What comes next for Donald Trump?

[CountValentine]

I don't disagree, but he was talking about the Ds.

I think they are there also. We are doomed!

[savvydigz]

I see no reason he won't.
If someone wants to use the logic that NYC is D and that is why he won't get a fair trial/verdict from the jury, then it is flawed.

Ye I'm sure if you would be the jury he would also have a fair trial

[CountValentine]

Ye I'm sure if you would be the jury he would also have a fair trial

I have been on several juries. He would get a 100% fair shake from me. You follow the evidence and the judge's instructions. Some here just can't comprehend that.

[shapsam]

I have been on several juries. He would get a 100% fair shake from me. You follow the evidence and the judge's instructions. Some here just can't comprehend that.

Why is there even a process of qualifying/disqualifying jurors before a trial? Just take any set of random people and they'll follow the evidence and the judge's instructions.
Obviously there is a thing called bias, and no sane person believes they got a 100% unbiased group of people in NYC (not even talking about the blatant bias the judge showed when selecting jurors and throughout the whole process).

This that you say you can be on the this jury and give him a fair shot, just proves the point. A biased person that sincerely thinks they are being fair, is still biased and can judge incorrectly even though they think they're being fair.

[CountValentine]

Why is there even a process of qualifying/disqualifying jurors before a trial? Just take any set of random people and they'll follow the evidence and the judge's instructions.
Obviously there is a thing called bias, and no sane person believes they got a 100% unbiased group of people in NYC (not even talking about the blatant bias the judge showed when selecting jurors and throughout the whole process).

The logic being used is that it is a D state so the D's will vote to convict. So, let's say the state is 80% D's (it isn't nowhere near that). That means on average you will have 2-3 R's on the jury. You only need one for a hung jury. It should be the other side complain he will get off because of the R's on the jury. As I said, flawed logic!!!

This is the MO of MAGA. Make BS up before it even happens.

[CountValentine]

This that you say you can be on the this jury and give him a fair shot, just proves the point. A biased person that sincerely thinks they are being fair, is still biased and can judge incorrectly even though they think they're being fair.

They can also put there bias completely to the side. I don't expect you to understand that.

[shapsam]

The logic being used is that it is a D state so the D's will vote to convict. So, let's say the state is 80% D's (it isn't nowhere near that). That means on average you will have 2-3 R's on the jury. You only need one for a hung jury. It should be the other side complain he will get off because of the R's on the jury. As I said, flawed logic!!!

This is the MO of MAGA. Make BS up before it even happens.

Also, I agree there is very little chance of Trump having an unbiased jury anywhere in the country, but especially NYC where yes, it's at least 80% anti trump.

And if he is acquitted or a hung jury, that doesn't change the fact that they were biased, it will just show what a sham trial it was that the prosecution couldn't even get a biased jury to convict.

[CountValentine]

Also, I agree there is very much little chance of Trump having an unbiased jury anywhere in the country, but especially NYC where yes, it's at least 80% anti trump.

And if he is acquitted or a hung jury, that doesn't change the fact that they were biased, it will just show what a sham trial it was that the prosecution couldn't even get a biased jury to convict.

If they have bias, he should get a hung jury verdict by your logic. It is the liberals that should be up in arms.

[shapsam]

They can also put there bias completely to the side. I don't expect you to understand that.

Impossible to do that with the subconscious. A biased person can't say they will be fair, they may not even know that their mind is tainted when they think they're being fair.

[shapsam]

If they have bias, he should get a hung jury verdict by your logic. It is the liberals that should be up in arms.

The prosecution did a pretty good job (with the help of the judge) to disqualify anyone with a hint of being biased on the side of Trump.

Also, jurors will be scared/intimidated to be the only one or two to not find him guilty.

[CountValentine]

You are making excuses even before the verdict is in. If he is found guilty that means according to your logic even those who had bias in favor of Trump still found him guilty.

[CountValentine]

The prosecution did a pretty good job (with the help of the judge) to disqualify anyone with a hint of being biased on the side of Trump.

Back this BS up with proof.

[YitzyS]

In a regular courtroom setting, the trial creates a bubble in reality, in which the jurors are kept in a sterile environment with a controlled flow of information, and the judge instructs them exactly what to consider and what not to consider, as well as exactly what would rise to the bar of a crime and what components are needed to convict.

For example, you may not care or like worms, but if I told you that Worm A has a circumference of 2 mm and a worm can bore through a papaya at the rate of 3 cm per day and the law mandates that a worm is guilty of boring only if it does so in less than 4 days, etc etc etc, do you think that Worm A fulfilled the necessary components of the criminal statute. Now, even a person who has no interest or like for worms can listen to all the info and try to make a reasonable verdict. And it works in most cases. (You would need to have witnessed an entire case to understand how the judge is almost removing the jury from the outside world in regard to the case, and creating a carefully designed ecosystem for them to ponder the verdict in, free of any personal opinions.)

The only question is when dealing with a case that most people ALREADY have such a strong opinion about, does the standard jury process succeed in isolate people from their previous opinions and result in a fair trial? I would imagine that it may work for some jurors, but what is the chance that ALL of the jurors reach such a point?

[shapsam]

You are making excuses even before the verdict is in. If he is found guilty that means according to your logic even those who had bias in favor of Trump still found him guilty.

Correct. It's an outcome that is very possible. Whatever the verdict is, this would not have been a fair trial.

[shapsam]

Back this BS up with proof.

The fact is they disqualified people even after the jury was set when there were clues that they may be pro trump, it's also a fact that the judge went along with it. I don't have proof that he didn't to help the prosecution, it is just my opinion.

[CountValentine]

The only question is when dealing with a case that most people ALREADY have such a strong opinion about, does the standard jury process succeed in isolate people from their previous opinions and result in a fair trial? I would imagine that it may work for some jurors, but what is the chance that ALL of the jurors reach such a point?

It is the system we have. It is a pretty good system. When you have someone that calls uncle 24/7 you don't listen to him.

Look at the OJ trial. The guys was 100% guilty IMHO. If I was on the jury and basing this on most of the trial I seen, I would have found him not guilty.

[CountValentine]

The fact is they disqualified people even after the jury was set when there were clues that they may be pro trump, it's also a fact that the judge went along with it. I don't have proof that he didn't to help the prosecution, it is just my opinion.

Both sides had people removed for cause that the judge agreed with.

They need to select jurors from my block. There are many that don't care about politics. They don't even vote because they don't care.

[CountValentine]

Juror No 1
Juror No 1, a man, works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has some college education. He is married with no children, and says he gets news from a range of outlets such as the New York Times, the Daily Mail, Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror No 2
Juror No 2 is a married man who works in investment banking. He has an MBA in finance. He described himself as someone who “reads basically everything” and said that while he doesn’t hold any strong beliefs or opinions, he does follow the news and sees Trump’s Truth Social posts via Twitter. He told the court that he had not read any of Trump’s books, but had seen quotes from The Art of the Deal.

Juror No 3
Juror No 3 is a man who appeared to be in his late 20s or early 30s, who is originally from the west coast. He works in corporate law and said that he gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Google.

Juror No 4
Juror No 4 is a man who is originally from the west coast. He is a security engineer with some college education, and is married with children. He said he was not on social media, and once served on a criminal jury in the past though could not remember the verdict. When asked if he had any concerns about returning a guilty verdict, he said no.

Juror No 5
Juror No 5 is a young woman who said that she had friends with strong opinions on Trump, but that she was not a political person and avoided the news. She said she did appreciate Trump’s candor, and that he “speaks his mind, and I’d rather that than someone who’s in office who you don’t know what they’re thinking”.

Juror No 6
Juror No 6 is a woman who works in tech. She told the court that she had no strong feelings about Trump, and pledged to be fair and impartial. She is unmarried with no children, and gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok.

Juror No 7
Juror No 7 is a man in his late middle age who works as a civil litigator. He is married with children and has never served on a jury. He gets his news from a variety of outlets including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the Washington Post, and from podcasts.

Juror No 8
Juror No 8 is a retired wealth manager who is married with children. Asked if he had any strong opinions about Trump, he paused for a moment before answering yes. When the judge followed up to ask him if he could be fair and impartial, he said he could.

Juror No 9
Juror No 9 is a woman who told the court she believed she could fully follow the judge’s instructions, but was not well versed in legal proceedings. She lives alone, does not follow the news closely and is originally from New Jersey.

Juror No 10
Juror No 10 is a man who works in e-commerce and said he did not really check the news, but listens to podcasts on behavioral psychology. He is originally from Ohio.

Juror No 11
Juror No 11 is a woman who said she did not follow the news, but did watch late-night comedy shows. She is originally from California, and said she had never rallied for or against Trump. One of her close friends was convicted of financial fraud, she said.

Juror No 12
Juror No 12 is a woman who works as a physical therapist. She lived in a few states before coming to New York, reads major news outlets and listens to podcasts about sports and faith.

[HudZ]

CV,
Do you look at Jury Duty as a bother for you, but as a good law abiding citizen, you go anyway.
Or is it a privilege.

[CountValentine]

CV,
Do you look at Jury Duty as a bother for you, but as a good law abiding citizen, you go anyway.
Or is it a privilege.

I look at it as a civic duty. Also, for me I received full pay + a few dollars so no hardship involved.
IIRC I was 4 for 4 for being picked. Unlike here they loved me.