Whelp, I see they found 6 so far that lied about having no bias.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, the people that need to be reached are the few who still could go either way. If they pay any attention at all,

---

The people that still go either way are not paying attention.

The "middle" is notoriously the least informed and most politically ignorant group out there.

---

i.e. the people who make a lot of decisions based on emotions and feelings.

Faustus said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How so? Juries determine intent every day in courts in every state in this country. it has nothing to do with mind reading.

I'm pretty sure 95% of the posters on this forum realize this is a political attack case, but being asked to determine intent, has nothing to do with mind reading.

---

Not just men either, women can determine mens rea too.

---

But can women form mens rea with their tiny brains?

fc2112 said:

---

I'd crawl through broken glass to get on that jury.

---

I would to, but I would also be dismissed in a heartbeat by the prosecution from just a cursory scan of my social media posts.

Im Gipper said:

---

How so? Juries determine intent every day in courts in every state in this country. it has nothing to do with mind reading.

I'm pretty sure 95% of the posters on this forum realize this is a political attack case, but being asked to determine intent, has nothing to do with mind reading.

---

You are missing the point on intent. Asking a jury to find as a matter of fact that Trump decided to do something that is not specified as to what that "something" was is requesting them to at a minimum read the minds of the prosecutor as to what that actually was. Intent to do an act is still required, even in a case of reckless endangerment, for instance, without knowing harm could/would result still needs intent to do the act, whether reckless or not..

There is still no mind reading here.

The prosecutors are going to say during the trial what that other crime was.


It's the violation of federal election laws.

(Which, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't even be allowed as a predicate for this crime)

Im Gipper said:

---

There is still no mind reading here.

The prosecutors are going to say during the trial what that other crime was.


It's the violation of federal election laws.

(Which, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't even be allowed as a predicate for this crime)

---

The ability to even say that in front of jury should be challenged by a motion in limine. Too close to the bad acts evidence that routinely are excluded because of relevance or more prejudicial than probative.

This is a very slow trainwreck of a criminal case.

Quote:

---

Six jurors have been seated in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial so far today. Here's what we know about them:
[ol]

The first seated juror, who will be the foreperson on Trump's jury, is a man originally from Ireland. He works in sales and has some college education. He is married but doesn't have kids. He reads the New York Times and Daily Mail and watches some Fox News and MSNBC.

The second juror is an oncology nurse who lives with her fianc. She's a native New Yorker. She reads the New York Times and watches CNN.

The third seated juror is a corporate lawyer. He's originally from Oregon. He gets his news from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Google. He's a younger man who's never been married and doesn't have kids.

The fourth juror is an older Puerto Rican man who's married with adult children and two grandkids. When asked about his hobbies, he said, "I guess my hobby is my family." He has an IT business for training and consulting and attended one year of college. He told the court he finds Trump fascinating and mysterious. "So many people are set off one way or the other and that is interesting," the man said. "Really, this one guy can do all of this, wow." Trump "makes things interesting," the man said, but also didn't indicate any strong feelings about his politics.

The fifth juror is a young Black woman who teaches English language in a public charter school system. She has a master's degree in education, is not married and doesn't have any kids. The juror said that as a person of color she has friends who have strong opinions on Trump, but she personally is not a political person. She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. The juror did say she appreciates Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was also the only juror of 18 in the box Tuesday morning who said she wasn't aware that Trump is facing charges in other criminal cases.

The sixth juror is a software engineer at a large broadcast company who recently graduated from college. She voiced no strong feelings about Donald Trump one way or the other and said, "I will be fair and impartial." She is not married and has no kids, currently living with three roommates in Chelsea. The juror gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok. She asked the judge whether her sister's wedding on a Sunday in September would be a scheduling conflict. Merchan quipped, "If we were still here in September that would be a big problem," garnering laughs in the courtroom.

[/ol]

---

Quote:

---

The six potential juror to review his questionnaire was dismissed after he raised a work problem.
Before being dismissed that juror said, "as much as I would love to serve for New York and one of our great presidents," he felt he couldn't take off from work for six weeks.

---

Just as well, he would have been struck by the state anyway.

Quote:

---

Remember: Six jurors have already been seated on the jury. Donald Trump's team has used six of his 10 preemptive challenges. The district attorney's office has used four of its 10 challenges. A panel of 12 New Yorkers and likely six alternates will ultimately be selected.

---

Four left for the defense.

Six left for the state.

nortex97 said:

---

Wall Street. We do have a few smart guys/gals.

---

No...the POSTER named Manhattan...

I am working backwards on the updates that were posted while I was gone. So just posting items I feel are significant. This has a tendency to piss off prospective jurors, BTW.

Quote:

---

Another panel of 96 individuals were brought in to be sworn as potential jurors.
Some looked around curiously perhaps nervous, perhaps excited as they passed the half-dozen journalists and a sketch artist in the back row, according to to pool reports
"Ma'am, ma'am put your cell phone away," a court security officer told one potential juror after she saw Donald Trump and tried to pull out her phone.
Some looked nervous. One man and woman were whispering feverishly to one another. Heads craned to try and look at Trump, according to pool reports.

The potential jurors were sworn in, vowing to truthfully answer all questions. Then were dismissed for the day.

Quote:

---

"I know that you've been sitting around all day, waiting for something to happen, and I want you to know that that wasn't lost on us," Judge Juan Merchan said, telling them that things would start right away when they return Thursday morning.

---

The rest of the afternoon will pivot to questioning of six potential jurors from the first panel.

---

There will be no court on this matter tomorrow. So now they have to likely come back on Thursday.

I figure any woman on the jury is an automatic guilty verdict. Of those characteristics listed, the corp lawyer from Oregon is also a guilty verdict. Maybe the guy from Ireland and Puerto Rican might be guys who would at least be somewhat impartial.

LOL.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked a potential juror who said he has friends who have committed crimes if he'd hear from a witness in this trial who also committed crimes, Michael Cohen.
She asked the juror whether that would keep him from having an open mind to what Cohen has to say.

Quote:

---

"I wouldn't prejudge it, but I would definitely have to listen to him based on what he says," the potential juror said.

---

She followed up by asking whether his feelings about keeping an open mind might change with Cohen changing his story when he pleaded guilty.

"No, I was a corrections officer in New York City, so I've heard it all," he said when asked if that would be a concern.

---

A guy who knows a scumbag when he sees one.

Quote:

---

The seventh juror seated today has been sworn in.

Judge Juan Merchan said that he is "hopeful we'll be ready to go Monday morning" with the trial, though he shrugged as he said it.

---

Five to go for the jury. Plus six alternates left to be seated.

Of the six picked so far, pretty easy to guess how most will vote if asked to do so right now.

1. Probably Guilty
2. Guilty
3. Guilty
4. ?
5. Guilty
6. Guilty

What is concerning to me is how few have ever had kids. Parents have a different perspective as to future consequences that might affect their children and grandchildren.

But I will venture to guess that corporate lawyer knows his way around NDAs. Those are quite common in corporate practice.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Seat number one is being refilled after that juror was excused earlier. Once that juror is through questioning, there will be 18 jurors that made it through the questionnaire.

There's still a long way to go before we get a jury, however, as this is just the first step in jury selection.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan last week released the questionnaire that is being presented to potential jurors in court. It contains multiple questions that could signal political views to the lawyers on both sides.
A panel of 12 New Yorkers and six alternates will ultimately be selected to decide whether to convict Donald Trump
Here's a look at some of the topics of the questions:

• News consumption
• Affiliations with groups like the Proud Boys, QAnon and Antifa
• whether prospective jurors or anyone in their circle attended a Trump rally or an anti-Trump event.
• If they've ever read books or listened to podcasts from Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness for the district attorney, or if they've read any of Trump's own books.

Those in the jury pool will also be asked if they have views on whether a former president can be charged in state court and how Trump is being treated in this case.
The questions are being used for the judge to strike jurors at the outset, if they don't believe they can render a verdict fairly. They are also being used by lawyers for both sides to strike jurors for any reason a key part of the jury selection process.

---

---

Sounds like a lot of questions to determine if they might be supportive or at least sympathetic to Trump.

And none to determine if they would be antagonistic towards Trump...

Interdasting.

Quote:

---

[ol]

The seventh juror is a civil litigator who is married with two kids and lives on the Upper East Side in Manhattan. Originally from North Carolina, he reads the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Washington Post. He said he has "political views as to the Trump presidency" and that he thinks there were likely Trump administration policies he disagreed with. "I don't know the man and I don't have opinions about him personally," he said. "I certainly follow the news, I'm aware there are other lawsuits out there. But I'm not sure that I know anyone's character."

[/ol]

---

So two lawyers, one corporate and one a trial attorney have been seated? That really surprises me. By all rights, the state should not want anyone with legal knowledge within a mile of this jury. The litigator will spot the holes immediately.

Yeah but again not all attorney's are created equal. Not all of them view the law as something sacred. As something that when the law is applied evenly and equally universally allows civilization to advance. It's a tool for personal enrichment or status. I grew up around attorney's and that jaded me pretty well. My folks were fine but lots of their partners were snakes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

There is still no mind reading here.

The prosecutors are going to say during the trial what that other crime was.


It's the violation of federal election laws.

(Which, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't even be allowed as a predicate for this crime)

---

The ability to even say that in front of jury should be challenged by a motion in limine. Too close to the bad acts evidence that routinely are excluded because of relevance or more prejudicial than probative.

This is a very slow trainwreck of a criminal case.

---

This is where I get hung up on this.

So Bragg gets up and says, "Trump violated a federal law"

The Defense challenges it saying, "Trump has not been accused of violating a federal law and so there is no underlying crime."

What Bragg has to do is then say, "Even though it's out of my jurisdiction, and no federal prosecutor is alleging it, I believe he has..."

That's an incredibly slippery slope.

AgLiving06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

There is still no mind reading here.

The prosecutors are going to say during the trial what that other crime was.


It's the violation of federal election laws.

(Which, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't even be allowed as a predicate for this crime)

---

The ability to even say that in front of jury should be challenged by a motion in limine. Too close to the bad acts evidence that routinely are excluded because of relevance or more prejudicial than probative.

This is a very slow trainwreck of a criminal case.

---

This is where I get hung up on this.

So Bragg gets up and says, "Trump violated a federal law"

The Defense challenges it saying, "Trump has not been accused of violating a federal law and so there is no underlying crime."

What Bragg has to do is then say, "Even though it's out of my jurisdiction, and no federal prosecutor is alleging it, I believe he has..."

That's an incredibly slippery slope.

---

Not just a slippery slope in normal times, that's an auto mistrial and sanctions for prosecutor saying that in front of the jury.

Insert random criminal defendant on trial for involuntary homicide. Prosecutor says to jury, "You know he has committed other crimes." Stopping there.

Wait what?

Prosecutors cannot do that...again when our legal system functioned the way it was intended.

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

There is still no mind reading here.

The prosecutors are going to say during the trial what that other crime was.


It's the violation of federal election laws.

(Which, for a multitude of reasons, shouldn't even be allowed as a predicate for this crime)

---

The ability to even say that in front of jury should be challenged by a motion in limine. Too close to the bad acts evidence that routinely are excluded because of relevance or more prejudicial than probative.

This is a very slow trainwreck of a criminal case.

---

This is where I get hung up on this.

So Bragg gets up and says, "Trump violated a federal law"

The Defense challenges it saying, "Trump has not been accused of violating a federal law and so there is no underlying crime."

What Bragg has to do is then say, "Even though it's out of my jurisdiction, and no federal prosecutor is alleging it, I believe he has..."

That's an incredibly slippery slope.

---

Not just a slippery slope in normal times, that's an auto mistrial and sanctions for prosecutor saying that in front of the jury.

Insert random criminal defendant on trial for involuntary homicide. Prosecutor says to jury, "You know he has committed other crimes." Stopping there.

Wait what?

Prosecutors cannot do that...again when our legal system functioned the way it was intended.

---

It's ok here because he just accused Trump of intending to commit a felony

Have Trump's lawyers filed a mandamus brief to a higher court (if permissible) on the issue of Bragg essentially using federal laws outside his jurisdiction? I guess since Bragg never gave the predicate crime until now, they couldn't do that?

annie88 said:

---

This is the first time I've truly been scared for Trump. This whole trial should never have happened and now that it is, it's a corrupt biased, leftist judge, a corrupt biased, leftist prosecutor, and they're going to see as many corrupt biased liberals as they can. I'm not sure I see him getting out of this one, but I hope he does.

This is crooked from the first second. There is literally no justice or even common sense here at all. Hate Trump all you want, but if you can look at this trial and think that this is OK then **** you. What this courtroom and our country doing right now is absolutely disgusting. It is straight up political persecution.

This judge, this prosecutor should both be disbarred. Their behavior is absolutely disgusting.

---

They'll get their conviction. Some fine and terms of probation will be levied.
MSNBC and CNN analysts will collectively orgasm on cable TV.
Trump will successfully appeal but it will take a year to 18 months.

Clavell said:

---

Whelp, I see they found 6 so far that lied about having no bias.

---

They're all going to lie. I will be shocked if they aren't. And they're going to be about 98% liberals and Democrats who want Trump in prison and not to be president again. This whole thing is total bull*****

Quote:

---

They'll get their conviction. Some fine and terms of probation will be levied.
MSNBC and CNN analysts will collectively orgasm on cable TV.
Trump will successfully appeal but it will take a year to 18 months.

---

Hope so. But the way they keep timing these things to interfere with his campaigning, which he really doesn't have to do anyway, and the election is pretty gross. I wouldn't be surprised if they do find him guilty which you know they will because they've already decided they will, that they will move up sentencing and actually try to get him in prison before then. We're not talking about anything to do with Justice or an honest judicial system. They are that desperate.

jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The potential juror said a Facebook video of people celebrating after the 2020 election that is being reviewed "was just a New York celebratory moment."

"I think I went to the car to alternate side parking or something like that and there were people dancing in the street and stuff," she said.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump was gesturing and audibly speaking in the direction of the potential juror who was being questioned, Judge Juan Merchan said after the juror left the courtroom.

"Your client was audibly uttering," he told Trump's lawyers. "I will not have any jurors intimidated in the courtroom."

---

That's not jury intimidation. Trump has the right to participate in his defense, that includes during jury selection.

---

Wow. Even on Day 2, this judge can't help but show his OWN personal bias against Trump.

---

Yeah, it's gross. Beyond wrong.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that the social media posts in question are jokes and not an indication of bias.

"It is not necessarily as weighty as it's being suggested," he says.

---

That's being quite disingenuous because you know they would move to strike any potential juror having a bunch of MAGA stuff all over their social media.

---

And actually they are as weighty as they are being suggested. That's an absolute lie. Yes, some people post things in humor, but it's still showing which "side" they're on. And that would go for both sides.

Trump is effed

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/jurors-trump-trial-criminal-case-jury-dg/index.html

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Trump is effed

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/jurors-trump-trial-criminal-case-jury-dg/index.html

---

Yea he ain't getting acquitted. Best he can hope for is somehow one of them is principled enough to endure the shrieking from the oncology nurse and hang the jury.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche said that there are social media posts from potential jurors that are "very much contrary" to the answers they have given.

Blanche has not offered any specifics yet.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors said they don't have any challenges for cause for the potential jurors in seats 1 through 12.
However, Trump attorney Todd Blanche is challenging the prospective juror in seat 1 for cause.
"Juror No. 1 has a series of extraordinarily hostile Facebook posts," he said.

---

---

Is it a crime to lie in voir dire?

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche said that there are social media posts from potential jurors that are "very much contrary" to the answers they have given.

Blanche has not offered any specifics yet.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutors said they don't have any challenges for cause for the potential jurors in seats 1 through 12.
However, Trump attorney Todd Blanche is challenging the prospective juror in seat 1 for cause.
"Juror No. 1 has a series of extraordinarily hostile Facebook posts," he said.

---

---

Is it a crime to lie in voir dire?

---

yes

barbacoa taco said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

That juror looked me right in the eye and when she said she could be very impartial, she meant it," Merchan says, adding that the juror is credible

---

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous on its face. Sure, I attended a Klan rally but I can be impartial when judging whether this black man killed a white woman.

---

It impossible to pick an unbiased jury when the defendant is Donald Trump. Everyone and their mother has an opinion on the guy. The challenge is picking the least biased.

---

Then they need a change of venue to allow a larger pool of less biased people for the jury.

Quote:

---

The fifth juror is a young Black woman who teaches English language in a public charter school system. She has a master's degree in education, is not married and doesn't have any kids. The juror said that as a person of color she has friends who have strong opinions on Trump, but she personally is not a political person. She said she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. The juror did say she appreciates Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was also the only juror of 18 in the box Tuesday morning who said she wasn't aware that Trump is facing charges in other criminal cases

---

closet conservative