The swift seating of seven jurors in the high-profile New York trial of former President Donald Trump over alleged hush-money payments has brought not just progress in judicial proceedings, but also fresh concerns about juror safety, particularly in the face of potential intimidation. Legal experts warn that extreme measures might be necessary to safeguard juror anonymity and well-being, given Trump’s history of threats and his overt courtroom demeanor.
The Manhattan-based trial, which moved forward at an unexpectedly rapid pace, has placed two lawyers, an oncology nurse, an IT consultant, a software engineer, an educator, and a West Harlem resident in the hot seat to determine whether Trump falsified business records to cover up a payment to an adult film actress who claimed an encounter with him. As the judge and legal teams wade through prospective jurors’ social media for bias, Trump’s attorneys have dissected years-old posts for disqualifying opinions. One potential juror was excused after expressing elation over a court decision against Trump’s travel ban, while another was kept despite a spouse’s anti-Trump social media activity.
“After Monday, it looked like the jury selection process might take weeks,” said Bennett Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former New York prosecutor. He further expressed his astonishment at the significant number of jurors seated on Tuesday and noted the increased “likehood” that the necessary 12 jurors and potentially up to six alternates could be chosen by week’s end.
The trial’s jury selection process, often a quiet procedure, has garnered extraordinary media attention due to the high stakes and Trump’s notoriety. Jurors’ profiles are already circulating, risking their privacy and possibly their safety. Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori emphasized the importance of protecting jurors, stating that their anonymity might be compromised if current publicity levels persist. Judge Juan Merchan may, therefore, be compelled to take steps to shield jurors from public and media scrutiny.
After informing presiding Judge Juan Merchan that they could not maintain impartiality, numerous individuals were excused from the jury pool, as reported by Politico. Additional inquiries resulted in the judge and the involved parties excluding others for various reasons, while a select few were eliminated by the prosecution and defense teams. Gershman noted that each side is allotted 10 chances, known as “peremptory” challenges, to eliminate potential jurors without needing to provide a justification.
“The grounds for striking a juror ‘for cause’ typically is the juror’s expressed inability to be fair, impartial, and to able to keep an open mind whatever their politics or personal views,” Gershman explained. “Some jurors may have demonstrated in their past strong views about Trump and the case. That would not necessarily be a ground to excuse them if they insist they could still be fair and consider the evidence objectively.”
Relevant articles:
– Expert: Judge may be “forced to take extreme measures” to protect jurors after Trump intimidation, Salon, 04/27/2024
– Clearinghouse: 2016 Election Interference Case – Manhattan District Attorney, Just Security, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 04:45:26 GMT
– Trump trial live: First week of testimony concludes as jury hears about ties to Stormy Daniels, Yahoo News Australia, Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:13:21 GMT
– Judge rejects Donald Trump’s bid for new E. Jean Carroll trial, upholds $83M judgment, WLS-TV, Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:38:32 GMT