You, the Juror

[KeithD]

If you were brought in to be considered a juror in the Trump hush money trial, would you opt out as being able to render a fair verdict, or would you say you could be fair and move to the next round? Would you survive that round based on your social media posting on Trump?

I would have to raise my hand and opt out, although, given the chance, I'd quibble with the "fair" characterization. I think enough is objectively known, including Trump's own statements and behavior, to be "fair" in concluding that he's guilty as sin for those and so much more charges. I also know, though, that I couldn't withstand scrutiny of my social media postings on the rottenness of the man.

 

[Rightguide]

"Trump's own statements and behavior," have nothing to do with the legality of this case. This is an illegal prosecution that Alvin Bragg has no legal authority to pursue. A fair juror, regardless of a prejudice against Trump, would nullify this case.

 

[ll74]

I typically don't say much about the man except that he's an asshole. That might be disqualifying enough, not sure...the majority.of the time I respond to supporters of 45 and their absurd characterization of him.

I have certainly commented on his policies, specifically his gutting of the state department, desire to withdraw from global treaties and bodies as well as his embrace of dictators the world over.

That being said, I'd absolutely have to recuse myself from the Georgia case as I can see no way he was not guilty of attempting to coerce state officials to rig the election in his favor. The other cases I don't see an issue with being impartial.

All in all, I think I actually have more faith in the court system than many here.

 

[ll74]

"Trump's own statements and behavior," have nothing to do with the legality of this case. This is an illegal prosecution that Alvin Bragg has no legal authority to pursue. A fair juror, regardless of a prejudice against Trump, would nullify this case.

So you would be dismissed.

 

[jomar]

"Trump's own statements and behavior," have nothing to do with the legality of this case. This is an illegal prosecution that Alvin Bragg has no legal authority to pursue. A fair juror, regardless of a prejudice against Trump, would nullify this case.

No they wouldn’t. That would be akin to taking the law into their own hands.

I’d opt out since I’d get dismissed at some point.

 

[Nicefella]

So - Basically all of the liars that are dying to get on the jury - who actively root for both of these old, almost senile octogenarians would get on. And this would be a hung jury by most accounts. I really hope they have a very healthy alternate juror base because I can expect jurors to start quibbling and complaining on each other during deliberations.

 

[Rightguide]

So you would be dismissed.

Nope. I would hang the jury.

 

[AlexBailey]

"Trump's own statements and behavior," have nothing to do with the legality of this case. This is an illegal prosecution that Alvin Bragg has no legal authority to pursue. A fair juror, regardless of a prejudice against Trump, would nullify this case.

You’ve gone stupid with the Kool-aid.

 

[ll74]

Nope. I would hang the jury.

You'd never make it onto the jury because you admitted that can't be impartial about the case.

 

[AlexBailey]

Nope. I would hang the jury.

This illustrates your lack of respect for the rule of law.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Nope. I would hang the jury.

Your orange lips and brown nose would immediately disqualify you.

 

[dmallord]

"Trump's own statements and behavior," have nothing to do with the legality of this case. This is an illegal prosecution that Alvin Bragg has no legal authority to pursue. A fair juror, regardless of a prejudice against Trump, would nullify this case.

A fair juror would hear the facts presented in evidence and decide the case. I doubt a jury will hear a lecture about Alvin Bragg having no legal authority to pursue the case against Trump. The jurors would presume to be there because there was legal authority to bring charges. They are in a court setting before a judge, a prosecutor, and a defendant. Looks damn legal, I'd say.

Of course, Trump's statements and behavior factor into the case. That's evidence of his cover-up, writing off the hush money as attorney fees on his taxes. He screwed a porn star and paid her to keep quiet - all of that is a part of his behavior.

You cannot say a 'fair' jurist would kill the case and then turn around and declare 'regardless of a prejudice against Trump.' That doesn't follow. The jurors are not there to determine if Bragg has legal authority. Their built-in prejudices are not isolated from their considerations of the facts in the case either.

 

[dmallord]

I've read and watched enough to have already determined Trump is guilty. I won't be in the box, just on the sidelines rooting for conviction.

 

[AlexBailey]

A fair juror would hear the facts presented in evidence and decide the case. I doubt a jury will hear a lecture about Alvin Bragg having no legal authority to pursue the case against Trump. The jurors would presume to be there because there was legal authority to bring charges. They are in a court setting before a judge, a prosecutor, and a defendant. Looks damn legal, I'd say.

Of course, Trump's statements and behavior factor into the case. That's evidence of his cover-up, writing off the hush money as attorney fees on his taxes. He screwed a porn star and paid her to keep quiet - all of that is a part of his behavior.

You cannot say a 'fair' jurist would kill the case and then turn around and declare 'regardless of a prejudice against Trump.' That doesn't follow. The jurors are not there to determine if Bragg has legal authority. Their built-in prejudices are not isolated from their considerations of the facts in the case either.

This is so true.

@Rightguide is Lit’s MAGA/GOP talking head. He’s telling us that he takes Trump’s word over the authority and faith in the US justice system.

He knows his views are based on “alternative facts” yet he digs in.

 

[schism666]

You'd never make it onto the jury because you admitted that can't be impartial about the case.

he always destroys his own take

 

[wizzard426]

It's every citizens duty to judge the law as well as the matter before the law

It's called jury nullification and it's my right as a citizen

Subjects don't get a choice or a voice

 

[jaF0]

He's Guilty Judge!!

Let's get him out to the town square and up on the gallows for High Noon and be done with this so's we can all get over t'the saloon.

 

[desecration]

That would be akin to taking the law into their own hands.

Jury nullification is an important check/balance on laws that may not be just in every case.

 

[LLCox]

HANG HIM !

 

[desecration]

CRUCIFY HIM!

 

[Lazaran]

•
Any decent, intelligent person on this board (so no Deplorables / MAGAts) who has previously stated that they would convict Joe Biden or any other Democrat, etc, if the evidence warranted a conviction, would be perfectly suitable for this jury; even if they had previously commented on their belief in the corrupt orange traitor’s guilt based on the publicly available evidence.





I can honestly say, that if the prosecution failed to prove the corrupt orange traitor’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court, due to insufficient or tainted evidence, then I would have no problem voting not guilty - I suspect every decent, intelligent person on this board (so no Deplorables / MAGAts) would do the same.

 

[desecration]

BRING THE HEMLOCK!

 

[jomar]

Jury nullification is an important check/balance on laws that may not be just in every case.

Nice rational, OJ appreciates your take. Jury nullification is actually inconsistent with a jury’s duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.

 

[desecration]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_nullification

 

[jomar]

Yes, both can be true