Could you be a fair and impartial jurist in a Trump trial?

[OAITW r.2.0]

Not sure I could. It's like you'd need a complete memory wipe of the last 20 years and then hear the evidence in his cases. That ain't happening....so how will a jury get seated?

[elleng]

1. Yes.

Means I know when to rely on testimony.

[Ohio Joe]

2. Absolutely I could...

Facts are facts, I have no problem with that.

[Deuxcents]

3. Absolutely and I'm ready to do my civic duty.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Anyone who passes that screen will do so covertly, or be very dumb and uninformed.

Don't count me as having confidence in the jury system. Every so often they get a high profile case wrong.

[Arthur_Frain]

5. Right up to the point where he opened his mouth

Or tweeted his usual shit. Then, nope. Sorry, I have no patience for bullies.

[niyad]

6. Having to look at that putrid, traitirous, lying, orange blob of fecal matter

every day??? It would be extremely difficult.

Interesting timing on that question, as we were duscussing the jurors in the simpson case a bit earlier today.

[EndlessWire]

14. I don't think so.

Not now. I am too polarized against him. I hate what he stands for, starting to hate him like Hitler. I'd be okay until they asked me if I could be impartial.

But, if the facts lined up in his favor, well, I am not a liar. It is what it is. I am very nuanced, but it's not like I would involve space aliens in a "what if" scenario. Let them present the facts, let the defense have a go, explain the law standards to me, and that's the way it would be. I am not afraid to go against what every one else thinks. And lying is not permitted. In the end, I'd be what Alvin wants, but probably not tRump. So, they won't be calling me!

Besides, I'll be too busy searching tRump's properties for those missing classified docs. I am really pissed about those.

[hlthe2b]

7. Yes. I've served on a murder trial and several years later, an attempted murder trial...

The former was conducted poorly with "evidence" based largely on innuendo, a questionable, noncredible eyewitness, no useful forensics, and a suggested motive that seemed outlandish. I went into the trial thinking "guilty" and the guy was not especially "likable" (in fact, he was just the opposite). But in deliberations, it was clear all of us WANTED to be presented with more compelling evidence to allow us to convict. But we were not. We acquitted. I google his name periodically, fearful that he might go on to kill someone else if we were indeed wrong. So, far, nothing... But it did haunt me a bit.

The second was more clear-cut and resulted in a ready conviction.

But, I know I can be fair--even when I don't want to be.

[FSogol]

8. Yes I could. I could seriously look at all the evidence, listen to the testimony and make a non-biased judgement.

No lie.

[Irish_Dem]

9. I hate the man, but the evidence has to be there for specific crimes.

Or I vote not guilty.

I don't care what happens to Trump, but I do care about the law,
the truth, and justice.

Trump will get caught in the end on one of his crimes.

[calguy]

10. I couldn't

I'm just to biased against him, and I'm honest enough to admit it.

[Emile]

11. I could be fair and impartial. The evidence will

guide me to a fair and impartial verdict.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. I'd be fine, impartial to the evidence, as long as he doesn't speak.

[Johonny]

13. Yes

I would be willing and able to judge just the case put in front of me.

[ecstatic]

15. Sure!

It's my civic duty! 😉 ⚖️ 🇺🇲 🤞🏽

[hay rick]

16. Honestly, no.

Corollary: if the jury is hung I would expect the cause would be a dishonest juror. On dealing with Trump, I do not think our legal system is capable of providing justice on behalf of the American people.

[OAITW r.2.0]

24. I'd rather have a Judge than a jury trial for Trump.

For the reasons you point out.

The reality is, Trump has no jury of his peers. No one lives in this guy's world.

[Silent Type]

31. Nightmare-- At some point a rogue judge decides trump can't get a fair trial because of all the publicity

That might be unprecedented, but the whole mess is unprecedented.

[NoRethugFriends]

29. based on my personal experience I agree

[DET]

17. No

Reminds me of this unforgettable SNL skit, “Whatever it is, you did it, man.”

[North Shore Chicago]

40. Hilarious! Thanks

[marble falls]

18. Yes. I am proud of my only jury duty so far.

[enough]

19. Yes. I know what a trial is. I know how to think. I support the basic

premise of our judicial system: trial by jury.

[SamKnause]

20. No.

I don't trust our justice system.

I don't trust the police.

There is too much corruption and incompetence.

[Bettie]

21. I couldn't and

I'd say so from the beginning.

[Kennah]

22. No

I'd love to lie to get on the jury and put him away, but I don't see how I could be impartial

[Ping Tung]

23. I'd say yes but I'd have to avoid lie detectors that indicate "whopper" when I say it.

However, considering he is almost certainly guilty of felonies it wouldn't be seen as a lie.

[karynnj]

25. Yes, you dont have to be neutral on Trump

You would have to state you will apply the law, as defined by the judge, to the facts presented in the trial. I WOULD have to say that I could NOT do so in Cannon's court because I am not convinced she will follow the law.

[keithbvadu2]

26. Can we use Trump as the standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity?

A jury of his peers.

Then again, that's what he would want.

[Silent Type]

27. Doubt it. But I might be the first juror to jump out of the box and punch a defendant.

[tulipsandroses]

28. Nope.

I have nothing but contempt for him.

[Maeve]

30. Legally, yes...there is a difference

Between knowing he's a slimeball and telling when the evidence is presented to prove it.
Lawyers will tell you the best story wins; I can judge between fact and fairytales.

[CanonRay]

32. If I was tying a noose in the jury box

would it give me away?

[RockRaven]

33. Sure. It is an intellectual exercise.

Evaluate the evidence presented within the parameters of the instructions.

If I can suspend disbelief for the purposes of a TV show/film/book plot, or comply with the rules of a board or card game, then I can do jury duty just fine even when it involves TFG.

Am I a perfect robot? No, of course not. But could I deliberately choose to be a cog in the machine, and serve as that cog despite whatever outside knowledge/feelings I have? Yeah, I think so.

But I'd be fucking annoyed with the universe for involving me in that mess.

[gopiscrap]

34. Yes I could

he's guilty as hell, let's save time and vote as a jury

[TSExile]

35. Honestly, I could not.

As a sexual assault survivor, he is a gigantic trigger. So no, I honestly couldn't set aside any bias.

[Renew Deal]

36. I could do it

Though I have a hard time seeing why he would have boxes of classified documents in his basement

[Ms. Toad]

37. Absolutely.

During tryouts for the moot court team (mock appellate arguments), the coach assigned me to argue the anti-social net position - specifically because he knew it was opposite what I really believed. I convinced him I was actually opposed to social net programs. So he assigned me as the one person on the team who was obligated to argue both sides of whatever question we were assigned.

I've never had a problem separating personal beliefs from analysis (legal or otherwise). It gets me in trouble around here, because flaws in analytial reasoning, and failure to do basic fact-checking drive me to distraction. The expectation around here, by many, is that any challenge to analytical reasoning is treated as a political position.

[imanamerican63]

38. Yes!

Because it’s Trump’s trial, I couldn’t wait to see the evidence and I would feel better knowing he was guilty from the start!

[happybird]

39. Nope.

Not at all.

[LuckyCharms]

41. Yes. I've been on one grand jury, and one trial jury.

Speaking for myself only, I just kind of blocked out anything that wasn't applicable to the actual law, and focused on the instructions that were given to me as to whether the law itself was violated or not.

[Passages]

42. Yes, without a doubt.

A person can dislike someone and also be able to be objective while listening to testimony and other evidence presented at trial.

I wish I had the chance.

[hamsterjill]

43. Of course I could.

That’s what sets me (and most here) apart from assholes like Trump.

We still believe in the concept of the rule of law and fair and impartial justice.

[Kaleva]

44. Yes

[MorbidButterflyTat]

45. Nope.

[Kid Berwyn]

46. No problem.

[CTyankee]

47. I would never get the chance. I once worked for Planned Parenthood. His attorneys would not have me.

But I'll ask my son who is an ADA with the Brooklyn DA's office. I bet he'll get a kick out of that question!

[Prairie_Seagull]

48. It would depend on how we weighted the facts.

Go to jail fact = 10
No jail time fact = 1

According to the facts presented. I would be horrible on a jury trying the sick fuck.

Everyone or nearly everyone would have some sort of opinion. I think it will be a very interesting jury selection process. I hope we get to hear jury instructions.