Sometimes there’s an entire appeal before the trial you see. They could’ve been a previous trial, or a pretrial issue that caused appellate review.
More likely, it was just one delay after another for a variety of reasons
I sat as juror on a case that was nearly two years after the arrest. The front window on a video business was smashed and individuals seen entering the store and carrying out equipment as well as handing it to others. The police arrived, the miscreants scattered, and the defendant was found crouching behind a semi-trailer in the back several businesses down.
He was described as wearing black and a baseball cap with an ‘A’ logo by a witness who was in the parking lot of a Taco Bell across the street, which was six lanes and a median wide and the prosecutor mentioned his shoes had been confiscated. There was no forensic evidence, like glass fragments being found in the soles of the shoes presented, at 2am probably half the people wandering around are wearing black, and in Arizona Diamondbacks country baseball caps with an A on them are not rare.
The the prosecutor rested her case and I thought, “That’s it?? I’ll listen to the defense but I’m finding it hard to find him guilty now.” We broke for lunch, which shows how short the prosecutor’s case was, an when we came back, there was no defendant and the judge had dismissed the case.
Both lawyers hung around so I and a couple other jurors talked with them. The prosecutor was young so I figured pretty junior. She said they’d had a second witness who’d been closer but in the period between the arrest and the trial, they had moved away and the office didn’t figure the case was important enough to pay to bring them back. She also said the delay was so the trial would be as an adult instead of a juvenile, which seemed pretty egregious to me.
The public defender said he kind of figured the defendant had at least been on the scene – hiding was awfully suspicious – and a plea bargain to a lesser offense than burglary had been offered but the office figured with such flimsy evidence the defendant didn’t deserve anything and also, perhaps sitting through a trial might scare him straight.
Assuming Trump isn’t president, how many MAGA members that might find themselves on that jury two years down the road are going to be “over him” as he’s he won’t be nearly as relevant and/or actively against him because they felt he wronged them or their loyalty lies elsewhere).
IOW, those MAGAs jurors that might try to get him acquitted today, may not feel the same way if president DeSantis starts blowing “trump needs to be in jail” dog whistles at them?
It is so hard to say what’s going to happen as this case goes along.
Despite vehement protests to the contrary, Trump may decide to enter a plea if it avoids jail time.
The case could be dismissed for lack of evidence. (I don’t think this is a likely outcome, but it is one.)
If it goes to trial, I can promise you the prosecutors and defense attorneys know how to pick a jury and keep people with strong opinions (like me) off it – whatever direction those strong opinions blow. There are so many things they do to find these things out, asking strategic questions both in open voir dire and with questionnaires, both of which will surely be employed in this case. They are also adept at inoculating jurors against prejudging the case as they ask their questions. It’s fun to watch the skilled ones, which is one reason I loved my job.
You would also be amazed at how many people know almost nothing about this case. We’re political junkies here on this board and much better informed than many. Not true for the majority of Americans. There’s a fair jury out there, no matter what Trump or DeSantis might do or say. I don’t see a President DeSantis in our future, FWIW.
I’m of the opinion that the length of time before trial will help things simmer down before any sort of trial is held and the scenario you propose is possible, if not likely, IMHO.
Already 56% of people in this country believe that charges being brought against Trump should render him disqualified from running for office (recent Quinnipiac poll). And we haven’t even gotten to the mammoth charges to come from the Feds.
Trump doesn’t know it yet, but he’s already toast. But in each case if he’s convicted, he’ll be convicted fairly, by an impartial jury. I’m confident about this because I’ve watched/participated in the process so many times.
If I haven’t said so already, thanks for your excellent contributions to this thread.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he took some sort of plea and paid a fine and that was the end of it. He’d spin it as a win. At worst he’d have to suffer a little house arrest in his mansion.
A good friend of mine was a major crimes prosecutor for a Northern California county. She told me that she didn’t want vigilante type jurors who were on her side on any jury. Once it was a child porn/molestation case. She could tell that one potential juror had a vendetta attitude and kicked the juror off. The next day, the ex-juror was waiting at my friend’s office first thing in the morning in a fury and told my friend that she was an idiot. My friend explained (and I hope I am getting this right) that having a forceful juror on a mission can cause pushback and problems for a good verdict.
If I have the time, I always like to talk to the attorneys afterwards (I’ve been on jury duty a lot of times). It can be revelatory.
I’d guess they’d worry about potentially losing on appeal, too.
The vast majority of cases resolve via plea, and most first time non violent offenders do not receive jail time. So a plea should be the leading bet as to how the case resolves.
Except….
- We don’t yet know what’s in the indictment. It might be more of a case concerning fraud than it is the “Stormy Daniels” case. And if we’re dealing with dozens of counts (30, is it?), serious prison time might be on the table.
And
- A trial is a spectacle. This trial (or any Trump trial) would the bigliest spectacle of all. And Donny loves a spectacle.
Right. It should be noted also that the lawyers involved in jury selection can dismiss a potential juror for no reason at all. Typically, there are only so many times that can be done, and the number of times depends on the nature of the matter, but the fact remains: it can be done. I would imagine that if a potential juror were to walk in wearing a “Make American Great Again” baseball cap, the prosecutor would simply say, “Dismissed. Next?”
Looking in on a RWNJ message board (I lurk), I see where they’re convinced that Trump will never get a fair trial. Why? Because any trial will be in Manhattan, where “70% of potential jurors are Democrats, and they hate Trump, and will convict him regardless of the evidence.” I’ve got a little more faith in the New York justice system than they do, and I’m sure that a fair and impartial jury can be selected in Manhattan.
I was on a criminal jury fifteen years ago. We convicted and four or five of us stayed afterwards and talked to both lawyers. It was a worthwhile and fascinating experience but I don’t need to do it again. Except…I just got a notice and I will be on call for jury duty starting a week from Monday.
I may have said this already somewhere, but I think the key question in voir dire will be “Will I find any indication that you have expressed a strong opinion of Donald Trump if I conduct a thorough posting of all your internet postings over the past eight years, as I intend to do?” Another will be the same, but concerns asking all your friends and family members as to anything you have ever said about Donald Trump. Coupled with a reminder about the penalty for perjury during voir dire.
Also (don’t know how much of this is discretionary but if it is) telling potential jurors that such investigations will go on during the trial, and that an extraordinary number of alternate jurors will be chosen if any of them have given perjurious answers, to replace them when they are themselves charged with perjury. This should discourage any Trump supporters or Trump haters from trying to pass themselves off as neutral parties.
Been thinking about this one. If I got all of this right:
- Alvin Bragg is the DA for New York County (Manhattan)
- As of 2021, Manhattan has about 1.26M registered voters (10pp PDF). AIUI, that IS the jury pool
- Of those, presuming my math is right:
- …69% are Democrat
- …9% are Republican
I think it’s probably a safe assumption that not only is every Republican NOT a current Trump supporter, but that this is probably more likely in Manhattan than in the US at large. I’m guessing that New York County’s red just isn’t crimson. Not sure, though.
It really is a bad place for Trump to have to face a jury. As I’ve often said, The Republican Senate and consigliere, Bill Barr, were Trump’s “Get Out Of Jail Free Card.” He will quite likely not be so fortunate the next time he is taken to task for his actions.
ETA: I’m wrong about who is eligible. While voter registration MAY be a good sample of eligible voters, NYS voter eligibility is:
One could hate or love Trump and still be an impartial juror on this issue. I don’t think it’s at all proper to ask your friends and family about things you’ve said to them in private conversation. If someone asked me what a friend and I talked about I’d tell them to fuck off.
I think that the measures you are describing in the questioning of jurors may cause a mistrial if this isn’t normally done in similar cases. Just because its Donald Trump doesn’t give the prosecutors the right to turn this into a RICO style case. Not just yet.
Taking this statement literally, yes, one could. Is it likely that such a person would be impartial? No.
Threads similar to this have convinced me that a large portion of Democrats – not all – have made up their mind that Trump is guilty – even though they don’t yet know the charges! I’ve even read the idea that since there are dozens of charges, the defendant is more likely guilty. This suggest to me that a juror who hates DJT would look for evidence that would support their hope that he is guilty – and find it regardless.
Reading the newspaper the last few days, I’m convinced that loads of Republicans have also made up their mind – again, even though they don’t know the charges! This applies not only to Republicans who love Trump, but also to a lot who don’t like Trump personally but feel their tribe to be under attack.
Most jurors will try to be impartial. But it is hard to put aside all your political hopes and dreams when presented with evidence arguably subject to multiple interpretations.
Most of the time, I think that a defense attorney would want me on the jury. But this time, probably not. I’ve read too much about what a thorough liar DJT is to consider his testimony, or presentations from his POV, with as open a mind as I would in a trial without this unprecedented intensity of predjudicial pretrial publicity.
How would you propose the justice system find unbiased jurors to try criminal cases, then?
What decision do you think they’ve reached? Most of the Republicans I’ve been hearing have said that it’s a witch hunt, and politically motivated, and Democrats have done worse, etc. I don’t remember hearing any of them say Trump is innocent.
Before I decide… I’m waiting for his cognizant testimony.
I’m ok with how it’s actually done. When I was on a criminal jury they asked me a bunch of questions and let me/made me stay. I’ve never heard of anyone interviews people’s friends as part of the process.
Edit: I see the disconnect now. I meant that’s what I would say if I was asked about a juror. Not if I was a juror
I was recently in the voire dire pool for a first degree murder case. They did not choose me. I think they did not want a thought leader in the room. Not that I was pre-disposed either way. But I figure they figured I’d carry a few folks with me whichever way I went. And they did not want a wild card with that much clout in their deck.
Made me happy to be dismissed. Surprised a bit, but happy.
The Republicans? Innocent of all the as-yet-unknown charges. I had thought my post #634 implied that, but I should have been explicit.
I had always heard that lawyers don’t like engineers on juries. I was one of three on mine. I asked the lawyers afterwards and both of them said that they love engineer jurors.