E. Jean Carroll case: Two potential jurors say they believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen

[iluvtennis]

Judge Kaplan asked the potential jurors if anyone believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Two people in the pool said yes and Trump turned around to look at them.

The judge moved on without further questioning those two potential jurors.

The judge then asked whether anyone in the jury pool follows Trump on social media and two said yes. Trump again turned around to see who they were.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/live-updates-trump-attends-trial-e-jean-carrolls-defamation-case-new-y-rcna134004

short article - no more at link

=====
Potential jurors believe that 2020 election was stolen from tfg - you can't make this shit up. Those jurors lack critical thinking skills and don't need to be on any juries.

[Walleye]

1. Trump will be signing them up to his fundraising list

[gab13by13]

4. Selling them a piece of his pant leg.

[Walleye]

9. A one inch square piece

[meow2u3]

45. The part of the pants where he shat

That ought to smell like a rose, if a rose by any other name still stinks.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

31. With stupid that extensive

I'd bet they already are on his list.

[Walleye]

34. That might be a good question to ask prospective jurors

[gab13by13]

2. Please Please Trump,

try some of your BS with this judge.

Judge Kaplan will not put up with Trump's shit.

[TSExile]

3. Wonderful.

I am at work and can't see any news coverage. Is the gigantic ogre actually in the courtroom right now? Is E. Jean there?

[gab13by13]

5. Yes Yes

[iluvtennis]

6. He was there earlier. See the summary UPDATE at this link...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/live-updates-trump-attends-trial-e-jean-carrolls-defamation-case-new-y-rcna134004

[TSExile]

8. Thank you both kindly.

E. Jean, this one's for you...

[bluestarone]

7. Yea, and could just read TFG's mind, (oh don't tell the judge that)

Actually can't believe they were honest with the judge.

[getagrip_already]

10. its not the ones who answer truthfully I worry about....

It's the sniveling cowards who sit there and lie, knowing they are i the tank for the asshat.

4 jurors out of a pool of how many? 100? stinky has been poisoning the jury pool for two years. NY could easily have 20% magats floating around in jury pools, and not all of them will be honest during questios.

Still, the last jury did its job, and the decision doesnt need to be unanimous, so lets hope this one is shaken clean and does its job.

[LiberalFighter]

17. They should be able to check their voting history and check social media.

[mopinko]

24. the jury is anonymous.

in most big trials they do do basic research on jurors. not sure how legal that is. but it’s done.

[Thunderbeast]

41. What would "voting history" tell them...

Only their party registration and the fact that they voted..

Can't assume WHO they voted for..,

[MOMFUDSKI]

11. Keep the maga

off the jury.

[spanone]

12. How many lied?

[no_hypocrisy]

13. My first thought too.

Will the attorneys research their social media inclinations?

[spanone]

14. If they go to prison for him, what's s lie?

[mopinko]

25. they're anonymous.

otherwise i’m sure they wd.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

32. I can assure you that attorneys have far more means

Of squirreling out who the traitors are in the group.

It's an old secret that many attorneys have called in body language experts in the court room during voir dire. Cell phones make it easy to send a discreet text to the paralegal, who whispers a yes/no to the attorney.

[spanone]

35. They could lie their way onto a jury. Nothing to stop that.

[Liberal In Texas]

15. -Potential- Doesn't mean they're going to get chosen to be on the jury.

Plaintiffs attorneys have a certain number of strikes the can use to excuse these potential jurors.

[Bettie]

21. And they may be able to strike them for cause

https://study.com/academy/lesson/challenge-for-cause-definition-criminology-lesson.html#:~:text=Challenge%20for%20cause%2C%20or%20'strike,impartial%20verdict%20in%20a%20trial.

What is the difference between challenge for cause and peremptory challenge?
In challenge for cause, the judge will ultimately decide if the challenge is successful based upon the presentation of facts by counsel, and there are an unlimited number of challenges for cause allowed during the jury selection process. A peremptory challenge, on the other hand, is fairly wide open. Counsel can use their peremptory challenges to disqualify service, so long as it does not interfere with the Badson exception. There are a limited number of peremptory challenges allowed in a case, and the number varies depending upon the jurisdiction and type of case.

How does challenge for cause work?
A challenge for cause can be issued by either side of a legal case. The challenge will be made in court and, depending upon the judge's procedure, the facts will be presented either in a sidebar conversation with the judge or to the open court. The judge will consider the challenge and the facts that were presented as well as any rebuttal and make an immediate determination to sustain or overrule the challenge.

Is challenge for cause unlimited?
A challenge for cause is unlimited because the Sixth Amendment requires the right to a fair and impartial jury. A challenge for cause calls into question both the fairness and potential impartiality of the prospective juror. Therefore, unlimited challenges are allowed because it is more important under the U.S. Constitution to have a fair trial for both sides of a trial by jury.

What is an example of a challenge for cause?
There are a few reasons a potential jury member might be challenged for cause during jury selection. One example of a legitimate challenge for cause would be to challenge the seating of a juror based upon their family relationship with any party to the case. For example, if a potential juror is the cousin of the defendant in a case this would be a viable reason to exclude them from service under a challenge for cause, because it would call into question their potential to be impartial.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. Yes. Good point.

[barbtries]

16. two of them.

you'd think it was 10 of them the way the media covers only them.

these are the fringe, not the mainstream. there is hope in that.

[jcgoldie]

18. ok

morons you are dismissed go home.

[Freethinker65]

19. Or they just really don't want to serve on the jury.

Honestly, there are quite a few that follow(ed) Trump on social media just to know what he up to. I wouldn't necessarily toss them. Those that believe the race was in someway stolen obviously have no critical thinking skills.

[intheflow]

42. What I came to post.

I know people who will say anything to get out of jury duty.

[Hekate]

20. I have sat for jury selection where a batch of people were simply dismissed at the end...

Including me. I was asked about my education (it was part of the form I filled out: What is your highest level of education) and as a new PhD I was happy to say I’d gotten my degree in Mythological Studies, and on further query I gave the title of my dissertation as well.

Maybe they thought I was weird — but shortly I was gone.

The people who are Trump acolytes may suffer the same fate. You won’t know until later.

[iluvtennis]

23. I'm a retired software engineer. I was always told that neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys

want engineers on their juries as engineers are too logical and trade-off/weigh things. The lore is the attorneys want people they can lead down the paths they want them to take and not exercise any critical thinking skills.

I can only imagine that you with a PhD would not be wanted by the lawyers.

[mchill]

27. I've heard something slightly different

But I suppose it depends on the case. I’ve heard they want intelligent jurors but no subject matter specialists as they will interject their own knowledge into deliberations.

I live in a rural county and my coworker and myself kept on a jury but also worked in the field of the civil case (forestry). It was impossible to not separate personal knowledge while judging the case. Likewise, the other jurors were easily convinced by things we both said. In the end I asked the losing lawyer (we ended up being friends) why she kept me given my work and it was just personal for her—we both went to Berkeley. Bad move.

[iluvtennis]

28. Thanks for sharing that. Agree, the lawyers never tedn to want any jurors with subject matter expertise

that relates to the case.

[Hekate]

39. Heh. It might be fun to be on a jury together. I did get on one where a tenant was injured by a badly installed stove

Ultimately we found for the tenant — among other things, the landlord was a do-it-yourselfer and installed the appliance himself. Otherwise he was a sympathetic-enough blue-collar immigrant character.

One of the things about the experience that I found most interesting was that the fellow juror I had pegged at first sight as being politically conservative was in the building trades and we ended up very much on the same side in this, despite the .skeptical look he gave me on first being seated, as if to say, Is this the Woo Lady?

My dad was an airplane inspector-supervisor, you see, and he was extremely meticulous about anything to do with electricity, plumbing, you name it. He trained my brothers, not me, but I listened. I kept asking questions of the guy in the building trades, and finally we built up a picture that enabled me to say that the landlord had left the unopened packet of instructions on the kitchen counter and had made not one, but 5 errors, in installation.

Thus the tenant opened the oven to check the Thanksgiving turkey and about 5 gallons of boiling water for corn on the cob spilled down her back, because the stove was only a few degrees off-level.

[iluvtennis]

40. Wow, what a case. And it warms my heart you all found for the tenant.

Thanks for sharing the story of your jury experience.

[dlk]

26. All of the election deniers have no evidence

They’re perpetrating a complete fiction and a fairy tale. More in the media should ask, “Where is the evidence”?

[ShepKat]

29. aren't they vetted ?

go through a series of questions to see if they're fit to serve ?
Wouldn't this question be imperative to ask potential jurors ??

[Emile]

30. They could be people wanting out of jury duty because

of the stench in the court room.

[JudyM]

43. 😆

[FelineOverlord]

33. They were NOT selected for the jury

Link to tweet

[Walleye]

36. If they believe the Big Lie, they will believe anything he says

[Evolve Dammit]

37. Without a shred of proof, the Big Lie is the gift that keeps on grifting (or giving). Goebells would be so proud.

[sop]

38. This jury will only decide how much money Trump will have to pay Carroll in damages.

(CNN) - A federal judge ruled that the jury hearing E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit will only need to decide how much money Donald Trump will have to pay her, after the judge found the former president was liable for making defamatory statements.

Kaplan ruled the trial set for January 15 will be limited to damages...Kaplan also rejected Trump’s argument that any future damages be capped, meaning the previous award shouldn’t be a factor for the jury. Carroll is seeking more than $10 million in damages.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/06/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

(I don't know how jurors in this NY civil case determine damages. Will they have to unanimously agree on a number, or just a majority? Biased MAGA jurors will be a big problem in Trump's criminal trials, though.)

[JudyM]

44. Nice that the judge was the one who asked the question.

Props.

[iluvtennis]

46. Yes. Heard on news this morning, that neither of the 2 potential jurors who said 2020 election

was stolen, were selected as sitting jurors.

[JudyM]

47. He is now trying to think of a way to communicate to magats that they should cloak themselves

if called to jury on one of his cases, count on it.