The Trump jury

What if you were on the New York "hush money" jury???

(A lawyer-friend told me he would be scared to death. "I'd need to go into hiding."

Now there is a new reverie for idle moments to replace winning a multi-million dollar lottery. What if I were on the New York jury? Could you be fair? Would it be dangerous?

To answer the first question, yes, I think I could be fair. Given what I have written in this blog, I would certainly be bounced for cause. It would be a mistake. When I audited eight days of the jury trial over the fees and collection efforts of a controversial local law firm, the RISE Law Group, I discovered that the trial process caused me to compartmentalize. You are drawn to make your verdict based on the evidence presented in court, where evidence is subject to cross examination. I had heard stories of unsavory and predatory RISE Law Group behavior "in general," but in the case in front of me I evaluated specific actions done to a specific accuser. To my surprise, I thought RISE proved their case. 

I can imagine that jurors in the New York hush money case -- including someone as disgusted by Trump as I am -- might look at the evidence like a checklist. Did he meet this element of the crime, yes or no?  If so, did the prosecution have clear evidence of Trump's intent to affect the election, yes or no? Prosecution and defense might walk me down a disciplined path to a fair and legal decision.

But should I be afraid to serve? Until my lawyer-friend mentioned personal danger, I had assumed I would be presumed to be a non-combatant and out of harm's way. That was naive and misinformed. Trump and his allies on Fox are already bashing the jury, presuming bad intent. Trump re-tweeted comments by Jesse Watters with a premise of bias. Watters questioned the judgment of a juror who works for a law firm with a website saying it practices diversity in hiring. Aha! Prejudice!!

Trump complains he is being swamped by prejudiced jurors.

Trump complains he will be stuck with those villains.

Trump retweets Jesse Watters saying liars are sneaking onto the jury.

 “They are trying to rig this jury. They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury."

Trump broke a norm in American political discourse. He has given the OK to violence as a legitimate response to political setbacks. We have always had some violence in politics, but it was defined as transgressive, morally wrong, and done by fringes, not leadership. Leaders gave pro forma calls to be peaceful, as Trump did, with his single word, "peacefully," in his January 6 call to arms. That was then. Trump now says he will pardon January 6 "hostages" because the rioters are patriots.

This morning a New York juror withdrew. A female oncology nurse told the court this morning that after reflection she wanted off the jury. She had been warned by friends and family that personally identifying information had been made public. "I definitely have concerns now," she wrote. "I don't believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and not let outside influences affect my decision-making."

Judge Juan Merchan is attempting to hold back the tide. The damage is long past being done. Trump vilified the courts, and participants in the justice system watched it happen. Trump says that juries are corrupt; courts are corrupt; prosecutors are corrupt; the entire system is rigged. The people who could have pushed back said nothing, afraid of political retribution.  

It is too late, but Judge Merchan is doing what he can. He said this morning, "I'm directing that the press refrain from writing about anything that you observe with your eyes and hear with your ears that's not in the record. We just lost what probably would have been a very good juror for this case and the first thing she said was that she was afraid and intimidated by the press."

We may get a particular skew in this jury. I expect we will have a group of people who know the risks and think, "Damn the torpedoes." That could mean people with an agenda, either of support or distaste for Trump. They remain on the jury because they have a goal. That isn't what we want in a juror, but I suspect that that is what conditions have created. If the system puts a premium not on fairness and an open mind but on moral courage, then the system gets the results it demands.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to:   https://petersage.substack.com  Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]