Lessons learned from the second day of jury selection in Trump’s hush money trial

CNN
—

On Tuesday, seven jurors were placed on the panel that will decide former President Donald Trump’s guilt or innocence in the New York hush-money case, but the process is complicated by how difficult it is to select all jurors. It highlights how this is often controversial.

Trump’s lawyers comb through prospective jurors’ social media posts, try to exclude people with anti-Trump bias from jurors, and defense team removes people from jurors for cause He also questioned several jurors about the posts when he asked them to do so.

The process led Judge Juan Machan to harshly admonish Trump for his conduct with the first juror questioned about social media. It was an immediate warning that any attempt to intimidate jurors would not be tolerated. The issue didn’t come up for the rest of the day, but it will certainly have an impact on the former U.S. president’s first criminal trial.

As expected during the scheduled six-week trial, the courtroom was dark on Wednesday, but jury selection resumed on Thursday, with 96 new jurors chosen to potentially make up the final panel. It will be done.

Here are the highlights from the second day of the Trump hush money trial:

So far, four men and three women have been selected to serve on the jury that will ultimately try Trump on 34 charges of falsifying business records.

An Irish man who works in sales in New York City has been appointed jury foreman, essentially acting as a spokesperson for the panel.

Five out of seven have a college degree or higher. Two men on the committee are lawyers.

All but one of the jurors whose charges were commuted Tuesday said they were aware that Trump was also charged in other criminal cases. She was the only one of the 18 jurors questioned to say she didn’t know about the other charges.

None of them shared particularly strong opinions about President Trump or politics.

Once the defense team finished questioning the first 18 jurors in a process known as voile d’ire, both sides had the opportunity to ask the judge to dismiss the jurors for cause.

Removing jurors for any reason is an important part of the process. That’s because each side can challenge a total of 10 jurors for any reason, in a process called a preemptive challenge. Jurors who are justly censured by the judge are not counted in this her ten.

Trump’s team asked a judge to dismiss five jurors for cause, pointing to alleged anti-Trump social media posts and trying to argue that jurors were unfairly biased against the former president. I asked for it.

The jury in the case is public but anonymous, but lawyers were given the identity of the first panel of 96 potential jurors on Monday. This gave the Trump campaign an opportunity to mine public social media posts in preparation for a potential challenge to the judge.

During his questioning of jurors, Todd Blanche, the former president’s attorney, asked each juror individually what they thought about Trump outside of the trial. He also tried to argue before the judge that many of the jurors’ responses about not having an opinion about Trump were inconsistent with social media.

Machan was generally skeptical, but agreed on two points that the jury should be dismissed. One man posted on Facebook during the Trump era that he was going to lock him up.

As for the three jurors that Marchand did not strike, Trump used preemptive challenges to remove them all anyway. Since Tuesday, Trump’s team and the district attorney’s office each have four pre-emptive challenges remaining.

Mr. Trump’s conduct in court has once again put him in a stalemate — albeit briefly — with judges.

Marchan was one of the jurors to discuss social media posts brought forward by Trump’s team that videotaped a celebration in New York after Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Trump was summoned individually and reprimanded for his actions.

“I believe very strongly that the job of a jury is to understand the facts of the case and be the judge of those facts, regardless of what you think about someone or something, whether it’s politics, emotions, beliefs, etc.” ” said the jury.

After the jurors left the courtroom, the judge admonished Trump, saying he could hear Trump talking and gesturing toward the jury.

“Mr. Blanche, when the juror was at the podium and probably 12 feet away from my client, I heard my client say something. Exactly what he was saying. I don’t know, but I heard him gesticulating in the direction of the jury. I don’t condone that,” Marchand said, raising his voice to Trump’s lawyers. “I have no intention of intimidating jurors in this courtroom. I want to make that clear.”

“Yes, sir,” Blanche replied, before having a brief conversation with Trump.

The moment passed without further discussion, and the judge did not express any concerns about President Trump’s conduct when more jurors were convened individually.

But it’s a notable moment because a judge has already expanded a gag order in the case that prohibits President Trump from speaking about witnesses, family members, the district attorney’s office and court staff.

And next week, the district attorney is asking a judge to fine Trump $1,000 for violating the gag order and warn him that future violations could result in prison time.

That hearing will take place next Tuesday, likely immediately after the trial is underway.

The harrowing process, in which lawyers from both sides questioned potential jurors for 30 minutes, was a preview of how each side would approach the jury pool and, ultimately, the jury in the case. .

While explaining the case to the jury, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass suggested how prosecutors will appeal to the jury at trial, saying that all witnesses remember past events the same way. He pointed out that the way witnesses remember details may differ.

“Can we be realistic and not hold witnesses to unrealistic standards?” he asked all jurors, asking them to say if that was unacceptable.

He pointedly said some of the witnesses had “some sort of advantage,” describing them as tabloid publishers and adult film stars, and that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen had been accused of being in Congress. He said he was convicted of federal crimes, including lying.

Mr. Steinglass asked jurors whether they could be open to the testimony of a convicted felon without prejudice.

He also noted that witnesses have written books, produced podcasts and participated in documentaries.

He argued that while jurors can consider all of this when assessing a witness’s credibility, they are not the only things to consider.

“The question, as I’ve always said, is, can you wait until you hear the rest of the evidence in the case, not just the testimony of the witnesses, before you decide whether to believe something or not?” Steinglass said. asked.

Mr. Branch, on the other hand, spent almost all of his time thinking about how jurors would view Mr. Trump. He asked jurors whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of the former president.

One man had multiple interactions with Blanche, but largely refused to share his views on Trump, saying his views didn’t matter in court and could be divisive.

“I’m going to say I’m a Democrat, so go ahead. But when I get in there, he’s the defendant and that’s all he is,” the juror said.

The jury was then challenged by the judge for cause over Trump’s challenges to his social media posts.

One of the things Marchand emphasized this week is that the court’s schedule is fluid. However, the judge hopes to finish jury selection this week.

After swearing in seven jurors on Tuesday, Marchan told jurors he hoped to return for opening statements next Monday, but the schedule could change at any time and the court He emphasized that he would be contacted by.

He then swore in a new panel of 96 jurors Tuesday afternoon before dismissing them for the day, saving logistical time until the jury returned Thursday morning.

Those jurors will go through the same process as the original panel of 96 jurors over the past two days. The new panel will be asked whether it believes it cannot be impartial or if there is a conflict, and will be questioned first by the judge and then by lawyers for both sides.

There is no guarantee that a full jury of 12 jurors and six expected alternates will be selected. She was one of only seven chosen from the original 96 judges.