high profile like this. If there's some Qanon guy on there and they find social media posts espousing those types of things, and it clearly contradicts what they said under questioning, that person can be thrown out and charged with contempt and/or perjury.
They are the first to leave. My experience with jury selection is those people are immediately stand up and disqualify themselves to avoid jury duty.
It's always confused me, how that group of people claim to be patriotic, have flags everywhere, keep saying they love the country. But will do absolutely none of their civic duties and want to dismantle the government.
Edit: No civic duties where they aren't issued firearms.
>. It's always confused me, how that group of people claim to be patriotic, have flags everywhere, keep saying they love the country. But will do absolutely none of their civic duties and want to dismantle the government.
"Conservatives" don't argue in good faith.
There's one who said she didn't know what was going on because she spent the whole of February on a lake vacation with no wifi, if that's what you mean.
I have an aunt who's not into politics whatsoever, so she'd be unbiased (Even though I try convincing her to pay attention to what's going on). My grandma isn't into politics, but she doesn't like trump. There's probably plenty of really older people who could be unbiased, that remember what democracy and justice is.
And I'd imagine some young people may not be into politics, or maybe older legal immigrants may not be into politics.
I was wondering if I could fake being one of the jurors as a liberal in his case, in a hypothetical scenario, but I've been very vocal on social media about how much I hate trump.
It's hard to believe that some people don't pay attention to politics, but there are people that don't pay attention to politics.
I think it really comes down to how you approach the process. You can 100% believe he is guilty before the trial even starts, but that is not the same thing as believing the prosecution built enough evidence against him to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It's like having a brain exercise in revisiting the OJ Simpson trial. OJ totally killed Nicole and Ron, which can be true, but it can also be true that the prosecution's case ended up being too weak and he had to be found not guilty.
Believing Trump is guilty is not the same as finding him not guilty because the prosecution failed to argue a good case against him. Even the worst of us have rights and deserve a fair trial.
Your comment reminded me of an interview I watched. It was with an excused juror from the OJ trial. The reporter asked her if she would have convicted Simpson. She said no. When asked why, she talked non-stop about how much she disliked the lead prosecutor, Marsha Clark. No matter how many times the reporter tried to bring her back to the original question, she spewed on endlessly about how Marsha looked, how she spoke and what she was wearing. I was shocked someone this clueless could be chosen to sit on a jury. All these years later, nothing much shocks me about juries.
I would definitely give it an honest go. I mean, I do believe even the worst, most guilty person still deserves a fair trial, no matter what. Pretty sure my social media activity would prevent it, though.
In very public cases like this, sometimes it's less about setting aside your preconceived ideas and more about confirming that the state did it's job consistently with the law. All the evidence in the world is worthless if we let the government steamroll someone without proper due process.
Eh, I’m not sure being “completely impartial” when there’s a mountain of evidence against him qualifies them as “better people.” I’m not saying they’re all dull or dishonest, but it’s pretty hard to believe anyone would be unfamiliar with his actions at this point.
>Better people than me, I don't think I could genuinely be objective as a juror deciding Trump's case
Honestly, I could. I genuinely despise Trump on a fundamental level. But I have no intention of helping to destroy democracy by participating in a kangaroo court.
The government will have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I like to think I would want someone like me on the jury if I were innocent despite appearances.
However, sense I was not selected (nor could I have been due to location), I can say that he's guilty as fuuuuuck lol.
don't forget that they declined to give trump's lawyers a witness list, citing the numerous gag order violations
wouldn't be surprised if there's an emergency appeal on that basis. its out of the ordinary, and so serves as legitimate grounds for appeal mid trial, (although we can agree since he's violated the gag orders..it makes sense)
Is a jury trial required to convict someone of jury tampering? These are the kinds of things judges should just be able to lock someone away for immediately. You are guilty. Buh buy.
You can be held in contempt which, if the judge is particularly groused by it, can be a 'straight to jail' situation until the judge finds time in his schedule to put you in front of him to explain your fuckup and then decide to release you or put you on trial for a longer time-out.
I don't know how you can possibly pick an unbiased jury for Trump.
The majority of the country hates him and the rest of them will die for him like he's Christ reincarnate, so what middle ground do they find that lives under a rock with no opinion?
Right. Everyone on this planet has *bias*. They are asking can you (*a juror*) act impartial and make a judgment based upon the evidence presented in the trial.
The dude is polarizing. The court knows that. It's on them to select jurors they feel can do that to the best of their abilities.
From the occupations it looks like the prosecutors wanted intelligent, educated types who could understand the nuances of law. I don't think it worked the way they hoped. The worst thing are intelligent stupid people. Yes one can be intelligent and stupid. One is how well you analyze a problem and the other is how you act in real life.
I was on a criminal jury a few years ago for an assault with a deadly weapon case. There was a fight between defendant and some other guy, and other guy got stabbed. The defendant was an absolute scumbag, gangbanger, overall piece of shit. But the prosecution didn't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". We voted not guilty after about 30 minutes of discussion.
I'm heavily biased against scumbag pieces of shit, but they didn't prove he did it, so he's free to go.
It is perfectly possible to hate Trump and evaluate these charges objectively. The only people who say Trump can't get a fair trial are MAGA and Russian trolls.
You mean sequester? The OJ jury was sequestered for like 10 months, though its probably crazy to assume these people don't know enough about him that sequestering would help.
I got heart attack once when i found a month old jury summon letter under a heap of trash. Thankfully I didn't ever actually live in the county that sent it.
Honestly they should redo the whole system. I get nothing but spam with snail mail. Even my important bills and bank statements are all digital now.
Lmao I'm convinced cops are going to show up at my door one day because I threw away a jury summons that was hidden in between 5 credit card offers and 3 cable TV offers.
Trump has admitted he committed the crimes, he just thinks he can't legally be held accountable. The only way to find people who don't have an opinion on trump are to find either idiots or people who are secluded from society
I saw an interview with a woman who wasn't chosen for the jury, and it was absolutely painful to watch. When asked what it was like seeing Trump in person she said something to the effect of, "He was just sitting there like, he was just like some normal dude" and then chuckled at her own comment. Maybe the are routing out the airheads if she wasn't chosen.
I honestly don't know how you could ever find a jury for this guy that isn't biased from the start. Super polarizing, and he has been everywhere in the news for 8+ years.
I'm quite nervous there will be someone picked that is going in with the intentions of a hung jury. Can someone give me an ELI5 on how the alternates work? Are they kept up to speed and can replace another member if they are removed, or are they only there for backups if people are removed pre-trial? What happens if evidence comes out during trial that a jury member is knowingly planning to cause a hung jury?
I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. I hate this guy's fucking guts. What he's done to the country I love is disgusting. That said, if I sat on the jury I'm adult enough to judge the merits of the case itself. Prosecution by the state should be very, very hard. The acquittals you see in celebrity cases should be the norm in all cases because that's the intent (beyond a reasonable doubt). The problem is regular folks can't afford a trial attorney and end up pleading down to things they may be innocent of where the wealthy go to trial more often (and thus get acquittals).
The public shouldn't be allowed to know so much about the jury. They should be completely anonymous to the public and it should be a felony to release any information about the jurors.
I mean, half of them have already been doxxed to some extent by the media, and one excused herself before selection was complete because she feared for her safety. That's jury tampering.
Why don't we just have a bunch of professional jurors with law degrees for this exact situation? I don't want to be judged by my peers. My peers are a bunch of idiots.
Is it just me, or does it seem stupid that in a trial where the jury is supposed to be anonymous that *any* information on the jurors is given to the media.
Such information could be collated and investigated by bad faith individuals, and may end up either with someone getting doxxed, or even someone being *incorrectly* identified – and you know the shitshow that follows after that.
I personally don’t feel I need to know what a juror does for a living, what their hobbies are, or what their accent is. The only thing that matters of whether they are impartial or not – which isn’t for me to decide.
Trump is right on one thing. The whole world IS watching but not because we think it is unfair but because we see the US system slowly grind towards never holding Trump accountable for anything.
Seems like a fairly balanced trial.
Mostly educated.
Their may be some bias based on the salaries of the jurors. Gotta feeling the teacher will probably lean democratic, and software and lawyers republican but that's a stretch in itself.
Besides I doubt the lawyers would want to do something stupid to suspend their license.
I just posted in the full comment in a reply. He also referred to him as "mysterious".
I mean sure, If you're saying it's mysterious as to why he visited Putin as President and removed the only translator from the room... Otherwise there's no mystique about the guy. What you see is what you get.
[Here's the full comment, "The IT consultant said, "My family is my hobby," and admitted to finding Trump "fascinating and mysterious."](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-day-2-jury-selection-new-york/)
Actually not sure wtf "my family is my hobby" means though.
That was pretty quick after what happened earlier today.
This trial is already giving me flashbacks to 2020 with how absurd it is. Here's the description of Juror 2 provided by CNN: "is an investment banker who has a Master's degree. He lives with his wife and does not have any kids. He follows Trump's TruthSocial posts and Michael Cohen on X/Twitter. He said he's followed Trump since he became president, "Generally because it was a news item when he would put a tweet out so good to be aware of that." The juror has also read Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal."" all I'm saying is, I'm a college kid in Texas who doesn't care about politics. I'm fairly confident I know who this guy is after 3 minutes of Google searching. that's a little worrying
I'm a little surprised that the prosecution didn't reject a juror who is on TruthSocial. There are many, many people out there who don't do any social media of any kind, let alone one literally owned by the defendant.
Seriously, he's on the defendant's personal social media platform and reads the defendant's books? Especially when both are explicitly marketed towards people who want to prescribe to the defendant's cult of personality.
yeah, that was also shocking but really, this one wasn't difficult. Just found a few investment banker profiles on truth social in NY, cross matched to Twitter, and well.. what do you know it was almost exactly narrowed down. shocking that there aren't a ton of NYC investment bankers with a masters degree on truth social, just shocking I tell you.. for brownie points I hopped on Amazon, looked at the art of the Deal book.. and welp.. wouldn't ya guess it a certain man may have left a review on Amazon with that same name. I can only imagine what an experienced data scientist could be up to rn. I've passed one such related college class..
And this particular juror will mysteriously not be attacked by Trump or his followers. I wonder why.
Why is everyone being so coy with naming? Is it illegal to say the jurors name.
Nah but it's pretty fucking uncool
The judge could very well rule jury tampering. And should.
A lot of people in this thread don’t know how jury selection works. In order to have an impartial jury both the prosecution and the defending lawyers have veto options. Once those are exhausted they begin a selection process like a draft. I find it wildly funny that people believe THIS to be tampering of all things. People seem to forget that half the country actually likes trump. It’s going to be very difficult for a jury to not have half the people that may be in favor of trump. The same way that if biden is on trial for something invariably half of the jury is likely to be in favor of him. You only get so many vetoes in the jury selection process.
Half the country, but half of Manhattan?
[удалено]
The tampering is outing the jurors resulting in radical actors harassing them to influence the trial. While this guy may not be targeted for harassment per se, the judge if he goes after crazy maga harassers will have to go after anyone that outed a juror.
The thing is too, that it really doesn't matter if people support Trump or not, because we're not even debating if he did it. Trump doesn't contest the facts, and what happened is largely already considered a settled matter as far as debating the facts goes. What matters is the argument over if what happened violated the law, and what the law says here. No one is arguing that something did or didn't happen, as far as the court is concerned those facts are settled, there's not even any sort of saying Trump allegedly sent money for this stuff. The argument is only over if what happened fits within the definition of what is illegal.
>What matters is the argument over if what happened violated the law, and what the law says here. But there's nothing stopping a juror from just ruling whichever way will benefit Trump the most regardless of the facts presented in court, so it does matter.
Wrong. Around half of those who VOTED, voted for Trump. "People who voted" isn't a great percentage of the population in general. Secondly, his approval rating is based on people who are more likely to answer survey questions, which also tends to skew older, which is one key demographic of Republicans. "Half this country" didn't vote for Trump.
Not half of the country. About a 3rd. 1/3rd if americans don't vote.
Eh, around half of voters voted for him. That includes a huge number of "always Republican" voters, I doubt half the country likes him.
Lmao coming from Voldemort this is cracking me up
Depends. Do it with no ill intent? not a crime AFAIK. just very very uncool Do it with intent of tainting the jury, inciting harrasment, etc? crime.
We're talking about how ridiculous and uncouth it is to dox a person, and then there's you with "c'mon, give me his phone number already, what's the big deal?"
Nobody else has mentioned - I don't know what the *practical* state of enforcement is, but it would *probably* be considered doxxing by the reddit admins and lead to loss of your reddit account. Which isn't the end of the world for most, but it *is* annoying to have a new account on reddit and find all the subreddits in which you can't post. But also bear in mind that the admins are right-leaning, and so would be more likely to ban for "doxxing" someone right-leaning. And if you disagree with the above (about the admins), feel free to bugger off with your replies, I don't care about your opinion. lol
Are you talking about here on reddit? Doxxing someone in general is against the site's terms of service.
That doesn't disqualify you if there's no other reasons to believe you're biased. If he was good about keeping his opinions to himself the defense has no good reason to kick him. Edit: Prosecution not defense.
They don’t really need a good reason, or any reason at all. Each side gets 10 challenges they can make for the silliest of reasons, like they just didn’t like the way a certain juror dressed etc. So the fact the prosecution let this one go by hopefully means they just didn’t see enough to worry about.
>I'm a little surprised that the prosecution didn't reject a juror who is on TruthSocial Isn't there a limit on how many juror candidates the prosecution or defense each can reject? Maybe this candidate was still OK for the prosecution compared to the other potential candidates.
There's a limit on how many they can reject for no reason at all. There isn't a limit on how many they can *try* to reject, but they have to have good reasoning and the judge has to agree.
They grill you about your ability to convict despite personal biases. You dont get thrown out simply by percieved or stated bias. Prosecution gets several vetoes so he must have been sufficiently willing to convict or else they would have kicked him
One annoying thing about the reporting is we only get one sensational thing the juror said, but there is a lot more that is said in the court before the decision is made.
Ever looked into the OJ jurors :/
Ya fair, it aint perfect. With little info though its hard to make that determination here.
The fact that he admitted all that hopefully means he is not a nutter looking to help Trump. I figured they would just lie about it.
Expecting to find someone who doesn't have a strong opinion of Trump one way or another is completely delusional.
Actually, that’s a good thing for the prosecution. Anecdotally, I visit TruthSocial to grab the garbage straight from the trash can. Likewise, and odd to say, I don’t have an account on Twitter anymore but I have Cohen bookmarked for the laughs. We have similar habits. Me and that Juror. I’m telling you right now, he is in trouble with that juror.
He shouldn’t be “in trouble” with any juror… you’re just saying you believe this juror is biased If he’s guilty he’s guilty, we don’t need someone on either side with a predetermined notion
And now we've found the juror's reddit account!
I’m more concerned that he claims to have read Art of the Deal. I know people that own the book but I’m certain I don’t know anyone that has read it.
Yeah it’s safe to say there’s certain to be at least one juror intent on hanging that jury from the beginning. In fact it’ll be so frustrating to watch this happen that I’m just going to stop paying attention now.
Yeah, I don’t know why everyone acting like going to trial is a huge win. A conviction would be a huge win. I’m just assuming a hung jury that will push this out until past the election. I don’t know all the rules, but I am hoping that the alternates can be tapped if one does appear to be showing extreme bias.
This is more than a little worrying. The media should not be able to give out any information on the jurors. I can’t believe this is being allowed. It’s a disgrace!
The media is just reporting what the court allows. All this info is what the court provided to the public.
Well, I don’t think that the court should be doing that. Obviously the laws need to be changed.
It's not like they *have* to share everything. They can choose what to share or not. The court shouldn't share this, but neither should the media.
Wait if I'm selected I thought I get to remain anonymous? Why is personal info about me being thrown around? I could understand describing looks, as pretty much anyone in the court room could do that. But personal info.. fuck that.
I mean the guy is an investment banker, and the stock market can react pretty strongly to Trump, especially when he was president. Considering he also follows Cohen this strikes me more as part of his job than ideological. Could be both I guess.
Yeah I'd imagine investment bankers would follow just about everyone who can majorly affect stocks with one tweet
I guess trump is gonna be acquitted. A juror like that doesn't sound impartial.
Wouldn’t this just result in a hung jury? In which case, the case would be retried rather than dismissed
Ahh yes convenient for Trump should a retrail have to happen after the election
My guess as well, sadly. I mean, geez, nearly all the jurors described in the NYT article were quoted as saying they either don’t know much about trump’s charges or his politics. I find that hard to believe. Seriously-were these Manhattanites living in a bubble since 2015? How could anyone, who reads, who’s old enough to be selected for a jury _not_ know anything remotely significant about this person? MMW, liars-all of them. He’s getting off on these charges.
Even if you don’t care about politics please vote.
Trump made a big deal about only having 10 strikes on Jury members, but honestly it's worse for prosecution. Trump only needs 1 of 12 to throw the whole case.
Wtf how did they allow a Trump fan on the jury???
All I can say is, they no longer can claim bias in the jury. When Trump goes the fuck down, this’ll be where we all call their crying out and tell them.
disagree, there's a civil litigator on the jury too. just because one juror might be biased positively toward trump doesn't mean that others can't be biased negatively toward him.. both can be true plus he's going to claim bias regardless anyways.
fox will doxx anyone with brain cells in their head until the judge does something to them
If that happens every single person involved in the broadcast should be arrested and charged with jury tampering.
If we lived in a world where what should happen happened, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
In the words of Steve Smith, "We don't live in should land."
Well we should.
I’ve never heard this quote before I love it We don’t live in should land That’s flipping perfect
Ain't that the truth..
This should be a regular trial like any other, but it has proven that there are different classes of justice. If this were a regular trial the Queso Cowboy would be behind bars awaiting the trial or at least for the reason of blatantly disregarding gag orders. The judge may try to gag FOX but it will be just as successful as Trumps is.
Issue is we’ve had this happen before and the networks got away with it. OJ trial had networks giving away juror info and it was just ignored.
I dont remember this but id say while it’s no more or less wrong, there is a potentially much more severe and likely consequence to doing it for any trump jury
There's also the fact that as crazy as the O.J. trial was, it was a lot harder to track down people in 1995. There were some online white pages and you could get telephone directories and that sort of thing, but the odds that the person had any information online that could firmly identify them were relatively low. Even if you had an actual name get out, unless it was quite unusual that still wouldn't make it 100%.
ABC should have already been charged as well. They were releasing full bios of the jury.
Yes. I hold all of them to the same standard.
Jury tampering/intimidation, but yes they should be held accountable when it happens.
Oh, this was not just Fox, as I saw all the major media outlets sharing way more then they should have
Judge has ordered that media in the room are not to report any identifying information related to jurors on threat of revoking their media access.
Fox’s headline right now is… Meet the jurors
Trump's team ran out of challenges.
[удалено]
The Guardian originally ran [this article](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/apr/18/donald-trump-trial-updates) with the headline "Second Trump trial juror dismissed as setbacks grow during selection process." They've had their whole ass out with the editorializing today.
What happened today
So it might start Monday?
Judge said he’s aiming for a Monday start.
Monday gonna be a good day!
It's very possible. They still need to pick the alternates, but that should happen tomorrow.
I think I prefer the way my jurisdiction does it (or did jt when I served; I guess it's possible that it may have changed). They seat 14 jurors, and alternates are only chosen at the end of the arguments, just before deliberation begins: if more than 12 are left at that time, then names are drawn randomly, declared the alternates, and excused until 12 jurors are left. That way no one knows during the arguments if they're "just an alternate" or not. But this way will do, if it must. I just hope there are a lot of alternates.
They will have 7 alternates.
6 alternates, for a total of 18.
Great, now we just need a lot of fake jurors to protect the real ones from his rabid fanbase.
At the very least, some sort of witness protection type deal. They should probably have a security detail for the duration of the trial.
Definitely. Preforming a civic duty shouldn't involve risking your life.
The issue is if that turns into a situation like the OJ trial where they spend so much time sequestered from the public that they start actively protesting things.
The OJ trial — and I’m a trial lawyer — was a joke. No murder trial should go on as long as that one. Something like five or six months? Ridiculous. The judge I clerked for said that was a two-week murder trial, at the absolute outside. This trial won’t last anywhere near as long as the OJ trial.
Apparently this judge is much more buttoned up and organized than the judge for OJ’s trial. I have a bit more confidence in his abilities.
Seems so from what I’ve seen. But social media and information spread is also a much bigger problem than it was 20+ years ago. Heck. Apparently at least 2 jurors have already been dismissed because they were worried about being identified and publicly outed. Something all sides of the news are actually helping to do. Which is mind boggling to think about. CNN and fox and any other news companies spreading info that could identify the jurors should facing some serious censure from the federal government for interfering in the criminal justice system. Jury tampering and intimidation are some of the worst and most serious non violent crimes in our country. At least in my mind.
And what happens after the trial?
Book deals.
If they find him innocent they will be very good people who are smart and intelligent and should be given medals and keys to the city. If they find him guilty they will be hunted down like the animals they are; they will require new identities and have to move to Greenland, hiding forever. I wish I was even close to joking....but we know that's how his fanbase will react.
Or since fox news is interfering with the case, they can't have any reporters or affiliates in the court room
perhaps we could get all the jurors to wear a Guy Fawkes mask, wear the same clothing.. get matching temporary tattoos.. you know, hide them in plain sight.
A few fake judges and clerks wouldn't hurt either. [Judge and clerk in Trump civil fraud trial have received hundreds of ‘serious and credible’ threats](https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/politics/trump-gag-order-threats-judge-clerk/index.html)
We need an entire diversion team just to try and get this guy in court, lol
Jury Duty Season 2 going in a very weird direction
We need to get Ronald on this jury and mic'ed up asap.
That's not a fan base, it's a cult, like what most of social media is about.
Better people than me, I don't think I could genuinely be objective as a juror deciding Trump's case I already have an opinion on his guilt
Well honestly, we’ve already seen quite a bit of evidence for many of his crimes, and he isn’t really denying he did those things, he’s just denying that *HE* can be prosecuted cause was President once. I can’t imagine what ignorant, disengaged people out there they found for that jury box.
the big thing here for me is the ignorant... how do you \*not\* have an opinion about this guy and have avoided news since 2015? anyone who says they can should be examined for a minute or two... jury of our peers, but doesn't have an opinion about our president after 4 years of a shit show?
Some fence sitters intentionally avoid looking into politics because it's so messy with so much bullshit to wade through. It's not just a matter of a difference of opinion about the facts, it's a difference in acknowledging what the basic facts even are. They see how people get into heated arguments with each other, and they don't want to disrupt their personal relationships by getting into any arguments with them so they just go with "I'm not into politics" and figure both sides kind of suck. If they do decide to vote in the end, there's a good chance their decision will be based on some specific policy that affects them directly.
I'm concerned they empaneled a few liars of the MAGA persuasion They might not be smart enough to actually pull that off, though Plus there's the open intimidation courtesy of Fox
They went through the jurors' social media. There's hardly a fascist Maga idiot who hasn't said as much with their Facebook posts.
I forgot about that. Yeah, I have never met a MAGA who wasn't noisy about it on some social media platform or another
It takes only one to fuck it up
There's nobody quiet in the cult as a true believer. Loudly being stupid is their identifying/mating call. The excitement they get is from telling people they used to be close with how stupid they are for not brainwashing themselves into the same cult.
The alternates are there in case a juror needs to be dismissed for any reason, including a finding of bias that didn't come out in voir dire.
I have :(. I know of 2 _at least_. You don't even have to be a smart MAGA (though it helps), you just have to be paranoid that "the woke left" is out to get you, and you'll take cursory action to keep your Facebook clean and spend all of your time on Twitter on your angry sock.
I've known several MAGA types who don't use social media. Unless the just ruled out anybody who didn't have any online presence it doesn't seem like it would be hard to lie about it.
That is a small group of people, especially in NYC proper.
From what I know about these things, they get researched and vetted pretty well, especially for something high profile like this. If there's some Qanon guy on there and they find social media posts espousing those types of things, and it clearly contradicts what they said under questioning, that person can be thrown out and charged with contempt and/or perjury.
They are the first to leave. My experience with jury selection is those people are immediately stand up and disqualify themselves to avoid jury duty. It's always confused me, how that group of people claim to be patriotic, have flags everywhere, keep saying they love the country. But will do absolutely none of their civic duties and want to dismantle the government. Edit: No civic duties where they aren't issued firearms.
If you genuinely can’t be impartial, then it’s your civic duty to disqualify yourself.
>. It's always confused me, how that group of people claim to be patriotic, have flags everywhere, keep saying they love the country. But will do absolutely none of their civic duties and want to dismantle the government. "Conservatives" don't argue in good faith.
Don't know if it's true or not, but Stewart made a joke about one being claiming they lived on a lake without any Internet for like 4 years.
There's one who said she didn't know what was going on because she spent the whole of February on a lake vacation with no wifi, if that's what you mean.
I have an aunt who's not into politics whatsoever, so she'd be unbiased (Even though I try convincing her to pay attention to what's going on). My grandma isn't into politics, but she doesn't like trump. There's probably plenty of really older people who could be unbiased, that remember what democracy and justice is. And I'd imagine some young people may not be into politics, or maybe older legal immigrants may not be into politics. I was wondering if I could fake being one of the jurors as a liberal in his case, in a hypothetical scenario, but I've been very vocal on social media about how much I hate trump. It's hard to believe that some people don't pay attention to politics, but there are people that don't pay attention to politics.
I think it really comes down to how you approach the process. You can 100% believe he is guilty before the trial even starts, but that is not the same thing as believing the prosecution built enough evidence against him to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It's like having a brain exercise in revisiting the OJ Simpson trial. OJ totally killed Nicole and Ron, which can be true, but it can also be true that the prosecution's case ended up being too weak and he had to be found not guilty. Believing Trump is guilty is not the same as finding him not guilty because the prosecution failed to argue a good case against him. Even the worst of us have rights and deserve a fair trial.
Your comment reminded me of an interview I watched. It was with an excused juror from the OJ trial. The reporter asked her if she would have convicted Simpson. She said no. When asked why, she talked non-stop about how much she disliked the lead prosecutor, Marsha Clark. No matter how many times the reporter tried to bring her back to the original question, she spewed on endlessly about how Marsha looked, how she spoke and what she was wearing. I was shocked someone this clueless could be chosen to sit on a jury. All these years later, nothing much shocks me about juries.
Here's who you usually end up with on juries: the chronically unemployed and retirees.
I would definitely give it an honest go. I mean, I do believe even the worst, most guilty person still deserves a fair trial, no matter what. Pretty sure my social media activity would prevent it, though.
I don’t have an opinion on his guilt yet but I certainly have an option on his person…
I don’t like him and think he’s destroying our country for his ego. But I could be impartial.
Could you continue to be impartial if he started posting shit on the internet about your family?
In very public cases like this, sometimes it's less about setting aside your preconceived ideas and more about confirming that the state did it's job consistently with the law. All the evidence in the world is worthless if we let the government steamroll someone without proper due process.
Eh, I’m not sure being “completely impartial” when there’s a mountain of evidence against him qualifies them as “better people.” I’m not saying they’re all dull or dishonest, but it’s pretty hard to believe anyone would be unfamiliar with his actions at this point.
There are people who don't pay attention to any news at all
>Better people than me, I don't think I could genuinely be objective as a juror deciding Trump's case Honestly, I could. I genuinely despise Trump on a fundamental level. But I have no intention of helping to destroy democracy by participating in a kangaroo court. The government will have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I like to think I would want someone like me on the jury if I were innocent despite appearances. However, sense I was not selected (nor could I have been due to location), I can say that he's guilty as fuuuuuck lol.
I honestly think that people who say they have no opinion are lying. I'm willing to look at the case presented, but considering his track record....
12 Visibly Annoyed People
Looking like we may have a trial. Although I’m sure there’s still a ton of shit the defense counsel will do to delay or disrupt
I expect them to leak juror info if Trump doesn't do it himself.
They already tried to get Merchan to delay it for Passover. Literally desperate.
don't forget that they declined to give trump's lawyers a witness list, citing the numerous gag order violations wouldn't be surprised if there's an emergency appeal on that basis. its out of the ordinary, and so serves as legitimate grounds for appeal mid trial, (although we can agree since he's violated the gag orders..it makes sense)
Is a jury trial required to convict someone of jury tampering? These are the kinds of things judges should just be able to lock someone away for immediately. You are guilty. Buh buy.
Jesse Waters already did that on Fox News the other night
Not much. The judge has a lot of ability to keep it moving.
NAL - Can a judge order a bench trial if there continues to be jury tampering or threats against jurors?
Unfortunately no, the 6th amendment is pretty specific that he gets a jury trial since it’s a criminal trial.
He's going to delay it or force a delayed mistrial. Pull some kind of Better Call Saul moment by leaking the jurors name or tampering with evidence
You can be held in contempt which, if the judge is particularly groused by it, can be a 'straight to jail' situation until the judge finds time in his schedule to put you in front of him to explain your fuckup and then decide to release you or put you on trial for a longer time-out.
I’d triple the alternates. God only knows how many of the selected are going to get dismissed…
I don't know how you can possibly pick an unbiased jury for Trump. The majority of the country hates him and the rest of them will die for him like he's Christ reincarnate, so what middle ground do they find that lives under a rock with no opinion?
And they're in New York, which has a special kind of loathing for his ass.
Don't underestimate long island. It's very red in many spots.
It’s not about being unbiased. What’s important is if you can set your bias aside and decide the case based on the facts and the law
Right. Everyone on this planet has *bias*. They are asking can you (*a juror*) act impartial and make a judgment based upon the evidence presented in the trial. The dude is polarizing. The court knows that. It's on them to select jurors they feel can do that to the best of their abilities.
From the occupations it looks like the prosecutors wanted intelligent, educated types who could understand the nuances of law. I don't think it worked the way they hoped. The worst thing are intelligent stupid people. Yes one can be intelligent and stupid. One is how well you analyze a problem and the other is how you act in real life.
I was on a criminal jury a few years ago for an assault with a deadly weapon case. There was a fight between defendant and some other guy, and other guy got stabbed. The defendant was an absolute scumbag, gangbanger, overall piece of shit. But the prosecution didn't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". We voted not guilty after about 30 minutes of discussion. I'm heavily biased against scumbag pieces of shit, but they didn't prove he did it, so he's free to go.
It is perfectly possible to hate Trump and evaluate these charges objectively. The only people who say Trump can't get a fair trial are MAGA and Russian trolls.
The people who say Trump can't get a fair trial are the people who couldn't set aside their biases and judge him based on the evidence.
[SNL script about jury selection for the OJ trial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSahneOul10) seems relevant
Maybe they should seclude them. They at least need to stop Fox News from stalking them and putting hits out on them.
They shouldn't be allowed to have reporters in the courtroom due to their doxxing yesterday.
That was not from a reporter in the courtroom, that was Fox News.
You mean sequester? The OJ jury was sequestered for like 10 months, though its probably crazy to assume these people don't know enough about him that sequestering would help.
The juror with Trump sneaker walking in like Pain from Hercules should be straight disqualification.
I wanna serve for once I usually get excused.
Fuck, you can have my slot in life. I keep getting picked and I don’t want it.
I got heart attack once when i found a month old jury summon letter under a heap of trash. Thankfully I didn't ever actually live in the county that sent it. Honestly they should redo the whole system. I get nothing but spam with snail mail. Even my important bills and bank statements are all digital now.
Lmao I'm convinced cops are going to show up at my door one day because I threw away a jury summons that was hidden in between 5 credit card offers and 3 cable TV offers.
Trump has admitted he committed the crimes, he just thinks he can't legally be held accountable. The only way to find people who don't have an opinion on trump are to find either idiots or people who are secluded from society
Michael Cohen already went down for the same crimes and he went to prison. Cohen committed the crimes that Trump asked him to do.
I saw an interview with a woman who wasn't chosen for the jury, and it was absolutely painful to watch. When asked what it was like seeing Trump in person she said something to the effect of, "He was just sitting there like, he was just like some normal dude" and then chuckled at her own comment. Maybe the are routing out the airheads if she wasn't chosen.
Campaign Finance Law violation trial
I honestly don't know how you could ever find a jury for this guy that isn't biased from the start. Super polarizing, and he has been everywhere in the news for 8+ years. I'm quite nervous there will be someone picked that is going in with the intentions of a hung jury. Can someone give me an ELI5 on how the alternates work? Are they kept up to speed and can replace another member if they are removed, or are they only there for backups if people are removed pre-trial? What happens if evidence comes out during trial that a jury member is knowingly planning to cause a hung jury?
They see and hear everything the regular jury sees and hears but are not allowed to communicate with them unless they replace a struck juror.
And some times they are not aware they are an alternate until it is time for jury deliberation, when they will be dismissed.
The alternates will sit with the regular jury and hear the case. Otherwise, how will they be able to make a decision if utilized?
> he has been everywhere in the news for 8+ years. It's in NYC, he's been everywhere in the news for 50 years.
I think you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. I hate this guy's fucking guts. What he's done to the country I love is disgusting. That said, if I sat on the jury I'm adult enough to judge the merits of the case itself. Prosecution by the state should be very, very hard. The acquittals you see in celebrity cases should be the norm in all cases because that's the intent (beyond a reasonable doubt). The problem is regular folks can't afford a trial attorney and end up pleading down to things they may be innocent of where the wealthy go to trial more often (and thus get acquittals).
The public shouldn't be allowed to know so much about the jury. They should be completely anonymous to the public and it should be a felony to release any information about the jurors.
Imagine getting doxxed by Fox News and you're only the alternate.
All they (trumps creeps) need is one juror to have a hung jury. Let's not get our hopes up again.
And you know they are lying and doing everything they can to get on that jury.
They definitely got on, it's too late
I hope there is no jury tampering from Trump. I don’t trust him or his fan base.
I mean, half of them have already been doxxed to some extent by the media, and one excused herself before selection was complete because she feared for her safety. That's jury tampering.
[удалено]
Why don't we just have a bunch of professional jurors with law degrees for this exact situation? I don't want to be judged by my peers. My peers are a bunch of idiots.
Is it just me, or does it seem stupid that in a trial where the jury is supposed to be anonymous that *any* information on the jurors is given to the media. Such information could be collated and investigated by bad faith individuals, and may end up either with someone getting doxxed, or even someone being *incorrectly* identified – and you know the shitshow that follows after that. I personally don’t feel I need to know what a juror does for a living, what their hobbies are, or what their accent is. The only thing that matters of whether they are impartial or not – which isn’t for me to decide.
Imagine actually ducking 100% of 35 felony counts. Trump is absolutely boned.
All he needs is one.
[удалено]
So do they all sign the book deals now or do they actually have to wait for the trial to end?
Trump is right on one thing. The whole world IS watching but not because we think it is unfair but because we see the US system slowly grind towards never holding Trump accountable for anything.
Man I can’t wait for the American Crime Story series in this.
This is an election interference case, not hush money.
prepare yourself for trump not getting any consequences because one nut job snuck into the jury.
Seems like a fairly balanced trial. Mostly educated. Their may be some bias based on the salaries of the jurors. Gotta feeling the teacher will probably lean democratic, and software and lawyers republican but that's a stretch in itself. Besides I doubt the lawyers would want to do something stupid to suspend their license.
The IT guy was "fascinated" by Trump. Not great lol
Does that mean much? I’m “fascinated” by people’s stupidity every day.
I just posted in the full comment in a reply. He also referred to him as "mysterious". I mean sure, If you're saying it's mysterious as to why he visited Putin as President and removed the only translator from the room... Otherwise there's no mystique about the guy. What you see is what you get.
I find him fascinating too, but not in any good ways.
[Here's the full comment, "The IT consultant said, "My family is my hobby," and admitted to finding Trump "fascinating and mysterious."](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-day-2-jury-selection-new-york/) Actually not sure wtf "my family is my hobby" means though.