१८ एप्रिल, २०२४
"Behind the scenes, Trump’s defense team is scrambling to find and review potential jurors’ social media accounts..."
"... and when they find ones critical of the former president and presumptive GOP presidential nominee, they are racing to show them to the judge to try to get those people dismissed. The turnaround time for such work is tight — lawyers on the case have been given lists of names of potential jurors, some of whom they have to start questioning in a matter of hours.... To fight back against what he says is an inherently unfair jury pool, Trump’s defense team hired a jury consulting firm that is analyzing all posts from jurors.... So far, the judge has been mostly skeptical of the defense claims of dangerous bias exhibited by old social media posts. Jurors questioned in court about their old social media posts were often defensive and dismissive of the suggestion that the old posts revealed anything important about their views or ability to be fair...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
Jurors questioned in court about their old social media posts were often defensive and dismissive of the suggestion that the old posts revealed anything important about their views or ability to be fair...."
Said no potential juror ever who didn't want to serve. Why do I presume the prosecution hasn't done the same? I'm curious about the judge and prosecutors old posts as well.
Kangaroo courts behave like kangaroo courts. New York continues on its economic suicide, but won't understand what they've done until it's too late.
To quote these same NY folks in their youth "The whole world is watching. The whole world is watching." The whole world will find a new place to invest.
The goal of the judge is pretty obvious- make Trump's team use up its peremptory challenges long before most of the jury is seated. I can guarantee you the prosecution is doing the exact same thing, but the difference is the judge will show no skepticism at all that a pro-Trump social media comment shows bias requiring dismissal for cause. It is an unlevel playing field- as a commenter above pointed out, kangaroo courts behave like kangaroo courts.
Of course. Democrats are always fair. And anyway, Trump hate is warranted and justifies everything.
As I wrote the other day- there are only two types of people in this jury pool- those who admit they have prejudicial bias and those who lie about it not having it. There is no middle ground here.
Is this effort by Trump's team a "cudgel" as the WP claims?
If you have a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, were lucky enough to be on the jury panel, and are salivating at the chance of actually having a chance to send worse than Hitler to jail, wouldn't you be a little defensive about all your old tweets wishing him dead?
"To fight back against what he says is an inherently unfair jury pool, Trump’s defense team hired a jury consulting firm that is analyzing all posts from jurors...."
Every civil litigant who can afford it does that. Every criminal defendant who can afford it does that. They do it in all sorts of judcial districts and jurisdictions. They do it as much as the client's budget can stand it. It is by no means any sort of special response to "Manhattan." Indeed, Manhattan might be a more fertile environment for such checking because of the nature of the population. Better educated, better connected, more digitally social.
But it is reeeeaaalllly expensive.
Of all the things to blog, this subject is sort of surprising/not surprising. The one that I thought might have been blog worthy (apart from Trump's terrible violation of the pretrial order barring him from aiming comments at jurors) was Trump's wildly false and frankly bizarre social media post that he had thought he was allowed "unlimited" premptory challenges. That's not true; it's never been true; it's not true in any jurisdiction; and it is just weird that he would make a claim that his lawyers misled him.
Runaway Jury 2003
Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) - Everybody has a secret they don't want you to find. Find it!
"Said no potential juror ever who didn't want to serve."
Good observation.
To say that your social media posts do not reflect upon your biases is so ridiculous that the only people who would claim so are liars, oblivious, and/or insane. The whole point of social media posts is to reveal what you think, whether that be your opinion on political matters, how hot you think you are, or how good your meal was last night. The only other explanation, barring a true change of heart, is you are lying about what you posted for some reason, in which case the person is inherently untrustworthy.
The fact that the judge is skeptical says more about the judge that Trump's lawyers.
Call Merchan’s daughter as a witness. Make him disallow it.
So far, the judge has been mostly skeptical of the defense claims of dangerous bias exhibited by old social media posts.
Biased judge is okay with biased jurors, as long as they share the same bias.
Oh, "behind the scenes" they're "scrambling" and "racing"! What chaos!
Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure. It's what he and they do best.
Ah! Trump’s team hired Dr. Jason Bull!
I truly think the prosecution and probably the judge don't care of any conviction is eventually overturned on appeal. They just want a conviction before the election and will do everything in their power to make sure it isn't overturned until after the election.
"Legal cudgel" my ass. In a case of this size and importance it would amount to legal malpractice not to look at the social media activity of every prospective juror.
More objective reporting from WaPo.
Judge Magoo: "Those old posts where prospective jurors said they hate Trump is not anti-Trump bias!"
AND??? Why wouldn't they, when the questionnaire by the judge was biased towards Trump supporters??
A person who is automatically defensive, instead of honestly admitting the truth, is someone who is unreliable and not objective. They are going to defend their biases.
Is Trump's jury expected to be unanimous in their verdict? Yes. That means imo there's a very good chance this trial will result in a hung jury and this exercise of so called justice is complete waste of taxpayer money. I also suspect people will be extremely sick of hearing about Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump's past sexual exploits. To drag out a previously beaten to death scandal of an ex-president is beyond unseemly.
"Jurors questioned in court about their old social media posts were often defensive and dismissive of the suggestion that the old posts revealed anything important about their views or ability to be fair...."
Old posts or pictures don't mean anything, ask Al Franken.
Has the Trump team learned anything from the D.C. jury over the Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn defamation trial?
If the juror lives in the bubble, claims from outside that bubble bounce off.
As we use to say back in high school days, "Cut the shiitte!"
"Lets hang him first, then we'll give him a trial"
Slate, of all places, had a different take on potential jurors. Judging by the free access you've granted us to WaPo and the bias I've seen there, I trust Slate (of all places) more.
A juror can be kicked off the trial if it is found they lied in any way during voir dire ....
So even with a jury.. later the whole thing can be thrown out.
The "Judge" in this case has a daughter that is literally fundraising for Democrats by sending out emails about Trump being charged with crimes.
We know that the "Judge's" family in this case will make money fundraising off of a conviction.
His refusal to recuse in this case is absolutely obscene.
We also know that some seated "jurors" are just activist shitheads that have already been caught lying to get on the jury and convict Trump.
The only reason to continue with this case is to make it clear to the entire Nation that Democrats and Biden Regime supporters are willing to sacrifice the Rule of Law to hold on to power.
You shitheads better reflect on where this is going because you will not like where this ends.
why even put up challenges during jury selection? and give credit to system as if court is not kangaroo?
I wonder what would happen if any of the commentators on Althouse Blog ever ended up on a jury of an important criminal trial of a public official, and all of their posts on Althouse Blog (even if done anonymously) would become public. That would be a real revelation.
Mark said...
Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure. It's what he and they do best.
************
And of course this is a standard criminal trial.
SNORT
lonejustice said...
I wonder what would happen if any of the commentators on Althouse Blog ever ended up on a jury of an important criminal trial of a public official, and all of their posts on Althouse Blog (even if done anonymously) would become public. That would be a real revelation.
************
Curiously, you seem to think YOU would never have to go through that scrutiny.
Is it because you're a convicted felon, and unable to serve on a jury?
"I wonder what would happen if any of the commentators on Althouse Blog ever ended up on a jury of an important criminal trial of a public official, and all of their posts on Althouse Blog (even if done anonymously) would become public. That would be a real revelation."
We would, of course, get dismissed for cause, Lonejustice. I don't know why you think you are making a point of any importance with this. Some of us might try to lie about it I suppose, but from what I have seen in these comments over the years, there aren't many of us stupid enough to lie about what we have written.
Are potential jurors required to disclose their online noms-de-plum to make "tracking down" their opinions and biases easier?
@lonejustice
Another exceedingly lame attempt at 'gotcha'.
No significant number of people in New York, 60 percent of whom voted for Hillary and Biden, are in any way bothered by being identified with an anti-Trump social media post.
Judge instructs journalists NOT to report ANYTHING they see in the courtroom is standard criminal court procedure? What is your source, california psychics?
Your aloneness is well deserved.
Mark said...
Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure. It's what he and they do best.
Were you ever sentient, or were you always a braindead kneejerk fascist?
I don't know that many social posts reflect critical thinking. It's more team choosing.
Any fair consideration of the facts in this case will result in a hung jury. Any other outcome is evidence or a rigged system.
When is Clintons trial?
I mean Billy. The cigar chomper.
VA Lawyer Mark: "Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure. It's what he and they do best."
Alanc709: "Were you ever sentient, or were you always a braindead kneejerk fascist?"
VA Lawyer Mark went right over the cliff the very second his preferred candidate, DeSantis, burned through $200+ Million without winning even a single county in Iowa and being forced to "suspend" his campaign...and wait patiently for Lawfare to do what he couldn't...along with his globalist backers.
At which point VA Lawyer Mark went from reasonable Trump opponent to over-the-cliff Maddow-like. So desperate is he, as evidenced by the collapse in quality and honesty in his postings, for Trump to be crushed by the establishment/deep state forces.
This election will be one of those “Dead Uncle in a Wheelchair in the Brazilian Bank” situations with Biden.
Blogger Oh Yea said...
I truly think the prosecution and probably the judge don't care of any conviction is eventually overturned on appeal. They just want a conviction before the election and will do everything in their power to make sure it isn't overturned until after the election.
Exactly ! Bragg knows none of these show trials will get by appeal. The judge certainly doesn't care.
Democracy Dies when voter ID is gone.
Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure. It's what he and they do best.
I used to differentiate between the two Marks.
No need to do that anymore.
"Judge instructs journalists NOT to report ANYTHING they see in the courtroom is standard criminal court procedure? "
The First Amendment analysis of whether newspapers should be able to print identifiable details of potential jurors and put them in danger may be complicated.
The moral, ethical, and social analysis of whether newspapers should is not complicated.
But no doubt the media can explain the news value of knowing the name of the specific bookstore where a particular potential juror works. I’m sure some of Trump’s most fervent followers are interested in it.
"Reporters in the courtroom relay that prosecutors refused to extend the normal courtesy of telling the defense which witnesses are coming up because Trump tweets about it. Fine says judge."
It would be very difficult to exaggerate how bad it is not to know what witnesses are coming next. The more witnesses and the more complicated the case, the worse it is. Also: this is a great illustration of how a trial judge has a million ways to absolutely screw you over. You have no right to advance warning of witnesses, it’s mere a custom that judges generally enforce to assure things move smoothly — which they may not enforce if you you persist in being a dick. When your whole existence relies on everyone else upholding the norms you refuse to, it’s gotta suck to get a taste of your own medicine.
That would be a real revelation.
Why? I've got nothing to hide. If they want to see my bias, they can simply ask me.
But that's not what's going on here, is it?
Why are you so dishonest?
Of course the Trump team is whining about what is standard criminal trial court procedure.
Are you saying it's not the proper role of a legal defense team to advocate vigorously for their client?
Are you saying this trial doesn't have elements that, even to the most anti-Trump observer, might give pause, such as the shoehorning of a federal crime that was declined to be charged into a misdemeanor state offense in order to charge it as a felony, the attempt salaciously to paint the question as a "sex scandal" when it's an accounting case, and the failure to bring the case when it might have been actually relevant but rather to wait until an election year in which the Democrat incumbent appears vulnerable?
Are you saying that the WaPo is not trying to steer public opinion by using the loaded language that the Trump team is "scrambling" and "racing" "behind the scenes" to do its job to seat a jury that, in a wildly unfavorable venue, will nevertheless judge their client fairly? Can you imagine a WaPo that, instead, described the actions of the Trump team as "acting as quickly as possible to determine whether prospective jurors harbored animus toward their client"?
For goodness' sake.
Smart move by Trump’s team. Good to see he has better lawyers now than he did back in 2020.
Why am I not surprised that WaPo presents it as an attempt to manipulate the jury?
The judge(D) is a compromised Stalinist hack.
The collective left: Stand still why we shoot you.
At which point VA Lawyer Mark went from reasonable Trump opponent to over-the-cliff Maddow-like.
And also, apparently there are 2 Marks? Because the one who says the most response-worthy things (which I always interpreted as "Mark said something needing a response" rather than "one of the Marks said...") never seemed to me to be a "reasonable Trump opponent."
But if there are 2, then maybe I'm just not sure who's saying what.
Jamie: "But if there are 2, then maybe I'm just not sure who's saying what."
Just click on the name if you are not sure. VA Lawyer Mark has a profile.
Dumb Lefty Mark has no profile...and no brain.
There are a couple other Marks as well that post from time to time...but Dumb Lefty Mark (with no profile) is quite distinctive in a moron sort of way.
tim maguire: "Smart move by Trump’s team. Good to see he has better lawyers now than he did back in 2020.
Why am I not surprised that WaPo presents it as an attempt to manipulate the jury?"
The Defense needs to get every overreach, BS Judge ruling, etc into the record for later appeals/appellate action.
WaPo is simply one megaphone appendage of The New Soviet Democraticals.
Jim at: "I used to differentiate between the two Marks.
No need to do that anymore."
This is happening with a not insignificant number of the DeSantis supporters, particularly the loathsome DeSantis Online Influencer Crew put together by Pushaw...which, once again, works diectly against DeSantis political interests long term.
Jim at: "I used to differentiate between the two Marks.
No need to do that anymore."
Oddly they both claim to be lawyers. Though I have yet to see it in their reasoning. I can only conclude that in whatever state they allegedly practice law it must be dead easy to pass the bar.
Jury people are either (1)curious listeners to the evidence or are (2)secret agents whose vote is owned by one side.
And secret agents are secret. That’s why a unanimous verdict is the required criminal guilt verdict. Jury trial system expects secret agents will lie their way onto the panel. Only one is needed by Def. But a strong personality acting as the leader(foreman) is needed to give prosecution the win by unanimous verdict.
The jury focuses on the blacked robed man on a Dias for hints whom he believes is guilty.
But over all the show put on by the trial lawyers determines the winner. The best actor and persona gets what he wants from his jurors who like him. And they are usually right for the wrong reasons but come out right.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा