Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

Not only were they supposed to know the defendant, they had an obligation to study and establish what the law was in a given case, and to investigate the case itself to try to establish the facts. Kind of like early policemen, since those didn't exist at the time

I too am unsure when the concept of an impartial jury crept in, but it is enshrined in the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” So it's been there in American pretty-much since the beginning, or since 1791 at least.

Pardon my stupidity, but given the coverage Trump and his machinations have been getting since before he became President, how on earth can anybody on this jury be considered to be "fair", whichever side they are on?

Originally (in merrie old ingerlande) the whole idea of a jury was 12 men who did know the accused. Their job was more to vouch for the defendant.

Not quite sure at what point the concept of an impartial jury crept in.

More

The prosecution suggests not asking about former and current employers so as to reduce chances of jurors being publicly identified. The defense responds that the judge should instruct the media not to report on this information.

Judge Merchan rules that the answers to the 2 questions about current and former employers will be redacted from the transcript and he directs the media NOT to report on this information.

From the NYT live updates:
Quote:
The first potential juror that is being questioned this morning says she has previously worked as a law clerk and has discussed the legal merits of this case with many of her coworkers. Justice Merchan asks if that would influence her if she’s chosen for the jury. She paused before saying she could be fair, but then added: “It is hard to unring a bell.”
Unquote.

Pardon my stupidity, but given the coverage Trump and his machinations have been getting since before he became President, how on earth can anybody on this jury be considered to be "fair", whichever side they are on?

Shocking - I agree.
DP's family in U.S. has several members who work in education. Most in Blue states so generally OK to speak/teach freely but one is in Arizona and they are seriously thinking of moving to Ireland if Trump "wins" in November.

Meanwhile, Day 3 begins and already jurors are afraid of being targeted by the Orange one and his flying monkeys.

From Washington Post
The third day of jury selection in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan started Thursday morning with one of the seven jurors sworn for the case saying she wanted out and being excused, and lawyers raising questions about a second one.
^^

Jurors’ names are not being released publicly. But the woman said that after news reports described her profession and other details, friends, colleagues and family members conveyed to her that she had been identified as a potential juror. The fate of a second sworn-in juror — No. 4 — was up in the air Thursday morning after prosecutors said they had discovered additional information that called into question the veracity of that juror’s statements.

^^
A total of 12 jurors and about six alternates are needed to hear the criminal case. Prospective jurors are being questioned about their social media habits and feelings about the former president, who has been observing the process this week in court.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, said in court Tuesday that he hoped to get to opening statements Monday

I've just noticed this heading under "trending" in the Washington Post. Is it me, or is this not just absolutely shocking to be reading in the twenty-first century?

"Red states threaten librarians with prison — as blue states work to protect them
Dozens of measures advanced in recent years aim to either restrict which books libraries can offer and threaten librarians for handing out “obscene” or “harmful” titles — or to prohibit such bans or harassment."
https://wapo.st/3Q8un7v

Don Snoreleone, The Nodfather...

😂

The Nodfather

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-fundraising-2667802464

I take much joy in sharing this, which I think is not fake news, from yesterday.

Trump media share price up a little today.
My DH used to work in finance and this was referred to as a "dead cat bounce". Most things recoil after hitting the bottom

Court not sitting today so Don Snoreleone has an opportunity to catch some 💤 😴🛌

It seems to be the mainstay of many a legal thriller, worth a couple of chapters at least. I have John Grisham and Scott Turow to thank for most of the little I know of the American legal system.

We have our first six jurors, and the foreperson, in Trump's historic criminal trial.

For their privacy and security, these jurors have been anonymized to the general public. The court proceedings have revealed details about their lives that would provide information about them without disclosing their identities.

Adam Klasfeld on twitter

this was explained on the telly, but I don't quite understand either.
something like jurors excluded through the questionaires based of pre-agreed criteria plus then 10 refusals each side without reason plus a certain number with reason.

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1780305203192856864

When Trump's lawyer questioned a juror about Facebook posts, the former president reacted audibly and visibly.

After she leaves, Justice Merchan angrily warns him via his lawyer:

"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make that crystal clear."

Where did I get the idea that only a certain number of jurors is allowed to be disqualified by each side in a US court? Clearly from what I'm reading above, there is an infinite number of juror dismissals allowed on each side.

On a serious note, using a legal procedure called Antommarchi probably was causing issues for Team Trump.

I've seen a suggestion that the jury selection could result in a lot of first generation immigrants ... maybe I should believe in a God after all.

He has nodded off again

That suggests my tweet that only the guilty do that hit home.

Strike 1 !

Trump no longer wanting to attend sidebars discussions.

A bit more on this morning's jury selection from The Washington Post.

Trump trial jury selection kicks off Tuesday with hiccups
. By Shayna Jacobs


The morning session started with Justice Juan Merchan addressing the reason for the late start (by about 15 minutes): Several prospective jurors who were part of the selection process were not there yet. One of them reported feeling sick, and two others were late.

Merchan replaced two people in the jury box who had been there Monday — Juror No. 8 and Juror No. 10 — but when Juror No. 10 got to court around 10 a.m., that person was put back into the box. (To protect their anonymity, prospective jurors are being referred to only by their court identification numbers.)

Over 6,000 jurors receive summonses to appear for Manhattan courts this week, an increase by about 2,000 summonses that are sent out on average. Court administrators expect that a fraction of those people will actually appear, and people are permitted several postponements of jury service.

In the Manhattan jury pool, residents tend to be more transient than in other boroughs, and summonses sometimes go to a person’s old address. If they have moved to Queens or Brooklyn, they are no longer eligible to serve in Manhattan.

Yes - a lot does seem to be unravelling in Trumpworld but it's happening soooo slowly!

This article explains how the jurors are questioned and the reasons why they can be dismissed by either side. It doesn't cover what happens if they "run out" of jurors but I think I read somewhere that there are at least 500 available to be called on.
Many seem to be self-excusing because they say they can't be impartial, but they're not being questioned on that claim as it would take too long. I suspect many just don't want to chance the possibility of being outed/targeted by Trump fanatics.

I distrust Trump supporters so much that I wouldn't be surprised if they lie about being impartial in order to get a chance of being chosen.

https://theconversation.com/how-jurors-will-be-selected-in-trumps-legal-cases-a-criminal-law-expert-explains-216049