I have participated in at least three criminal trials (and several civil trials) that have resulted in hung juries. We knew the vote split every time. However, I don’t think I’ve ever had a hung jury in a federal criminal case, and I’m not finding any reported federal cases that indicate the vote split. I’ll retract my earlier statement.
On the other hand, I don’t think there would be any order prohibiting a juror from disclosing the split after they are discharged. They are typically told they are free to discuss the case, or not discuss the case, as they wish. So, I guess it’s still possible (likely?) we would know.
I have, professionally, watched military resistance to interrogation training. I assume that any formerly deployed vets who were MAGATs would have no problem with that.
In the rare instances that jury trials I worked on resulted in a hung jury, the judge would ask the jury how they were split before declaring a mistrial and dismissing the jurors. They wouldn’t ask if the split favored guilt or innocence, however.
The jurors were always free to speak with the attorneys after discharge – and they always did.
Yeah, I’d agree with this statement. We often hear about the lone holdout, or the ‘hopelessly deadlocked’ panel. But I also cannot speak to a federal case.
Oh, voir dire doesn’t run like that. It’s not like a military interrogation.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, jurors are not told ahead of time which case they’re being called for, so there’s really no opportunity to “clean up” in advance of your trial.
What gives you away is stuff like what you post online or say at your workplace or the flags you fly at home or the bumper stickers on your car. Few people are able to live their lives without leaving such a trail. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are expert at finding out the things that demonstrate someone is deeply invested in a particular point of view.
And a MAGA trying to hide their affiliation, if anything, might end up making themself more likely to be disqualified, not less. A juror can’t be disqualified for cause just because they’ve made political comments online, for instance. But the questionnaire can ask whether they’ve done so. And if a MAGA answered that question “no”, in an attempt to sneak onto the jury, but then the prosecutor had links to them doing so, that’s lying, which is grounds for disqualification.
A smart, educated, informed MAGA, who had a strong understanding of the legal process, probably could sneak onto the jury. But now we’re looking at a much, much smaller slice of the population.
I guess my assumption is that they (MAGA types) aren’t all visibly like Jan 6 or freedumb participants. I assume that some must have that balance of smarts that they don’t have all sorts of bumper stickers and such and don’t have a particularly noteworthy social media presence, and do have the presence of mind to STFU about things that are obviously pro-MAGA, while still believing in it.
Though I wish otherwise, I just don’t believe that they are all visibly red-neck idiots who wear camo clothing for shits and giggles. That’s actually why this scares me so much.
It doesn’t seem like it would be all that hard for a MAGA to get on the jury if MAGA association, Trump devotion, etc. is not an automatic disqualification. They wouldn’t have to hide it. They would just have to say that they would be objective.
If a MAGA says, “I think Trump is infallible and I’ll vote Not Guilty no matter what.”, then the judge will dismiss them. But if if instead they say “Even though I’ve been to every Trump rally and my house is decorated in all MAGA gear, I’ll be objective about the case.”, I don’t know that they would be automatically kicked out. I assume it would be up to the prosecution to use one of their strikes against that person to have them removed. But the prosecution only has so many strikes to use. If the MAGAs say that they’ll listen to the evidence objectively, it seems like they wouldn’t be barred from being on the jury.
I understand your concerns, I really do. I’m just saying that if someone is smart enough to keep a lower profile, then they are probably smart enough to not lie under oath about their predilections. It’s so many questions that people don’t realize until they’re answering them that demonstrate bias. “Do you subscribe to any publications?” “Do you visit any particular websites?” “Do you belong to any clubs or organizations?”
It’s hard to hide who you are under such questioning.
Ok gotcha. Sort of like a psych eval in which just the pattern of answers, as well as the answers themselves, can reveal things. Unlike documentaries such as “The Devil’s Advocate”
I think DC voters register by party. If that’s public information (in some states is easy to look up) then Smith and his team will have information for an easy first cut.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the judge has an unlimited number of “peremptory” challenges, meaning they can excuse jurors as often as they feel such an excuse is warranted. So long as the judge can show there was legal and sufficient cause to excuse a prospective juror, they can excuse as many as necessary.
You’re always going to have true believers who won’t be swayed no matter what. But it really helps when you get someone to finally step outside their bubble and they’re able to process information without a bunch of baloney getting in the way.
I also suspect that on a jury you get super technical. As in, you’re not making a judgement about a person. You’re answering an objective question. “The law says A, all the facts say B, does B violate A in an objective sense.” That might make it easier to set your political feelings aside.
I’ve never actually served on a jury (I just end up not getting that far when I’ve had a jury summons) but I’ve read about what happens when you’re on a jury, and the instructions they are usually given.
One point that maybe shouldn’t be lost: you don’t get to be Jack Smith, nor one of his jury-selection advisors (presuming he has them, an easy guess), without being a damned shrewd judge of human behavior. Just how is juror candidate #5 reacting to the questions asked of juror candidate #8? Any kind of antipathy? Does the candidate jury have any chance of divisions from whatever reasons that will prevent a decent verdict?
Plus, jurors are expected to actually listen to the evidence being presented to them.
Any MAGAt so devoted to Trump that they just won’t listen at all is going to stand out. What happens to this juror when the judge notices them looking bored and daydreaming every day at trial? Or openly rolling their eyes every time the prosecutor is talking about the evidence?
