Is the pace in such things generally consistent? Say, accept 1 juror every day or 2. Or does it go in fits and starts - accpet 3 one day, then go a week with none? Yeah, I imagine trials differ. Just asking for a general sense, as I have zero experience. It DOES seem like this is a judge who likes to keep things moving, and is not eager to allow the lawyers to direct how things proceed.
My guess is that what would really trouble the judge, the witnesses and the jury is the possibility of Trump taking pictures of them and posting them on the usual media. And we know he would not be able to resist the urge to do so. And then blame someone else.
Does anyone have his number? Asking for a friend.
Typically, lots of people are excused early on (the obvious ones that need to be excused). After that it goes faster.
Having sat through jury selection in literally hundreds of trials, I agree with every word of this.
In California, the process seems more protracted. In a very large case I did that moved venue to an adjoining county, it still took the better part of a month to seat 12 regular jurors and 6 alternates. In that case, the parties stipulated to 20 peremptory challenges per side. That was a death penalty case, so qualifying the panel for a death verdict ate up more prospective jurors. The trial lasted 4 months, including jury selection.
By comparison, Judge Merchan’s case seems to be proceeding in a brisk manner. Nothing out of the ordinary to me at this point except the liberties the defendant is being given because of his unique situation with respect to his Secret Service detail and such; e.g., violating his gag order without swift punishment.
Thanks guys. Always appreciate your insight.
I recently served jury duty so perhaps I may be able to offer some insight. Of course, my duty consisted of taking a bus to the court house only to be told the case I was allotted to had already been settled, so they sent me home with fifteen bucks for my trouble, so … never mind.
From CNN:
Donald Trump was gesturing and audibly speaking in the direction of the potential juror who was being questioned, Judge Juan Merchan said after the juror left the courtroom.
“Your client was audibly uttering,” he told Trump’s lawyers. “I will not have any jurors intimidated in the courtroom.”
And so it begins. There is no way Trump will be able to control himself for the duration of this trial. He’s either going to be sedated by his team or will face jail time.
First challenge for cause seems to be about a Facebook post showing folks celebrating in NYC celebrating Trump’s 2020 loss. May also have some positive feedback in the post re: the celebration. Lawyers are questioning the potential juror now. Seems likely that Trump’s lawyers will use a strike on that juror if the judge doesn’t allow the challenge for cause.
ETA: Motion to strike denied.
Here is the exchange (per CNN): “Juror No. 1 is denied, who’s your next?” he told Trump lawyer Todd Blanche.
Blanche responded: “Juror No. 2.”
Obviously going to challenge as many as they can for the political value of saying “these were all biased jurors but the corrupt judge allowed them anyway”.
That happens All. The. Time. For understandable reasons, the import of a trial doesn’t really sink in until people are inconvenienced. The only consolation I would offer is that far less of your time was wasted by being excused than if you had been seated and had to sit through a 2-week trial.
I think “sitting in another room with a closed-circuit feed of the proceedings” is an option, right?
It is. And likely to occur in this case.
So if that happens, what kind of court personnel are in that room with him? Does he get his own bailiff to make sure he doesn’t spend the whole time on his phone? How do his lawyers communicate with him?
The IRS has falsifying records as a specific offence-
(B) Withholding, falsifying, and destroying records. Receives, withholds, destroys, mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, or record, or makes any false statement, related to the estate or financial condition of the taxpayer or other person liable in respect of tax;
shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.*
And IIRC that law has been on the books for decades. Thus falsifying records has been a crime for quite some time- this is nothing new.
That was a guest op-ed piece. Mind you , that doesnt mean he did or didnt, just that guest Op-Ed are generally not fact checked.
However, since the jurors are not anonymous, I would decline to be on that jury.
I’m not sure, as this is a very singular situation. Not routine at all.
But segregating disruptive defendants is not a new thing. Usually the defendant would be held in a separate room with a bailiff or several bailiffs overseeing. My guess is that Trump would have a means of communicating with someone on his team in the courtroom, probably a phone, who could then share his (Trump’s) concerns with Blanche. Trump knows how to text.
If this process is implemented, it will slow the proceedings considerably. But I am absolutely sure that Merchan and his staff have considered how best to handle this nearly inevitable development.
A cry room? Those are useful.
Nothing in a jury trial is ever a slam-dunk. Sure, the facts may be a slam-dunk. But if one juror is biased, then it’s irrelevant. You lose.
So if there is even one Republican who is semi-normal in appearance, and gets accepted to be a juror, then Trump walks free.
Think of someone like Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-lago case --her actions show that she is a Maga Trump cultist, but she speaks and acts rationally enough to cover up her bias. Someone like her could easily appear to be an honest, rational citizen while he is questioned during the voir dire process. Only later, in the privacy of the jury room, will he show his true colors.
3 chosen so far. on ward.
the 3 were told to return to 9:30am on monday. the judge is an optimist.
I’m confused, was Juror No. 1 allowed to be included or not?
“Motion to strike denied” makes it sound like the judge overturned Trump’s request to have the Juror stricken, but “Juror No. 1 is denied” makes it sound like they were removed from the jury.
up to 6 now! some one is moving things along.
I’m pretty sure that is short for ‘your motion to dismiss Juror no. 1 for cause is denied’