• ArbitraryValue
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    To be fair, getting an impartial jury in this case is a lot harder than it would be normally.

      • ArbitraryValue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Maybe, but that’s not a crime and he shouldn’t be punished for it.

        • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          He chose to have a jury trial. Juries are inherently biased. It’s impossible for anyone to have missed the past 8 years of almost daily coverage of the dumb things he says and does.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No idea why you got downvoted. Nearly everyone will know who he is, since he was the damn President of the country. Nearly everyone will know a lot of stuff about him, since he never fucking shuts up on social media. He has a large percentage of the country who loves him and a larger percentage of people who absolutely hate him. Finally, the case and jury selection is in New York, where he has been in the news for 40 years.

    • UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      People seem to think that a prior opinion about the dependent automatically means that a potential juror cannot be impartial. All that is required is that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Plenty of people with strong opinions about Trump himself can still be impartial jurors.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yup. And those 10 strikes are for exactly that. If you can’t prove a juror will be biased but suspect they will be, then you can use one of your 10 strikes to exclude them. But you have an unlimited amount of “for cause” strikes, where the juror has admitted that they wouldn’t be able to stay impartial.

      • ArbitraryValue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not sure that’s true. Even a person with a great deal of integrity and respect for the law is going to be biased subconsciously to some extent by the knowledge that this case may change the outcome of a particularly important presidential election. A person whose respect for the law is less than absolute may even consider affecting the outcome of the election to be a moral obligation.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s why they’re not allowed to ask nix people for being biased.

      Everyone already has their opinions. The best they can do is look for people that aren’t dogmatic.