Guess I’ll just start with this. First thing that popped up. -
He is of course just spewing that they took attorney-client documents. And EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES.
He is of course throwing more BS at the wall. Trying to get his base riled up. There are plenty of links like the above. He’s just a liar and con man. And a bad one at that.
[quote=“Aspenglow, post:40, topic:969660”]
intended to embarrass the prospective jurors [/quote]
But isn’t it important to identify the loonies who might be sitting on your jury? Anyone who’d be embarrassed by being asked if she/he believes in a flat earth is someone the DoJ badly wants bounced from the jury pool, no?
Thanks. I hadn’t heard about that yet. What a maroon.
Yup. He claims he didn’t have them. He claims he had them legally. He claims that he de-classified them. He claims that the FBI planted them and he wants them back.
This guy had the keys to the kingdom for 4 years, and when he committed crimes then and was impeached, we still could not get rid of him. It’s nuts.
I would tend to ask questions of a factual nature:
An advantage is that many of these type of questions can be verified via research. For example, there are websites that report political contributions, plus often the state Campaign Finance Board reports contributions. Many charities publish an Annual report listing all their donors. State Elections Board have records of voters, often these are public record.
And if your researcher finds contradictions here, that could certainly be a red flag. Like if the potential juror claims not to have made political contributions, but reports show contributions to a candidate.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the NRA?”
These days, NRA membership is a pretty good indicator of how someone votes.
Sure, but my point is, there are more subtle ways of getting that information that don’t subject a PJ to derisive laughter or embarrassment. One is to inquire about jury nullification. It solicits the same information but is less fraught.
Prosecutor: “Mr. Smith, what’s your view about the moon landing?”
Mr. Smith: “Well, everyone knows that didn’t really happen.”
All Most of the other jurors laugh nervously. How can they not?
Prosecutor: “Mr. Smith, what’s your view on jury nullification?”
Mr. Smith: “What’s that?”
Prosecutor: “That’s when a sworn juror chooses to disregard the actual evidence in the case and the judge’s instructions in order to render a verdict they believe to be more just.”
Mr. Smith: “Oh, I would never do that.”
The prosecutor just educated the entire panel and groomed Mr. Smith by getting him to agree he would not nullify the jury’s verdict if sufficient evidence was produced within the judge’s instructions to convict him. Belief or non-belief in the moon landing is irrelevant, and the juror’s belief in same is not made to embarrass him.
Or:
Prosecutor: “Mr. Smith, what’s your view on jury nullification?”
Mr. Smith: “I believe in it. If I think a different verdict should be rendered no matter what the evidence actually shows, I would not hesitate to nullify the verdict.”
Prosecutor: “Motion to excuse for cause, your honor.”
Judge: “Granted. With our thanks, Mr. Smith, you’re excused from further service on this jury.”
The prosecutor didn’t even have to burn a peremptory challenge.
The only downside is that you’ve now educated other prospective jurors on exactly how to get out of sitting on the case. But IMHO, you don’t want those people anyway.
Here’s another quick way to get at how a PJ feels that does not stray into the territory of irrelevance:
Prosecutor: “Mr. Smith, how do you feel about the government?”
Mr. Smith: “I think it sucks.”
You know the rest.
Obviously, the above scenario occurs if voir dire takes place in open court. One of the many reasons these sorts of questions are best asked on a questionnaire is so the answers won’t taint the rest of the panel. Especially important when the pool of available jurors is already especially shallow.
I wonder how much research lawyers are allowed to do, and how much they actually do. If someone is seated on a jury, do lawyers verify what they claim routinely, for the purposes of unseating him/her if they can unearth evidence of untruthful testimony during voir dire? Or is this rare, or non-existent or even illegal?
I would think they can do any amount of research, even after the trial has concluded - such is the case with the whole Scott Peterson thing. His lawyers are questioning the impartiality of one of the jurors, years after his conviction. Somehow they unearthed evidence they say makes her biased, so they want to throw out his conviction under “juror misconduct”. Just my impression - I will let actual lawyers/legal folks here provide the factual answer, tho.
It varies. Some judges prohibit internet research (that’s rare and problematic ). In all of our cases we do as much research as time allows. In some jurisdictions we don’t get the juror’s names until they walk into the courtroom, so we only have a few hours. In other cases, we have days to explore the internet.
Trump is not quoted “I want the stuff I stole back.”
not if you want real justice or just a kangaroo court like you suggest. Tell me one thing about now that is better?
I am a bull that no libtard can intimidate. Donald J Trump was and is the greatest president in the history of the United States. He is the ONLY president to ever do what he campaigned on! He is America first!!! I don’t give a rat’s butt if he made mean tweets If you snowflakes want safe and secure instead of freedom and liberty you deserve neither. Better men than you have died for your right to be a stupid idealist that deserves neither bed nor bread.
To be honest, I’m not sure this is necessary. Most hardcore Trump supporters aren’t subtle about it: They’d do things like show up to the courthouse wearing a MAGA hat.
If you selected 12 people at random from the population of , then there’d be a very high chance you’d get a MAGA-hat-wearer who’d refuse to convict under any circumstances. So you need to weed them out. But the set of Trump supporters who are subtle and clever enough to pretend not to be is much smaller; a random jury selection process would be much less likely to include one of that small set.
And no, I’m not counting those trolls who say “I’m a lifelong black lesbian Democrat, and everything wrong with the US is all Biden’s fault and this entire trial is a corruption of justice”.
Moderating:
Welcome to The Dope.
Here, we have strict rules against thread hijacks, which both the above-quoted posts are, and ranting, which both posts also are. Ranting is for the Pit forum.
Here is a link to our Registration Agreement:
Here is a link to our rules for Politics & Elections:
I encourage you to read and familiarize yourself with all rules that apply at The Straight Dope Message Board, else your time here will be short.
Not a warning.
awww I must have said something true,you will never sanction the truth . at least you named the board right DOPE
Moderating:
Arguing moderation outside ATMB. That’ll be a formal warning.
i so scared massah
Your posting privileges are under review. Also a 1 day suspension currently.
This probably wouldn’t fly in court (Trump’s defenders would object) but in all seriousness I’d love to ask prospective jurors about half a dozen selected questions from the US citizenship test, or variants thereof (e.g.- “name at least eight Cabinet-level positions”; “name the three branches of government”; “name your state’s Senators”; “what are the term lengths for Senators and for Representatives?”).
Not smart enough to pass the test required to become a naturalized citizen = not smart enough to be an evidence-based juror. Since Trumpists are almost invariably information-deprived dumbasses, this would be a pretty effective filter – and also why the defense would strenuously object. The last thing on earth they would want is smart, well-informed jurors.