Man I wish I could be a juror on this case. It seems like it would be hard to find an unbiased juror though, considering how publicized the case is and how galvanizing Trump's rhetoric has been around it.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
146 points (96.2% liked)
politics
18863 readers
3900 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think at this point everyone has an opinion on Donald Trump, and particularly people living in Manhattan. The key question is whether they can find 12 people willing to put aside whatever opinions they have, and judge the case solely on what is presented in court.
Idk, you'd probably be getting death threats and and stalkers for a good while.
True... Maybe just a fly on the wall in the jury room then.
Out of 12 people, there's likely 1 that wears a maga hat... The jury will never reach a verdict if that's the case.
Thanks for posting the questionnaire. I don't think I'd pass it. I'm not sure anyone I know would pass it. I'd be tempted to answer a lot of those questions in a way the defense wouldn't like.
- Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in state court?
I have a strong opinion and firm belief that it is a miscarriage of justice that it has taken this long for Trump to be charged in any court.
I'd fail 33. Is it like a mega crime to lie on that questionnaire?
A question so nice they asked it twice! I'd also fail #38
And the question about bias in an election year. Isn't that kind of the point? He committed the felonies in an effort to secure to 2016 election, so you disregard that because... He might do it again??
- Can you give us your assurance that you will decide this case solely on the evidence you see and hear in this courtroom and the law as the iudge gives it?
Yeah haha that's a tough one
More than half the jury pool said 'no' to that
The defendant's ironclad case when jury nullification walks in the room
Or in this case, whatever the opposite of that is
I'd guess maybe perjury, but I'm not a lawyer
Yea I'm more concerned about the type of person who actually makes it through the process. Anyone with any morals would be biased against him, and we all know who the type of person with no morals who would be fine with lying vote for.
I think my morals and ethics would let me answer "in the spirit" with which they are asked.
Some of the jury candidate descriptions listed by the Washington Post seem to get a little too close to outlining some people’s identities.
For example:
The ninth prospective juror is a social media marketer for Fan Duel, a sports betting app. She watches sports and reality television and her father, brother and boyfriend work in finance. She uses Goole, Facebook, X, TikTok and Instagram.
(Emphasis mine)
It’s not incredibly specific but it’s enough information for motivated persons to use. I mean, it only takes her LinkedIn or Facebook profile to state she’s in New York and works for Fan Duel. Next thing you know, she’ll be getting death threats.
The bookstore shopkeeper also sounds a little specific for comfort.
Without president
I hope some idiots show up in MAGA hats and immediately get dismissed
Today is jury selection, so they’ll be asking a lot of potential jurors about all the ways they could be biased or have a conflict of interest
We should do this with judges.
It's called voir dire, and it's more complicated than that. For a case this size the counsels will likely have done focus groups to see what traits, etc. tend to test well against the client. So yes, they are theoretically screening for biases, but the selection is ultimately up to both councils, so it's a balancing act of stacking the jury in your favor.
WDYM without precedent is this the first time this law has been applied?
A criminal trial against a former president is the unprecedented bit.
Since it's a former president, you could just say it's unpresidented.