Getting an impartial jury for Donald Trump (if it comes to that)

Politics & Elections
1

This has come up in a several discussions and I think it deserves its own thread topic.

If Trump goes on trial, how can they get an impartial jury? The guy is probably the most polarizing person ever in US history, even more than Abraham Lincoln. So both sides of the case would find it imperative to keep partisans for the other side off the jury.

My suggestion is that they preemptively eliminate everyone who voted in the 2020 election. Doesn’t matter who they voted for, just the fact that they voted indicates (IMO) that they are more likely than not to be not impartial. Yes, they’ll be throwing out many good potential jurors with that bathwater, but there’s still lots of people who did not vote but are otherwise eligible jurors. They could actually do this before sending out the jury notices, since information on who voted is available from the Elections Office.

2

Thanks for starting this thread.

I can only speak to the process side of things from having participated in many jury selections. IANAL.

IMHO, for any trial involving Trump, everything around the jurors is going to be problematic and difficult. But not impossible. Much would be made of the jurors before, during and after the trial no matter what.

I do think that experts at the federal level are considering this concern and have been from the moment they believed charging could become a reality. They will likely have some novel solutions that none of us can foresee. I look forward to learning what they might be.

I don’t think you could eliminate everyone who voted. But you could increase the number of peremptory challenges given to each side. I’ve done trials where this was one way the judge handled excessive publicity. So if the statutory number of peremptory challenges granted to each side is 18, the judge can perhaps increase it to 50. Or maybe even 100. It would result in the same outcome as the one you propose.

Increase the number of alternate jurors. In the case of Trump, we could see as many alternates as regular jurors. I’ve done cases where we picked half as many alternates as regulars.

You can also have all the jurors sit as regular jurors, then draw 12 names at random at the end of the trial to choose which 12 will deliberate. Keeps everyone on their toes.

Gag orders for sure, probably from the moment of indictment. This would help a lot. It could take 2+ years to get to a trial. This action alone gradually widens the field for an untainted jury pool.

In highly publicized trials I’ve worked on, there are always people who have never heard of or have heard very little about the case. In Trump’s case, it’s shocking to believe this could be true. I promise you, it is. On one hand, it’s sad that there are such low information voters trying an important case. On the other, at least they’re easy for prosecutors to lead through a slam-dunk prosecution.

Jury selection in Trump’s case could take at least twice as long as the actual trial.

3

I don’t understand why this isn’t done as a matter of course.

4

My immediate thought was of a couple of lines from the Mad magazine parodies of "Planet of the Apes*

Similarly, if we were going to try Trump with a jury of his peers, where would we find twelve dangerously narcissistic overweight real estate magnates with orange skin, bad combovers, and too-long red ties.

Okay, so we won’t get a jury of his peers.

If it does go to a jury trial, I foresee long sessions of jury selection.

5

Expense. Inconvenience.

And humans being humans, most of the jurors will not be “kept on their toes.”

Instead, most will rationalize that they won’t be on the final 12 and will mostly tune out. And the larger the pool of quasi-jurors under this system, the more likely that is to be a well-founded line of thinking. 12 plus 2 alternates: you know you’ll almost certainly need to render a decision. Pool of 240 hear the case and they’ll pick 12 at the end; you’re safe and can 100% snooze instead. Or so almost all of them will think.
And most will be right.

6

In a country of 330,000,000 people, you would be shocked as to how many… even educated people… don’t know much about anything. I dated a woman in 2020 who had never heard of Mueller and she was highly placed at a large corporation.

7

Just a couple of days ago I was at a history museum and a man touring it (circa 60 years old) said that he had never heard of the War of 1812,

8

In the OJ Simpson trial, there were 15 alternates.
For Trump, maybe they could get 20 or more.

Not surprising. A lot of Americans confuse it with the revolutionary war.

Even the ones who have heard of it usually don’t know who won.

9

Or knew it as the French and Indian War.

10

Not that my name is going to come up in jury selection – AFAIK none of Trump’s alleged crimes were committed in Missouri – but if it did I would steadfastly refuse to sit on the jury, on pain of Contempt of Court. Six months in jail would be quite preferable to being doxxed and then spending the rest of my life being harassed, and possibly having my life in danger, from the Ultra MAGA crowd.

11

On May 16th, 2022, I posted this elsewhere:

I casually mentioned January 6, and my coworker didn’t know what the significance of that date was!

I said, in disbelief, “You know! The insurrection!” He looked at me blankly. “When they stormed the capitol?”

He said, “Oh, I thought that was a bunch of fake biker types or something, and it wasn’t real.”

Oh my God. He said he “doesn’t watch the news.”

Are there many more like him out there? He’s a very smart engineer! Lord help us.

ETA: He’s not a Trumper, either.

So yes, I can imagine there are lots and lots of people out there who don’t know much about anything Trump-related.

12

It may be, in some places. I did one trial where this was the judge’s preference. We had 12 regular jurors seated and picked 2 alternates, but we didn’t know which would play which role until after the trial was over and they were about to go to deliberate the case. I thought it was a pretty good approach.

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. This would never happen. I meant the scenario as I described it above. The court would pick 12 regular jurors and however many alternates, just not specify which were which until prior to deliberation.

Exactly. And mostly to guard against juror misconduct such as lying during voir dire. It would depend on the proposed length of the trial.

It really is shocking, but it’s true. They’re decent, good people, but they simply don’t care enough to know what’s going on around them in the world. You just hope they don’t watch too many shows like CSI or Law & Order. And yes, jurors will be asked about their television-watching habits in voir dire to learn if they do.

13

Even the historians who study the War of 1812 aren’t necessarily sure who “won”.

14

It shouldn’t come to that. Likely you’ve already made up your mind that Trump is guilty and that would probably come out in voir dire. Which means you’d be kicked off the jury pronto.

15

James Madison tried to conquer Canada, and got his arse kicked. There’s no realistic dispute who won.

16

Reductio ad absurdam

The guide at the museum said that the goal of the British army was to split the US at the Hudson River, as was tried and failed during the War for Independence, and that the British loss at the Battle of Plattsburgh put an end to that. That’d make it an American victory. But the whole war was far more complex than that, and a LOT more complex than they teach it is school.

17

Moderating:

Aaaannnddd… this thread hijack will go no further, correct? Thanks.

18

With “20 or more” alternates and 12 final jurors, at best any given participant has a 12/32, call it 30% chance of being part of the real jury that decides the case. The rest are just spectators.

IMO my point stands. Given a 2/3rds chance of being a spectator, a LOT of the potential jurors will zone out. And I’m thinking that to get 12 jurors is a case about Trump you’d need far, far more than a mere 20 alternates. Given the rampant efforts the other side will take to contact those jurors and thereby taint them, hoping to create mistrial after mistrial until the prosecution gives up in exhaustion.

19

You know, I’m not expert at a lot of stuff. But I am expert in this. I worked on a lot of jury trials.

Your point is not well made in this instance. Jurors are rapt and they understand they are part of something important. Do you really believe if a person is picked to hear this case, they’re going to be blasé about it? I’m quite certain they won’t.

That’s why you sequester them. Moreover, if they interfere with the jurors, that’s a shortcut to getting your law license revoked.

20

I think it’s a given that the jurors are going to be sequestered under the strictest restrictions possible. Like the DOJ clearing out an entire hotel instead of just a floor or keeping them on a military base. No juror is even going to be allowed to touch a phone or computer. No radio, no TV unless it can only show DVDs. No un-chaperoned contact with even they’re closest family members.