Huppke: Media is playing right into Trump's hands with jury selection as jurors become targets

[Nevilledog]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/04/18/trump-trial-jurors-dismissed-threats-media/73373787007/

*snip*

The public doesn't pick the jurors, so there's no public need to know

This level of reporting on what we journalists like to call “civilians” is outrageous given the circumstances surrounding this trial. There’s no inherent news value in knowing the hobbies or marital status of someone who might serve on the jury.

Each juror is vetted and decided on by defense attorneys and prosecutors – the public has no voice here. It’s up to Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecutors to make sure the best people are chosen to consider the case and render a verdict.

Sharing minute personal details of people who are being asked nothing more than to perform their civic duty is low-brow, at best. And attempting to ferret out the true identity of these people in hopes of spotting something to write or talk about is both dangerous and counterproductive to the administration of justice.

Threats and Donald Trump go hand-in-hand

Anyone paying attention knows threats and intimidation go hand-in-hand with Trump and his MAGA movement, and few know that better than journalists, who were long ago labeled “the enemy of the people” by Trump himself.

*snip*

[B.See]

1. "threats and intimidation go hand-in-hand with Trump and his MAGA movement" because

they aren't afraid to make them.

[Boomerproud]

2. The media shouldn't be allowed to give 1 piece of information on the jurors.

That's just common sense. This is already a circus even before it starts!

[onenote]

5. You may think its common sense. The Supreme Court says it would be unconstitutional

Presumably, you don't want to know anything about the jurors that might be Trump sympathizers.

[TheRealNorth]

3. I am refusing to watch the coverage...

Or click on links. Fuck the media circus.

[onenote]

4. A unanimous Supreme Court thinks the public does have a presumptive right to know.

The author of the US Today piece isn't a lawyer. But maybe he should've consulted one before writing. If he had, he would know that in 1984,
the Supreme Court held, unanimously, that there is a presumption under the First Amendment that court proceedings, including the voir dire, be open public proceedings. As Justice Marshall explained in his concurring opinion, "the constitutional rights of the public and press to access to all aspects of criminal trials are not diminished in cases in which "deeply personal matters" are likely to be elicited in voir dire proceedings." Moreover, according to Justice Marshall, while the presumption of openness can be overcome, "prior to issuing a closure order, a trial court should be obliged to show that the order in question constitutes the least restrictive means available for protecting compelling state interests. In those cases where a closure order is imposed, the constitutionally preferable method for reconciling the First Amendment interests of the public and the press with the legitimate privacy interests of jurors and the interests of defendants in fair trials is to redact transcripts in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of jurors while disclosing the substance of their responses.... Only in the most extraordinary circumstances can the substance of a juror's response to questioning at voir dire be permanently excluded from the salutary scrutiny of the public and the press."

Judge Merchan has a now followed Marshall's advice and is limiting the information that can be part of the public record.