NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

[Ljube]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

[Ljube]

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

You and I should have no idea who is serving on the jury.

[Ljube]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

You and I should have no idea who is serving on the jury.

I have no problem with that. But the press believes the public has the right to know.

[brucejoel99]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Test

Can folks post here now?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Test

Can folks post here now?

Yes.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

[Ljube]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

Sometimes people need further reflection, as appears to be the case with one of them.  But you could well have made your point without using the very loaded word "plants", which implies a deliberate, underhanded attempt to manipulate the jury makeup.  There is no indication that this was the case here.  If you'd said "anti-Trump jurors", I wouldn't have said a thing about it.

[emailking]

12 jurors + 1 alternate have been selected (includes replacing the 2 previously seated jurors that were dismissed). The main thread is locked for some reason.

Judge refused to order the prosecution to give the names of the first 3 witnesses to the defense, even on the promise that Trump would not "Truth" their names (lol), and then even on promise they would not be shared with Trump. Worried about their safety.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You could hold the trial anywhere in America, even the territories, and Trump's team would still try to doxx, harass, and threaten the jurors.

The best bet at this point might be to find some remote stone age tribe and try explaining to them about fraudulent business financial transactions.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I think some of you fail to understand a core principle of the jury system: jurors are allowed to have opinions about people involved in the case -- whether it's the defendant, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, the judge, the arresting officer, or the person running the security checkpoint at the courthouse entrance.  Jurors are supposed to (and they swear to, at least in the jury oath in some jurisdictions) put aside any such opinions and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented.  Their opinions get left outside on the courthouse steps. 

Most people, I think, are pretty good at this.  Some are not.  If a juror feels they cannot put aside their opinions, then they should be excused -- which is something that is routinely asked in jury questioning.  If the prosecutors or defense believe that a juror can't be fair for some reason, they can move to have the juror excused for cause; failing that, they can use one of their peremptory strikes if they just have a bad feeling about a particular juror.  But simply having an opinion about the defendant -- whether favorable or unfavorable -- or a political leaning is not sufficient cause by itself to remove them; there needs to be some other indication that they can't render a fair verdict.

If you think it's impossible to find a fair jury even for a famous defendant, then you really don't believe in the jury system (and, I suspect, you don't have much faith in people at all).  Believing that jurors shouldn't have opinions or political leanings is as misguided and unrealistic as believing that police officers, judges, or prosecutors shouldn't either.  Their opinions don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.  Most of them do, and those that don't should be removed from their jobs.  Being a juror is just another job (a short-term, low-paying one) in the same category.

[7,052,770]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

These people weren't "biased," they were understandably scared of their lives being ruined by this (or worse). I would never agree to be on this jury for that reason. We already know what the MAGA cult will do to innocent people who were just doing their jobs correctly.

[Ljube]

I think some of you fail to understand a core principle of the jury system: jurors are allowed to have opinions about people involved in the case -- whether it's the defendant, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, the judge, the arresting officer, or the person running the security checkpoint at the courthouse entrance.  Jurors are supposed to (and they swear to, at least in the jury oath in some jurisdictions) put aside any such opinions and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented.  Their opinions get left outside on the courthouse steps. 

Most people, I think, are pretty good at this.  Some are not.  If a juror feels they cannot put aside their opinions, then they should be excused -- which is something that is routinely asked in jury questioning.  If the prosecutors or defense believe that a juror can't be fair for some reason, they can move to have the juror excused for cause; failing that, they can use one of their peremptory strikes if they just have a bad feeling about a particular juror.  But simply having an opinion about the defendant -- whether favorable or unfavorable -- or a political leaning is not sufficient cause by itself to remove them; there needs to be some other indication that they can't render a fair verdict.

If you think it's impossible to find a fair jury even for a famous defendant, then you really don't believe in the jury system (and, I suspect, you don't have much faith in people at all).  Believing that jurors shouldn't have opinions or political leanings is as misguided and unrealistic as believing that police officers, judges, or prosecutors shouldn't either.  Their opinions don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.  Most of them do, and those that don't should be removed from their jobs.  Being a juror is just another job (a short-term, low-paying one) in the same category.

If that is so, then let's move the trial to a 50-50 jurisdiction somewhere upstate.
The opinions of jurors don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.

Or better yet, let's move the trial to rural Texas.

[Ljube]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

These people weren't "biased," they were understandably scared of their lives being ruined by this (or worse). I would never agree to be on this jury for that reason. We already know what the MAGA cult will do to innocent people who were just doing their jobs correctly.

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

[emailking]

It would have to be somewhere in New York so Texas is not an option. The defense would have to show they could get a fairer trial else. The political leanings of a location is not a factor in that. Media coverage could be. But heavy media coverage of Trump is ubiquitous. So it really doesn't matter.

[Ljube]

It would have to be somewhere in New York so Texas is not an option. The defense would have to show they could get a fairer trial else. The political leanings of a location is not a factor in that. Media coverage could be. But heavy media coverage of Trump is ubiquitous. So it really doesn't matter.

The political leanings must be a factor when the defendant is the nominee of one of the parties.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

These people weren't "biased," they were understandably scared of their lives being ruined by this (or worse). I would never agree to be on this jury for that reason. We already know what the MAGA cult will do to innocent people who were just doing their jobs correctly.

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

Wrong.  Any person who is even open to the possibility of convicting Trump (and any fair juror should be open to either conviction or acquittal going in!) knows they have the possibility of being threatened if they vote to convict.

Now ask the next question: why should any potential juror -- anti-Trump or otherwise -- feel threatened?  Do you think it's okay that anti-Trump jurors would feel threatened?

Whether you intended it or not, you just put your finger on a fundamental problem with Trump and his followers: they're willing to threaten, intimidate, and engage in violence against any threat to their leader!  If you don't see this as the enormous threat to democracy that it is, I don't know what to say.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Mods, might be a good time to update the thread title, since the trial is underway and a jury has been selected (other than the few remaining alternates)?

[Bacon King]

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

jesus christ what the hell

It's illegal to threaten ANYONE on a jury

it's the role of the attorneys and the judge to eliminate potentially biased jurors through the process of voire dire

Even if they're the most "anti-trump" person on the planet it's still extremely illegal and insane for partisans like you to take the matter into their own hands and form a vigilante mob to threaten and intimidate them, utterly toxic to the rule of law

[Florida Man for Crime]

The political leanings must be a factor when the defendant is the nominee of one of the parties.

Is there some sort of reason why this "must be" the case other than the fact that you say so?

[7,052,770]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

These people weren't "biased," they were understandably scared of their lives being ruined by this (or worse). I would never agree to be on this jury for that reason. We already know what the MAGA cult will do to innocent people who were just doing their jobs correctly.

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

You can post it 10,000 times if you want to, and you'll never be right. If this jury finds Trump guilty, regardless of the politics of the jurors, regardless of the evidence, regardless of anything, those jurors are going to be suffering for it forever.

[7,052,770]

Can you imagine if Democrats (including MSNBC hosts) were doxxing and threatening jurors who had previously voted for Trump and then said "Any person who is not pro-Trump will not feel threatened!" ?