Again it could happen, jury trials are unpredictable. But there is no evidence it’s likely.
Not only that if one juror got through who thought that way and tried to convince the others that they should ignore the facts of the case and whether Trump did it, and just find him not guilty whatever, I’m pretty sure that would be valid reason to have that juror replaced by an alternate. So it wouldn’t even result in a hung jury
I don’t think that’s how alternates work, once you are deliberating the verdict.
IANAL but I think that’s one of the reasons they can be used. Not if one juror disagrees with the others and thinks the defendant is not guilty, of course. But actually trying to convince the others to ignore the facts of the case and find the defendant not guilty even if they think he did it. That seems like it would be cause to have them replaced? Maybe legaldopers can confirm?
Do jurors get to discuss the trial among themselves as the trial is progressing? Or are they never alone together until the deliberation starts?
When the judge gives the jury their final instructions, he should warn them not to be influenced by all the other cases pending against trump. And then proceed to enumerate them.
That could backfire, though. Jurors might think, “eh, we don’t need to find him guilty on this sex thing…they’ll get him for sure on the more important charges in upcoming trials.”
My point about attorneys was not that all attorneys are uncorruptible champions of justice. It’s just that an attorney would, regardless of politics (though given it’s Manhattan their politics are much more likely to be liberal than Maga), understand that “I’m sure everyone does crimes like this” is not a reason for a jury to find someone not guilty, and would say so if someone tried to make that point during deliberations.
No. They do get to know each other, because they engage in a lot of small talk, but they are specifically instructed that they are not to discuss the case until after they are sent to deliberate. Additionally, when deliberating, they are usually instructed to only discuss the case when everybody in the jury is together. If one steps out (such as to use the bathroom), they are supposed to stop.
The bailiff in the courtroom is usually their “handler”. So they aren’t ever fully alone.
That would be very frustrating for me. I would sooo want to talk about it with the other jurors.
You’re right. This almost looks “victimless”, and like small potatoes compared to what hopefully is coming up.
I was on two juries. You are very clearly instructed to not discuss the case at all. There’s lots of chit chat in my experience (much more on the jury that was before smartphones). Occasionally the conversation would stray close to what was not allowed and we’d check ourselves.
While the bailiff was our handler, they weren’t hanging out with us at all. Often times we were fairly spread out during breaks and completely on our own at lunch.
It was a huge relief to finally get to talk about the trial. The first several minutes were snarking about certain aspects of it.
A whole pack of shitheads in the gallery today:
Pretty sure the correct collective noun would be a glut of shitheads.
Naw. A Sack of shitheads.
Be creative folks; a Lamprey of shitheads…
A Republican Caucus of Shitheads?
I like mine because of its relation to “Sack of Shit” as an insult.
I hope the press is checking to see if they are traveling to NYC on the taxpayer’s dime?
From CNN’s initial reporting from this morning, the cross is going back after Cohen for his bias against Trump. They are quoting podcasts he’s done.
For example
Meaning, they have no rebuttal to the actual facts of this case. It looks like the only defense is claiming that Cohen is a lying liar who lies because he’s mad at Trump.
Someone should remind her that handjobs are prohibited in court.