Donald Trump Trials: Surreal Scenes as Jurors in New York Trial Tell Trump What They Really Think
Jury selection in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money case started this week, and it seems like the former president is facing a tough crowd. When Judge Juan Merchan asked the first group of 96 prospective jurors whether any thought themselves incapable of being fair and impartial, more than 50 raised their hands. While these prospective jurors were excused from serving on the case, it still might have been a blow to the real estate tycoon turned TV star turned America’s 45th president.
New York is Trump’s hometown, but it appears he’s so polarizing that his fellow citizens wanted an out. As jury selection has rolled on this week, it has been a surreal spectacle – and perhaps especially so for a man who was once the most powerful person in the world. Trump has been forced to sit and listen as ordinary New Yorkers were asked their thoughts on him and America. The responses have been divided.
Some jurors expressed their admiration for Trump, praising his business acumen and his ability to speak his mind. They viewed him as a successful entrepreneur who took on the political establishment and championed the interests of everyday Americans. These jurors believed that Trump’s intentions were genuine and that he genuinely wanted to make America great again.
However, there were also jurors who held a more critical view of Trump. They questioned his integrity and his leadership style, highlighting his divisive rhetoric and controversial policies. These jurors believed that Trump prioritized his personal interests over the welfare of the nation and its citizens. They saw him as a symbol of corruption and a threat to the democratic values that America stands for.
The courtroom was filled with tension as these differing opinions clashed, providing a glimpse into the deep divisions that exist within American society. It was a stark reminder that even a figure as influential as Donald Trump could not escape the scrutiny and judgment of his fellow citizens.
As the trial progresses, it remains to be seen how these initial impressions will shape the jury’s final decision. Will they be able to set aside their personal biases and evaluate the evidence objectively? Or will their preconceived notions of Trump cloud their judgment? The outcome of this trial will not only determine Trump’s legal fate but also serve as a reflection of the state of American democracy and the extent to which political polarization has permeated society.
A Divided Response
One prospective panelist did appear to make Trump’s morning on Tuesday. In response to question 36 on the selection questionnaire – “The defendant in this case has written a number of books. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any one or more of these books? If so, which ones?” – he said yes. “I read ‘The Art of the Deal,’ and I want to say ‘How to Be Rich,’ and ‘Think Like a Champion’,” he hesitated, unsure as to whether this was the correct title. Trump nodded his head and offered a smile.
When the first group of prospects was whittled down further, the prosecution and defense had an opportunity to question would-be jurors themselves. Colorful quips and quirky exchanges ensued. “Resist the urge to flee the courtroom,” prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said, cautioning jury candidates not to agonize over why they, of all people, wound up as prospects on Trump’s trial. “This case has nothing to do with your personal politics,” Steinglass told potential jurors. “It’s not a referendum on the Trump presidency or a popularity contest or an indication of who you’re going to vote for in November. We don’t care.
“This case is about whether this man broke the law.”
Steinglass then asked would-be jurors about whether they would have an issue with their theory of the case – accessorial liability. That is, “if two or more people are acting together, they can each be held criminally liable … would anyone have a problem holding the defendant responsible for something his partner did?” Steinglass gave an example by saying “say a husband hires a hitman to kill his wife”. The husband might not even be present when the hitman carries out this murder; would they have a problem finding the husband criminally responsible for her killing?
Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche conducted his own questioning of potential jurors, which boiled down to: What is your opinion of Donald Trump? Some possible jurors seemed reticent about voicing an opinion, while others didn’t seem all that perturbed by the former commander-in-chief’s antics.
“I find him fascinating. He walks into a room and he sets people off, one way or another, and I find that really interesting. Really, this one guy could do all this?” one said.
Blanche responded, “Uhm, all right,” and then thanked him. One potential juror repeatedly tried to avoid disclosing his opinion of Trump. “If we were sitting at a bar, I’d be happy to tell you, but in this room what I feel about President Trump is not important or inherent to either the case you’re presenting or you’re defending.” After repeated prodding, he conceded: “Look: I’ll say I’m a Democrat, so there you go, that’s where it goes with me,” but, he insisted, “I walk in here and he’s a defendant.”
One woman appreciated Trump’s brashness. “He speaks his mind. Come on: what else can you say about that?” Trump smiled. “He says what he wants to say,” she continued. “I want to say some things, but my mother said, ‘Be nice.'” Another voiced similar sentiments. “I don’t really care for his views, to be completely honest with you,” but “President Trump speaks his mind.” The aspirant said she would rather have that over a politician who did not do so.
Later in the afternoon, Merchan warned Trump against intimidating jurors in the court. Merchan said that Trump was “audible” when a potential juror was called to answer questions just feet from him. “It was audible. He was gesturing and he was speaking in the direction of the juror,” Merchan said. “I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom,” Merchan warned. “Take a minute to speak to your client.”
Despite this snag, Tuesday afternoon suggested that things would move along efficiently. At the end of the day, seven jurors were picked.
The selection process for the jurors continued the next day, with both the prosecution and the defense team carefully examining each candidate to ensure a fair and impartial trial. The courtroom was filled with tension as the potential jurors were grilled about their knowledge of the case, their personal opinions about Donald Trump, and their ability to remain unbiased throughout the proceedings.
Some jurors expressed their admiration for Trump’s straightforwardness and ability to speak his mind, while others were more critical of his views and actions. The attorneys meticulously assessed each response, trying to gauge whether the jurors’ opinions would influence their ability to make an impartial judgment.
As the questioning progressed, it became evident that the case would not only be a test of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing but also a reflection of the deeply divided opinions surrounding his presidency. The courtroom was a microcosm of the larger political landscape, with jurors representing a range of political affiliations and beliefs.
The defense team, led by Todd Blanche, sought to emphasize that the trial should focus solely on the legal aspects of the case and not be swayed by personal biases or political leanings. Blanche repeatedly reminded the potential jurors that their duty was to determine whether Trump had broken the law, regardless of their personal opinions about him.
Meanwhile, the prosecution team, headed by Joshua Steinglass, aimed to establish the principle of accessorial liability, highlighting the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, even if they were not directly involved in committing the crime. Steinglass presented hypothetical scenarios to the jurors, challenging them to consider whether they would be willing to find someone guilty based on their association with a crime.
Throughout the selection process, Judge Merchan maintained a strict and impartial atmosphere in the courtroom, ensuring that both sides had an equal opportunity to question the potential jurors. Merchan’s warning to Trump about intimidating jurors served as a reminder that the trial would be conducted with the utmost integrity and fairness.
By the end of the second day of jury selection, the panel was finally complete. Seven jurors had been chosen, each bringing their own perspectives and experiences to the trial. The stage was now set for the trial to proceed, with the prosecution and defense ready to present their cases and the jurors prepared to fulfill their crucial role in the pursuit of justice.
