Trump quickly promoted Fox News commentary from John Yoo, a former Justice Department official and Trump administration appointee, who called it “pretty extraordinary” that “half the jury is already saying it’s so biased against President Trump that he cannot sit.” the jury.” Trump’s allies on social media promoted the clip and largely picked up the talking point. The idea is that Trump can’t get a fair trial in a region where only 12 percent of voters l ‘s argued in 2020, which laid this fact bare.
That’s not exactly what the jurors said, however. And if the situation is certainly extraordinary, it is not necessarily so for this reason.
Contrary to Yoo’s assertion and some characterizations, the jurors were not dismissed because they said they were biased. against Trump. The question overall was whether they could be fair and impartial in this matter, which could logically include bias in favor of Trump or other factors. Merchan laid out detailed criteria for a fair juror, saying one should also not be biased toward potential witnesses or prejudge the facts of the case.
Given the makeup of Manhattan, it may be fair to assume that many of those who raised their hands meant they were biased against Trump, but we can’t say for sure.
The question then is how surprising and instructive this is.
Some experts on the jury selection process say that’s not too surprising. But they also note that it’s hard to say, because it’s very unusual to start a trial this way. Although jurors are often asked if they can be fair and impartial, an answer “no” usually does not result in their immediate dismissal.
“It’s very common to ask potential jurors if they think they could be fair,” said Thomas Frampton, a jury selection expert at the University of Virginia Law School. “Although in an ordinary trial, the judge or parties (depending on the jurisdiction) would ask important follow-up questions to ask whether the juror is truly biased, whether he can set aside his preconceived notions, and whether he would eventually follow instructions.”
Nancy S. Marder, director of the Justice John Paul Stevens Jury Center at Chicago-Kent College of Law, noted that such a question can give jurors an opt-out option if they decide not to participate in the case for others. the reasons.
“In some cases, some potential jurors may not want to participate in a six-week jury trial that will be in the public eye,” Marder said. “An anthropologist who was called for jury duty in a high-profile case in New York once described what he saw as a “culture of excuses.” »
Jury bias expert Gregory Cusimano said the process Merchan chose provides “an easy way to avoid service.”
Among the jurors dismissed for bias, more than two dozen appeared to be white women, 14 appeared to be white men, one appeared to be a Hispanic woman, four women appeared to be of Asian descent, and one man appeared to be of Asian descent . descent.
Atlanta defense attorney Chris Timmons noted that the situation here is also unusual because of Trump’s divisiveness. But he added that “dismissing jurors for cause without allowing attorneys to attempt to rehabilitate them should actually speed up the selection process,” which involves hundreds of potential jurors and could take weeks.
Which brings us to a related point: What is said specifically about the Manhattan jury pool, where half of them claim to be incapable of being fair and impartial?
This is perhaps less surprising when we look at a national YouGov poll released Monday. The survey found that 57 percent of Americans said they could be impartial jurors in this case; but the remaining 43 percent said they would not (19 percent) or were not sure (24 percent).
Passions about Trump also run high across the country. Polls have shown that nearly three-quarters of people nationwide have “strongly favorable” or “strongly unfavorable” views of Trump.
It is also a case that has already received extensive media coverage. Nearly half of Americans have already bet that Trump broke the law or did “nothing wrong.” Just 19 percent told AP-NORC pollsters last week that they didn’t know enough to make a judgment. If a juror has already reached such a conclusion, regardless of their personal feelings about Trump, it may also affect their ability to serve impartially.
And it flies in the face of complaints from Trump and his allies. While this could be interpreted as a sign that the jury pool might be highly biased, people who raised their hands citing bias were also quickly excluded from jury duty.
“They might have very strong feelings because the accused is in the public eye,” Marder said. “Or it could be that New Yorkers aren’t afraid to express their strong opinions.” But in both cases, that’s exactly what should arrive.”
washingtonpost
