Donald J. Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal. Two of the seven jurors who had already been seated in his criminal trial were excused.
It is legitimate for the court to ask. After all, if someone worked at a hotel or real estate firm which is in direct competition with Trump properties, their objectivity might be called into question. And in the interest of transparency, it is normally good to default to making the information public, as a check on the decisions being made by the judge.
But this all shows how we’re in uncharted territory. The media is desperate for any information at all, and the defendant has a history of encouraging stochastic terrorism against people he perceives as a threat. I wonder if he considers the fact that he basically intimidated a juror into leaving a victory.
Of course it’s reasonable for the court to ask, but the court knowing, and that information being released outside of the court, are two different things. This isn’t the first time we’ve had a defendant that would encourage retaliation against a jury, there’s no way the court system doesn’t have any idea how to protect a jury.
Yeah, but the right to a public trial is so important that it’s right there in the Constitution, next door to the presumption of innocence. That means that trials must be as transparent as possible, even to the media.
Any unusual act that the judge takes to limit that transparency must be justified. This trial is too important to risk getting its verdict overturned on any technicality.
When I sat on a jury a couple years ago the judge & both attorneys knew my employer as part of the juror selection process. It was one of the questions on the questionnaire we had to fill out. The defense attorney did ask me one or two questions about my job before agreeing to have me as a juror. But there was absolutely no need for that information to go anywhere beyond those few people.
It is legitimate for the court to ask. After all, if someone worked at a hotel or real estate firm which is in direct competition with Trump properties, their objectivity might be called into question. And in the interest of transparency, it is normally good to default to making the information public, as a check on the decisions being made by the judge.
But this all shows how we’re in uncharted territory. The media is desperate for any information at all, and the defendant has a history of encouraging stochastic terrorism against people he perceives as a threat. I wonder if he considers the fact that he basically intimidated a juror into leaving a victory.
Of course it’s reasonable for the court to ask, but the court knowing, and that information being released outside of the court, are two different things. This isn’t the first time we’ve had a defendant that would encourage retaliation against a jury, there’s no way the court system doesn’t have any idea how to protect a jury.
Yeah, but the right to a public trial is so important that it’s right there in the Constitution, next door to the presumption of innocence. That means that trials must be as transparent as possible, even to the media. Any unusual act that the judge takes to limit that transparency must be justified. This trial is too important to risk getting its verdict overturned on any technicality.
“We have a defendant who very publically threatens and abused judges, prosecution, officers of the court, any one who stands up to him”
… seems pretty fucking justified.
The American people- and specifically the people in New York are also entitled to a fair trial.
When I sat on a jury a couple years ago the judge & both attorneys knew my employer as part of the juror selection process. It was one of the questions on the questionnaire we had to fill out. The defense attorney did ask me one or two questions about my job before agreeing to have me as a juror. But there was absolutely no need for that information to go anywhere beyond those few people.
Can’t they just ask that though instead of asking for your current employer?