I think that would mean that juror committed perjury when answering questions after being sworn in.
Right, but could the juror then be replaced? Also, for a perjury charge you’d need to prove that he held those pro-Trump opinions at the time of voir dire, and wasn’t simply impressed by his obvious charisma and intelligence during the trial. /s
That I’m not sure of, but I hope so. Runaway Jury is supposed to be a work of fiction.
We’re up to three jurors fewer now - the one who asked to be excused, somebody found to have been dishonest, and the latest found to have a criminal past (and, presumably, to have lied about it).
It would be nice for the liars to have to cool their heels in jail overnight
So just give Trump more time to taint the jury and have his mob threaten them?
Are you sure? I’ve only seen two excused so far. The one who lied is the same one who had a criminal arrest in the past.
Do we know if it was a liberal or a conservative liar?
It looks like I was sure, but I was also wrong.
Maybe I’m GW Bush … or DJ Trump?
I cut between two conversations and probably misinterpreted.
ETA: You’re right: we’re down two, not three.
It was lying about an arrest for tearing down political posters. They didn’t say what kind of posters, but I’d guess the juror was more likely conservative, as how often do you encounter conservative political posters in NYC?
How do you get arrested for tearing down posters? Aren’t such posters technically illegal to post in the first place? You don’t get arrested for picking up litter. Maybe it was on someone’s private property?
It depends. Were they on public property, or private?
Wow, dodged a bullet, there. (If conservative, this juror could have prevented an otherwise just conviction; if liberal, and this was found out later, I suppose it could have led to a mistrial).
Amazing that this person got this far. The ONE important requirement (IMHO) for this particular set of jurors is that they not be too deeply involved politically…and, maybe one in ten thousand (if that) of the public has been arrested for pulling a political stunt? What are the odds? Wild.
Not at all (perhaps you’re thinking of “within 100 feet of a polling site, on Election Day”).
Too late. Once the jury panel is sworn, that’s it. Double jeopardy attaches and there is no recourse for the prosecution.
Our system is designed on the foundational principle that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict an innocent one. That’s been a pretty good system until you encounter a corrupt judicial terrorist like Trump with a national megaphone and zero scruples.
I don’t envy any of the players on the prosecution team, the judge or the jurors. I’ve said from the beginning that jury selection would be the trickiest part of this prosecution. And it will. There will be lots of fits and starts, I expect.
No, I mean that the vast majority of the political posters (as opposed to yard signs) I see are posted illegally on phone poles or on vacant buildings. And they’re generally promoting a broad point of view like “socialism is good” or “free Palestine” rather than supporting a particular political candidate. But maybe this law defines “poster” broadly enough to include lawn signs.
This is re: the excused juror who “lied” about past arrests. I’m only following the NYT feed, so there very well may be more to it. I did see upthread about him being arrested for political activity which the NYT did not mention so that might be the answer.
Per NYT:
Earlier today, prosecutors said that this juror may have been untruthful when answering a question about whether he or a relative had ever been accused or convicted of a crime.
There was no details other than that. Do we know if this is a question everyone is asked, or just this particular person?
If everyone, my point is only that is a very broad question with words like “relatives” and “accused”. I’m not a bad guy and I run in good circles, but I’d have to just default to Yes on that question. Or more simply, how the fuck should I know.
I don’t know about New York, but Washington allows an alternate to sub in during deliberations if necessary. The jury is supposed to start over with the deliberations
Perhaps. I was picturing posters on private property, such as a commercial building – a store, say, or an office building exterior – or maybe a shopping mall (though these are usually “semi-private” spaces where what is allowed or forbidden can partly coincide with truly public-space rules).
During deliberations, it was the same in California. That happened a few times in cases I was involved with. But not once the jury has rendered a verdict. I’m sure it’s the same in Washington.