Biased prospective jurors should be dismissed, but

[senseandsensibility]

who do you think is more likely to tell the truth? Jurors biased for cheato or against him? Am I the only one who thinks liberals will tell the truth about not being able to be fair, and his cult would have no problem lying?

I know it's the jury system and I believe in it. But it does seem like one side is far more likely to misrepresent their ability to be objective.

[WarGamer]

1. IDK... do those who hate him... hate him more than those who love him... love him?

[GreenWave]

2. I would think the jury pool is far from a 50/50 split in NY.

Just saying.

[Emile]

3. I could weigh the evidence and give a fair verdict.

This is not rocket science.

[former9thward]

6. Evidence on what crime?

Many legal experts have debated the charges (which mix state and federal crimes). To escape the statute of limitations, Bragg had to turn misdemeanors into felonies. That is a legal somersault in itself.

[Emile]

9. Falsifying business records.

Trump is accused in New York Supreme Court of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

[former9thward]

10. That is a misdemeanor in New York.

The statute of limitations has run.

[former9thward]

4. I don't believe either side will lie more than the other to get on.

There will be some who lie to try and get on to get Trump and some who lie to try and get on to protect him. There will be more who lie just to get on a famous jury. TV interviews are waiting to be had and books are waiting to be written.

[brooklynite]

5. For years folks here have been worrying that pro-Trump or pro-Police citizens will sneak onto juries

to force a hung jury. Hasn’t happened, because prosecutors know how to do their jobs.

[a kennedy]

12. Thank you.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Jurors are under oath during voire dire. If they lie about having no prejudice

and that prejudice appears during deliberations, that's perjury. And s/he will be replaced by an alternate juror.

[a kennedy]

11. This is good to know......thanks.

[NoRethugFriends]

8. No good reason to beklieve in the jury system

Based on personal experience

[emulatorloo]

13. A MAGA juror voted Paul Manafort guilty based on the evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-trump-supporting-juror-in-the-manafort-trial-was-a-beacon-of-justice/2018/08/25/0bd5064e-a7ca-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html

How a Trump-supporting juror in the Manafort trial was a beacon of justice

August 25, 2018 at 6:04 p.m. EDT

ONE OF the jurors from the recently concluded trial of Paul Manafort has described herself as a strong supporter of President Trump. She said she drove every day to the Alexandria courthouse where Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman was being tried with her “Make America Great Again” cap in the back seat, and that she planned to vote again for Mr. Trump if he runs for reelection in 2020. She said she thought prosecutors had targeted Mr. Manafort as a way to get dirt on Mr. Trump, and that she didn’t want Mr. Manafort to be guilty. Nonetheless, she voted to convict him because the evidence of his guilt “was overwhelming.”

But what was most instructive — perhaps even inspiring — in Ms. Duncan’s retelling was the seriousness and diligence of the jury in undertaking its responsibilities. It never occurred to Ms. Duncan to try to get out of jury duty; she called it her duty as an American citizen. One juror drove more than 100 miles each day to the federal courthouse. By her account, the panel rigorously considered and applied the evidence. There were “even tears” during the four hard days of deliberations — but politics played no part whatsoever in the jury’s decision.


“I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty,” she said, “but he was, and no one’s above the law.” That’s another concept the president would do well to familiarize himself with.

[BlueKota]

14. I admit I couldn't be unbiased where he is concerned.

I know it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and if it were a case that I had no prior knowledge of, I think I could decide on the basis of the evidence alone.

In this situation, however, I have ,zero doubt he did it. There are witnesses, and he admits he did try to pay Stormy Daniel's off, and there's no way I believe he did it to spare Melania. A man who cares about his wife wouldn't be out having sex with a prostitute right after his wife gave birth to his son. He did it to save his campaign.

Also we know he did try to use the fake electors scheme, even he doesn't deny it. He just claims he thinks he had a right to do it.

And January 6, we heard his speech, we saw what his supporters did after, we've heard a lot from his co-conspirators, and again he's not arguing he didn't encourage it, he's saying again he had a right to do it.

He's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, so there is no way I can presume he's innocent. I know there are cases where innocent people are wrongly accused, so it's understandable why we have the presumed innocent standard. But in some cases it's just too blatantly obvious the accused is guilty, and it seems disingenuous to pretend differently.

[senseandsensibility]

15. Thank you for your well reasoned

response. I can visualize many Dem prospective jurors feeling exactly as you do.