Trump company loses bid to toss initial jury pool in criminal trial

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Donald Trump's company on Tuesday lost a bid to dismiss an initial group of 18 prospective jurors for the real estate firm's criminal trial on tax fraud charges after arguing that the pool was tainted by observing one juror candidate who said she was biased.

The Manhattan district attorney's office last year charged the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, its then-chief financial officer, with awarding "off the books" benefits to some senior executives, enabling certain employees to understate their taxable compensation and the company to evade payroll taxes. Weisselberg in August pleaded guilty to charges including grand larceny and tax fraud while admitting to concealing $1.76 million in income.

During the first day of jury selection on Monday, one juror candidate who said in open court that she had strong feelings about Trump that would prevent her from being fair in the trial was called to Judge Juan Merchan's bench for a private discussion, and then dismissed from the pool.

Michael van der Veen, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said on Tuesday before the jury entered that the other jurors in the pool were "visibly chilled" by observing that interaction and may not have answered the question honestly.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-company-loses-bid-to-toss-initial-jury-pool-in-criminal-trial/ar-AA13muba

[FredGarvin]

1. Sounds serious

Looks like he is in trouble this time.
/s

[True Blue American]

3. LOL!

Sorry, I could not help it with that droll remark.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. So this juror did what she was legally obliged to do, via a process playing out across the USA

every single day ... and that's unacceptable to IQ45 because he's SUCH a SPECIAL man, nothing 'normal' applies to him. He's entitled to special privileges, you see?

[Raven123]

4. Right. Like there was a penalty for being honest.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. And if this juror who expressed her prejudice against TFG had said nothing,

the defendants would've later demanded a mistrial for her silence.

[FakeNoose]

6. Why don't they just ask for a bench trial?

There's never going to be a "perfect" jury because everyone is prejudiced one way or the other.

[eggplant]

8. Because they'll lose that much quicker.

[melm00se]

13. Because it is a better bet

for a jury trial.

Getting 12 shots at empanelling one Trumpette to cause a hung jury is a better bet than finding 1 judge who will find the defendant not guilty.

[louis-t]

14. Also jurors are a lot easier to threaten and intimidate than judges.

[Kid Berwyn]

7. Chiller.

That Justice still exists.

[catsudon]

9. my favorite pastime

is to watch DWAC stocks and watching it drop.

[TomSlick]

10. This was an absolutely baseless effort.

The excused juror did exactly what she was supposed to do. Maybe if she had gone into a rant explaining her "strong feelings," the panel may have been tainted but I see no reason why even that could not be cured by an instruction from the judge to the remaining panel.

I assume that TFG's lawyers believe there is not a sufficient number of MAGAts on the jury to be comfortable about the result.

[SouthernDem4ever]

11. unless a juror states they will always make decisions with bias

meaning they will disregard the facts, then they should be excused. Otherwise, it's up to the prosecutors to make the case. And unless the juror is some weird brainwashed cultist, it sounds like a ploy to get out of jury duty.

[Novara]

12. JFC, this happens during jury selection in every single trial

But then again, maybe the orange fuck hired "only the best" lawyers who don't know how jury trials work.