Half of President Trump’s potential jurors said they could not be impartial. What does that mean?

President Trump quickly promoted comments on Fox News by John Yoo, a former senior Justice Department official and Trump administration appointee, saying, “Half of the jury is already too biased against President Trump. He called it “extremely unusual”. jury. ” Trump’s allies promoted the video on social media, making the talking points resonate far and wide. Trump won a fair trial in a region where only 12% of voters supported him in 2020. The idea is that this fact has been exposed to the light of day with this development.

But potential jurors don’t actually say they’re biased against trump. And while the situation was certainly unusual, it wasn’t necessarily so for the reasons Trump’s allies claim.

Contrary to Mr. Yoo’s assertions and some of his characterizations, the question is broadly whether prospective jurors can be fair and impartial in this case, and logically there is no bias in Mr. Trump’s favor. and other factors may be included. Machan laid out broad standards for an impartial juror, saying they must not be biased against potential witnesses or prejudge the facts of the case.

Given the makeup of Manhattan, it’s probably fair to assume that a high number of people raising their hands means they’re biased against Trump, but that’s far from the case.

The question from there is how surprising and instructive this development is.

Some experts on jury selection say that’s not all that surprising. But they also point out that it is difficult to say because it is highly unusual for a trial to begin in this way. Jurors are often asked if they can be fair and impartial, and a “no” answer usually does not result in immediate dismissal.

“It’s very common to ask prospective jurors whether they think they can be impartial,” said Thomas Frampton, a jury selection expert at the University of Virginia School of Law. “However, in a typical trial, the judge or the parties (depending on the jurisdiction) are required to interrogate whether the jury is truly biased, whether they are able to put aside their preconceptions, and whether they will ultimately comply.” Extensive additional questioning will be conducted.

Nancy S. Marder, director of the John Paul Stevens Jury Center at Chicago-Kent Law School, said such questions are an option for jurors to opt out if they decide they don’t want to take on the case. It was pointed out that there is a possibility that Other reasons.

“In some cases, some potential jurors may not want to participate in a six-week jury trial that would attract public attention,” Marder said. “An anthropologist called as a juror 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 chosen by Marchand offers “an easy way to circumvent the service.”

Of the jurors rejected for bias, more than 20 appear to be white women, 14 white men, one Hispanic woman, four Asian women, and one Asian man.

Atlanta defense attorney Chris Timmons said the situation here is also unusual because of how divisive President Trump is. But, he said, “removing jurors for cause without recognizing their attorneys’ efforts to rehabilitate them should actually speed up the jury selection process.” The selection process involves hundreds of potential jurors and could take several weeks.

This brings us to a related point. What does it say about Manhattan’s jury pool, especially when half of them claim they can’t be fair and impartial?

This development may not be all that surprising given the YouGov national poll released on Monday. There, 57 percent of Americans said they would be an impartial juror in the case, while 43 percent said they would not (19 percent) or disagree. I definitely think so (24%).

Enthusiasm for Mr. Trump is also increasing across the United States. According to polls, as many as three-quarters of Americans have a “very favorable” or “very unfavorable” view of President Trump.

This incident has already been widely covered in the media. Almost half of Americans have already decided that Trump has broken the law or has done “nothing wrong.” Just 19% told AP-NORC pollsters last week that they didn’t know enough to make a decision.

And that’s the flip side of Trump and his allies’ frustrations. This could be interpreted as an indication that there may be a lot of bias among the jury as a whole, but those who raised their hands to say they were biased were also quickly removed from jury role. .

“They may have strong feelings because the defendant is in the public eye,” Marder said. “Or maybe New Yorkers aren’t afraid to express their strong opinions. But in either case, this is just should happen. “