Could you be a fair juror at trump's trial?

[StarryNite]

Even though I loath him I truly believe I could be fair and listen to and take into account both sides.

[Tetrachloride]

1. the evidence will speak clearly

[Rebl2]

68. NOPE!

[leftieNanner]

2. Same here.

It would be difficult to be in the same room with him every day though.

[Jirel]

5. On the contrary...

His demeanor and shenanigans in the courtroom will inform the jury. As it should.

[agingdem]

54. No..

The thought of being in the same courtroom with that psychopath for a day (newer mind weeks) makes my skin crawl..

[Jirel]

3. Most everyone could.

Look, an impartial juror is not an ignorant or opinionated juror. There are no blank slates, when it comes to major celebs/politicians/cases.

[efhmc]

4. No and there is no way I would ever be seated. Wonder if they can ask who a potential juror voted for.

[LeftInTX]

12. They have access to your primary voting records, political donations and your social media.

They will strike Biden donors, Letitia James donors, Democratic donors, Democratic supporters on social media.

[former9thward]

22. And the prosecutor will strike Republicans.

[LeftInTX]

24. Exactly

[Hermit-The-Prog]

25. Hypothetically, could the prosecutor use a clue by 4 to strike them? Like, really hard?

[Ohio Joe]

6. Absolutely

Facts are facts and I’m willing to go where they take me.

[Chainfire]

7. I am not 100% sure that I could put all of my personal feelings aside.

That wouldn't be for just Trump, but in any trial. We bring our baggage to the court houses whether we admit it or not. Stranger In A Strange Land found away around that problem, when they trained "Fair Witnesses." from birth to only hear the facts and repeat only what they personally know to be true. Unfortunately we ain't there yet.

[Lunabell]

8. Yes, I could.

Because I believe in law and order. I believe in our court system. I believe that nobody is above or below the law and it should be applied equally to all. I know I could and if the evidence is not there I would acquit. As much as I despise him, I would follow the law.

[bdamomma]

58. Yes

The law and the facts matter. For me, I hate the guy, I don't think I could do it. I wouldn't mind being a spectator.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

9. I think so.

[pfitz59]

10. I would listen to the facts

and judge accordingly.

[Torchlight]

11. I'd have to 'fess up and say "I have an immediate and negative reaction to him,

to his voice, and to even hearing his name. If this court finds that acceptable, by all means seat me. If not, I get it."

I think as a juror, if I could avoid looking at him, and concentrate on the prosecution and defense's points of order, I'd be pretty level-headed about everything. But as soon as he opens his mouth, my objectivity would jump out the window faster than a Depression-era broker.

[Johnny2X2X]

13. 100%

Anyone who doesn't think he's 100% guilty isn't being fair.

[Chainfire]

62. What he said! ;)

[RainCaster]

14. "I cannot respect anyone who uses baby shit as facial makeup"

That's what I would tell the defense attorney.

It's pretty close to my feelings about the man.

[Xavier Breath]

15. Could I be a fair and impartial juror for Trump? Absolutely.

Would I let myself be seated? Nope.

[dem4decades]

16. Sure, innocent until proven guilty.

[-misanthroptimist]

17. Yep. He's not worth undermining my principles.

If the prosecution provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, he's guilty. If the prosecution fails to produce that evidence, he's not guilty. There's no other way to work it if one has respect for the Rule of Law.

[0rganism]

18. No

Heat of 10000 white hot suns or something like that. There's just no way I could listen to his lawyers presenting weak-ass excuses and feeble apologetics without falling from my chair laughing or jumping out of the jury box to douse the defense table with the court's carafe of hot coffee in a fit of rage.

Wouldn't work out well for anyone really, I'm glad I'm not in the jury pool.

[Midnight Writer]

19. Yes, I think I could.

My problem, as it has been in all the trials I have served as a juror, is when the other jurors choose to ignore the facts or bring some irrelevant personal history that they cite as a reason for their decision.

I sat on a jury for a wrongful death suit against a nursing home. One of the jurors trotted out this fantasy that the nursing home was run by the Mafia and they would send out assassins to murder anyone that "stood up" to them. We spent hours in the deliberations trying to get this single juror to focus on the evidence presented to us instead of some story she heard years before. She finally gave in only because she was not allowed to smoke during deliberations and she was having a nicotine fit.

[Kaleva]

20. Yes

[honest.abe]

21. It will be tough to come up with 12 jurors that both sides believe will not be biased.

I have a feeling jury selection wont get done today.

[3catwoman3]

23. Not a chance

Maybe I should be able to be a better person than that, but I’m absolutely certain I couldn’t do it.

[appmanga]

26. No (nt)

[getagrip_already]

27. I could, but my participation here on DU would likely DQ me and I would

not pass the jury selection process.

We are just too biased as a group, no matter how we feel we could stand in judgement individually.

[ecstatic]

44. Would they ask about du?

and how would they prove it?

[getagrip_already]

64. I believe they ask where you get your news from and what social media sites you frequent

I suppose you could forget to mention one or two. But you are looking directly at a judge when doing it. You have a team of investigators pouring over your life in the background.

Is perjury worth it?

And who knows, there may be people so far left they will use up their 10 challenges and you could slip by being honest.

[Progressive dog]

28. Yes

[eallen]

29. While most of us like to think we could overcome our biases and examine the evidence fairly ...

Courts are quite correct to exclude jurors with biases. Given my various posts on Trump, I would be excluded from serving on any of his juries. With cause.

Which is no slight to me. I quite understand why courts work that way.

[PCIntern]

30. To answer your question:

I was a member of the honor board when I was in professional school. We would hear cases of ostensible cheating, and plagiarism. One guy in my class was a known cheat, there was absolutely no question. He cheated on many of his exams and projects and a number of us actually witnessed him doing so.

A Case was brought to our board concerning him, and the evidence was flimsy to be generous. When it was my turn to speak, I said that I knew he was a cheat and a liar, but this evidence in this particular case didn’t prove it and I vote to acquit him. The rest of the board did as well . You do what you have to do at the moment when you do it.

That being said, if I were on this jury, I would give him a fair hearing and then I would vote to convict no matter what ar CD Abe arguments the defense articulated. This man is a danger to our universe.

[patphil]

31. Yes, I feel very strongly that the rule of law supercedes political positions or beliefs.

Otherwise we are fooling ourselves into believing we are on the high road, when we aren't.
The evidence is what directs a jury, not individual beliefs.
If we are to survive as a nation, we need to hold fast to the rule of law.

[AncientOfDays]

32. The basic facts are clear

But whether they rise to felony level or not is another issue.

[Blue Idaho]

33. Nope

I want that fucker dead for what he has done to America. Period.

[Think. Again.]

34. Unless there's some shockingly new evidence...

...or twist of applicable law I haven't heard of, I think I would be very fair to find him guilty.

[doc03]

35. No way. nt

[MadameButterfly]

36. But you wouldn't be picked

if you tell them you are on DU

it scares me to think how dumbed down a jury must be in the interests of eliminating bias

[consider_this]

37. ignorance seems like what may get picked...

like you said:

it scares me to think how dumbed down a jury must be in the interests of eliminating bias

my thoughts exactly. I worry it is going to be folks that are clueless about current events, politics, etc, and I extrapolate that out to worry/assume the chosen will be dullards. Of course, I hope not, and that is probably just elitist of me to guess this might be what happens, but, alas - confession is good for the soul? Hopefully y'all won't shred me up here for this thought. I am self-aware that it sounds snobby or even dumb on my part to think this.

[MadameButterfly]

48. I don't think you're elite or snobby

The best minds for a jury should be engaged citizens who are informed about the world around them and adept at logic. There are lots of us out there and we'd do a great job on a jury.

But this is exactly whet a Trump lawyer must avoid. He/she wants someone who had bought into a few conspiracies and doesn't know that Trump is a crook and a spy. You have to be a bit dull to qualify.

If he can get one die-hard MAGA who passes under the radar, he's won.

Most of all I hope for this jury to have the courage to convict despite the threats. I don't know if you get courage and principles from the people who meet these critieria. We can hope. And if they come through, I'll eat all my words of judgement and give them their due.

[consider_this]

61. Well said!

Seems like I've been breathlessly hoping for (and expecting) justice in too, too many cases since 'Fitzmas' that don't pan out, but yet I keep holding out hope - maybe this time.

[Baltimike]

38. Nope. nt

[Mz Pip]

39. I hope so.

I respect our laws and know that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. But I probably wouldn’t be chosen.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. Absolutely.

[BigmanPigman]

41. Nope.

[Emile]

42. I can listen to the evidence and weigh the facts.

If he is guilty the facts will prove it.

[ecstatic]

43. My vote would be guilty.

I'd be about as fair to tRump as he has been to others.

[tavernier]

45. My friend used to say

I wouldn’t spit on him if he was on fire.

Well, being as I am a retired nurse, but still carry my vows to do no harm, I might honk up a huge Lugi. Hope it helps.

[liberalla]

46. NO!

[shanti]

47. No n/t

[dsc]

49. I think I could

that said, I would never, ever be chosen. I am a teacher and kids who behave poorly get the grades they earn which sometimes is an A. The numbers are what the numbers are.

[betsuni]

50. Absolutely of course.

[Oopsie Daisy]

51. Absolutely. Positively. Because ... *

* justice matters!


Glenn!

[bdamomma]

66. yes, because Justice matters !!!!!

I listen to Glenn too.

[Bettie]

52. I don't think I could

and I'd be honest about that.

My DH can separate that stuff, I can't always, and Trump has done so much harm to so many, that it would be impossible for me to separate it all out.

[bucolic_frolic]

53. Ironic OP question, can Cheato get a fair trial.

Only reason he sells Bibles and courts preachers is to shield his actions from scrutiny.

See? I can be fair.

[Omnipresent]

55. Someone who lived in a cave, on a remote island, cutoff from civilization...

Could listen to the evidence and think, that there was something seriously wrong with this man.

[Conjuay]

56. I would like to believe I could.

But I doubt I could.

But I would work hard to be selected; I'd sit in the jury box and glare at him, with a look like his own mug shot.

[True Dough]

57. I wonder if I'd be disqualified

after showing up for jury selection wearing this T-shirt? Not subtle enough?

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

59. I come from a family of lawyers ...

... though I am not one myself.

We have a family culture of arguing, often presenting the case for ideas and opinions you do not personally hold or agree with.

This has made me somewhat legalistic. What the law says and what plain language or common sense say may not be the same thing and I am willing to think of things in legal/not legal terms rather than right/wrong if put in a position to do so.

That pseudo-legalistic background might be enough to get me struck from a jury. Add on my educational and professional background and my occasional forays into political discussion and it is not likely I would be chosen by either side.

Oddly enough, I was in the on-call jury pool for the nearby federal court last month. I had some fear I would be selected for some high-profile case. But I was never called to come to court, much less selected for a jury. I wonder if my background, which was supplied in the jury questionnaire, had anything to do with it? Or if it was just luck of the draw.

I am glad I am not up for selection on this or any of the Trump juries, but I feel I could be legally impartial if I were.

[Happy Hoosier]

60. Yes. Buuuuut....

I am pretty convinced he is guilty. I expect the evidence will show that. But if the case fell flat on its face, I'd follow the evidence.

[Chainfire]

63. Our real problem is exactly the opposite. Trump's best chance for a victory lies in a hung jury.

From a juror who believes that, regardless of the evidence, that Donald Trump can not be found guilty of a crime because he is not subject to the laws of mortal men.

I couldn't judge him fairly just as I could not judge Hitler or Pol Pot fairly. I would, however, to honor the man's business acumen, be willing to sell souvenir T shirts at his execution.

[LAS14]

65. Interesting question.

I know I would WANT him to be guilty. I'm sure I would listen to every bit of evidence from the prosecution sympathetically.

But, if I understand the issue here, I can imagine that they didn't prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that the payments were for the campaign and not to keep peace in his marriage. I can imagine this trial getting very messy.

[Fla Dem]

67. I would like to say yes, but I'm not at all confident I could be.

No matter how much the defense would argue and point out holes in the prosecution case, I just couldn't believe them. There are so many lies perpetrated by Trump, I don't think an honest word would ever be forthcoming from him or his attorneys.

[Iris]

69. Hell no