So they can do those Internet searches?
That may be, but from the polling numbers I’ve seen, Puerto Rican voters don’t seem to support Trump. Maybe for this juror it’s different since he’s older.
Aren’t they searching in real-time as they interview jurors?
If they have a questionnaire, like in this case, it can be done in advance. If we’re doing it the “old way” and we learn the names that morning, it’s a simultaneous process. We have 8 or 9 people working remotely on the names as soon as we get them.
As I recall this was trumps lawyers being a bit sketchy (shocking I know!) as this wasn’t really the point to start calling out their social media posts. They were called out by the judge for this, they should have brought it up with them when they interviewed the prospective jurors in private prior to this. Presumably this is what the prosecution did so we didn’t read about in the papers
It’s common for employers that check online profiles of prospective hires to red-flag applicants with little to no online presence. Is that also the conventional wisdom when it comes to prospective jurors?
I can’t speak for others, but we don’t look negatively on jurors with no on line presence. It happens quite often, actually.
ETA: We’re not just searching social media
People are still idiots but they are way better at buttoning themselves up nowadays. My mom helped with grade school teacher training and from the late 90s through maybe 2005 she would print out what she would find on each student teacher and give it to them. She said, “if an old lady can find this, imagine what a student can find.” Eventually she rarely found anything. I imagine that the soon to be student teacher group is generally more careful but little online presense shouldn’t be a red flag.
It happens with employers but there’s some controversy in the HR world about it. There’s some concern a prospective employer might engage in discriminatory practices based on membership in a protected class. i.e. This woman has a young child and we don’t want someone likely to miss a lot of days, this guy is older and we’re looking for a young go getter, this person has photos of them at their mosque, etc., etc. I advise my hiring managers not to look up candidates on social media platforms besides professional ones like LinkedIn but I’m pretty sure they ignore me. Best practice is for an employer to have a third party vendor look into social media accounts if they really feel the need to check.
Does this person vote? On what basis do you suppose they cast their votes?
The only kind of country where one can justifiably not “care about politics” is a non-democratic dictatorship. In a democracy, being aware of basic current events is a civic responsibility. In the absence of that awareness, a dangerous demagogue can get elected president of the United States. To quote the motto adopted by the Washington Post, democracy dies in darkness.
I’ve wondered how I would fare on that jury panel. If asked, I would be honest and tell them that I consider myself a critical thinker and a logician at heart and that I’m sure I would do well on any jury they sat me on … but there’s also no doubt that I consider Donald Trump to be a immoral fucking buffoon who has done his best to ruin this country.
Yeah, I’ve thought about how I would do during jury selection. My attitude would be much like you just said, and I think that last part would be considered implied by the first part – IOW, I’m sure the defense would reject both of us, on the grounds of “much too rational and likely much too inclined to logically weigh the evidence”. The defense is looking for an OJ jury.
I thought about that. Specifically the “would be able to deliver an unbiased verdict” question that over 50% said no to (or however it was phrased). I am not sure I could answer “yes” honestly, I cannot imagine ever finding him not guilty regardless of the evidence. It’s fairly academic as my social media has enough references to “the Cheeto Mussolini” to rule me out.
I would be somewhat concerned that I would be then leaving the jury pool to be filled with sociopaths who have no problem lying(a demographic that favours Trump I’m sure)
I don’t recall anyone being asked about their social media history the last time I did jury duty, but that was 2011 so things have probably changed since then.
I’d point at donald and say “I’d be a horrible juror because I look forward to pissing on that guy’s grave in a few years. Donald, you are going to die broke and in prison.”
And with that I’d wish them a good day.
You don’t say
That risks contempt of court.
Civil disobedience.
I’d take the hit.
Just let them know your doper username (Which I think you are required to do anyway). They’ll figure it out.
Oh, no. People who were excluded from the jury pool were interviewed and confirmed that donald was about 30 feet away. I want to look him in the eye when I insult him. It would be my pleasure.
(And if I have to disclose my doper name, then I’m @Beckdawrek. Let them have fun with that one!)
Does it really? I understand that the attorneys, and other court personnel, have to be decorous when addressing the judge, but how can an honest answer like Moriarty’s be considered contemptuous? The language may be a bit harsh, but if someone is asked what he thinks of the defendant, and that’s what he thinks of the defendant, that seems like the right answer.