In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Nomenclature. Strikes and challenges are two separate things eventhough even lawyers tend too often to use them interchangeably, leading to confusion.

---

and most people think a jury is 'picked'

LOL. Exhibit A on improper use of the nomenclature.

Quote:

---

We begin Day 3 of former President Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial with seven jurors seated. The prosecution and defense have both used six preemptory strikes to remove jurors so far. They both have four strikes left.

What strikes are used for: "There are some people that you think, maybe the other side is going to strike them, therefore, I can spare my strike," Richard Gabriel, a jury consultant, told CNN. "So you're prioritizing who are your most high-risk individuals, and then trying to eliminate them to basically reshape the pool a little bit, so you get the most advantageous hearing."

Both sides are looking for different things, Gabriel added. He said the prosecution is looking for a consensus jury a group of people that will get along and come to a unanimous verdict. Meanwhile, the defense is looking for high-conflict jury one that will not get along because even if one juror doesn't agree with the verdict, it's a win for Trump, Gabriel said.

Attorneys can also argue to strike jurors for cause, which the defense did successfully twice on Tuesday.

Social media posts are playing a pivotal role: While the jurors in this case are anonymous to the public, the lawyers were given the identities of the first panel of 96 prospective jurors on Monday. That gave Trump's team the chance to mine their public social media postings to be ready for their challenges to the judge. Trump's legal team challenged prospective jurors on their ability to be impartial in the proceedings based on their past social media posts.

Judge is tired of this approach: While Judge Juan Merchan struck two potential jurors for cause based on their social media posts, he noted that this cannot happen with every juror. "If you have the goods on someone you need to politely and respectfully" ask them about it, he said.

---

What I italicized and bolded is a challenge, not a peremptory strike. Further, peremptory strikes can be for any reason EXCEPT for a discriminatory purpose. Say the defense is only using their peremptory strikes to exclude black potential jury members. The opposing counsel can then make a Batson challenge (named after a case) on that impermissible use. Judge then removes the jury panel and holds a quick hearing on that issue.

In reply to fredfredunderscorefred

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Nomenclature. Strikes and challenges are two separate things eventhough even lawyers tend too often to use them interchangeably, leading to confusion.

---

and most people think a jury is 'picked'

---

That one I have less objection to as the proper term is jury selection. Selecting and picking are too close in common use to be a distinction without a difference..

More shoes dropping:

Quote:

---

One of the empaneled jurors called the court expressing concerns about her ability to be fair and impartial. The court asked her to come in to discuss further.

She is here today, and she will enter the courtroom momentarily.

---

Quote:

---

The juror is now speaking with Judge Juan Merchan, who is questioning her.

---

Quote:

---

The juror says that she has concerns because "aspects of my identity" have been out there and she's concerned she will not be able to act fair and impartial. She is excused.

---

Quote:

---

After a paneled juror expressed concerns in court about her ability to serve, Judge Juan Merchan addressed the press in court, telling them "there's a reason this is an anonymous jury."

Quote:

---

"I'm directing that the press simply apply common sense and refrain from writing about anything that has to do with physical descriptions, it's just not necessary, it serves no purpose," the judge said.

---

"We just lost what probably would've been a very good juror," Merchan said. "The first thing she said was she was afraid and intimidating by the press."

---

Press ratted her out.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Nomenclature. Strikes and challenges are two separate things eventhough even lawyers tend too often to use them interchangeably, leading to confusion.

---

Mehhhh. Not really true.

They can be used interchangeably. For example, the legal term is "peremptory challenge" in New York and other jurisdictions but it is also commonly called a "peremptory strike" by some both inside and outside court.

See below:

"N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 270.25

1. A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned"

Quote:

---

Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche suggested that Judge Juan Merchan instruct members of the press not to publish where potential jurors work.

Merchan is considering the options now. He hasn't ruled yet.

---

Well, duh.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan ruled media outlets cannot publish the jurors' answers to question 3 on the questionnaire. It will also be redacted from the transcripts.

Questions 3a and 3d ask: "Who is your current employer and who is your previous employer?"

---

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Nomenclature. Strikes and challenges are two separate things eventhough even lawyers tend too often to use them interchangeably, leading to confusion.

---

Mehhhh. Not really true.

They can be used interchangeably. For example, the legal term is "peremptory challenge" in New York and other jurisdictions but it is also commonly called a "peremptory strike" by some both inside and outside court.

See below:

"N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 270.25

1. A peremptory challenge is an objection to a prospective juror for which no reason need be assigned"

---

Tx CCP 35.14 uses same. though 'peremptory strike' is certainly used interchangeably with 'peremptory challenge' (and strike is seemingly more accurate because it is more automatic (Batson issues aside) than challenging for cause which can be denied etc)

Yeah. The meaningful difference is "peremptory" or "for cause." "Strike" vs "Challenge"...that's not really the meaningful distinction.


And its clear what Trump meant. He meant that the judge was supposed to let them get rid of every juror they wanted to. And its clear Trump is wrong.

In reply to fredfredunderscorefred

Quote:

---

Tx CCP 35.14 uses same. though 'peremptory strike' is certainly used interchangeably with 'peremptory challenge' (and strike is seemingly more accurate because it is more automatic (Batson issues aside) than challenging for cause which can be denied etc)

---

That's how I was taught in crim and civ procedure for just that reason. Batson issues aside, judge cannot overrule a proper use of a peremptory strike. The jurors are just excused and removed.

In reply to GeorgiAg

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

He'll be found guilty and likely appeal. Conviction will mean pay some fines, no jail time is my guess. But the goal is to tie him up in court, have the pravda media breathlessly reporting on whether he's farting, sleeping, yawning every day for weeks. A guilty verdict will be enough to drive some squishy Rs and independents away from him. All part of the Dems plan.

---

There is a grand jury process, then a trial by jury. The venue is where the crime was committed.

The allegation is that he had sex with a porn star when his wife was recovering from pregnancy. Before the 2016 election around the time of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, he tried to hide it from electorate by having his fixer attorney pay her hush money and then they made up bogus legal fees to repay his fixer attorney so no one would see the payment and connect the dots before the election. Those are allegations of things HE DID. There are receipts and there will be testimony. Cohen was already convicted. If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.

Democrat John Edwards was tried on very similar charges for the affair he had. He was acquitted, and Trump might be also. But don't act like there is no precedent, and this is just made-up lawfare. Trump is no different from Edwards and is no special snowflake.

Gee, no one saw this coming during the GOP nomination? That's why many here and elsewhere wanted De Santis to be the nominee. Instead of having a veteran, faithful, once-married, true conservative, you have this guy.

And the other cases are all still pending.

---

The repeat Biden voter once again spreading discord.

Quote:

---

Now prosecutors say former President Donald Trump violated the gag order seven more times.
"It's ridiculous and it has to stop," prosecutor Chris Conroy said.

According to pool reports, the prosecutors outlined when they say Trump violated the gag order: One links to a New York Post article calling Michael Cohen a "serial perjurer" and the case "an embarrassment for the NY legal system." Later that day, Trump posted the same link and the same text on his website, they say. Last night at 7:09 p.m., they say Trump posted another article showing Cohen and attacking his credibility. Finally, "and this is the most disturbing post in light of what just happened this morning," Conroy says, that they are "catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge" in order to get on the Trump jury, quoting the commentator Jesse Watters.

Trump attorney Emil Bove argues that there's a gray area with Cohen, who repeatedly talks about Trump in the public. He says Trump's response about Cohen have been political in nature.

---

Contrast the bolded with this:

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass notified the court yesterday that in their research, they found information about one of the empaneled jurors that calls into question the veracity of the answers they gave during voir dire.

Prosecutors said they found records of a person with the same name who was arrested in the 1990s for tearing down political advertisements.

He's been called in today but he isn't here yet.

---

Quote:

---

A new panel of about 100 potential jurors is now walking into the courtroom and taking their seats.

---

If you recall that panel was brought in late Tuesday (after waiting all day long) sworn in and then dismissed until this morning. Bet they aren't too happy.

Quote:

---

As the prospective jurors filed into the room, some seem surprised to see former President Donald Trump at the defense table, according to pool reports.

Trump appears keenly attentive to those potential jurors seated in the jury box.

When the defense is introduced to the potential jurors seated in the audience, Trump does not stand up like his legal team does to turn and face them.

---

Quote:

---

As Judge Juan Merchan reads his instructions, jurors are sitting mostly still and listening to the judge. They are filling out all of the previously empty rows in the courtroom.

Former President Donald Trump's aides moved from the back row to the front behind his attorneys to make room for the jurors.

---

In reply to TXAggie2011

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Yeah. The meaningful difference is "peremptory" or "for cause." "Strike" vs "Challenge"...that's not really the meaningful distinction.


And its clear what Trump meant. He meant that the judge was supposed to let them get rid of every juror they wanted to. And its clear Trump is wrong.

---

Umm, no. That's not what he meant. That's obvious from the biased jury pool we've seen.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan now is asking prospective jurors to raise their hand if they feel they can't be fair and impartial.

He is going row by row to excuse potential jurors.

---

Quote:

---

Twelve potential jurors have been excused so far, according to reporters in court.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump turned around to stare at the potential jurors behind him as some of the people in the group were excused, according to journalists inside the courtroom.

It's the first time he's looked back at the prospective jurors today.

---

Oh no! He looked at them! Horror of horrors!

I struggle to imagine how a defendant has to behave when they have already been warned about contempt for intimidating a juror.

Guessing that there have been discussions between counsel and defendant about "safe activities" in front of this judge.

It has to take a stressful situation up a few more notches.

Quote:

---

Forty-eight people from the jury pool of 96 have been excused so far, as they are being questioned row by row about being fair and impartial, according to reporters inside the courtroom.

From pool reports

---

Quote:

---

The remaining potential jurors are now being asked if there is any other reason such as scheduling or work that would prevent them from serving on the jury.

---

Quote:

---

Nine more prospective jurors have been excused because they had something that would conflict with the trial.

---

48 +9=57 out of 96 are excused thus far.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump turned around to stare at the potential jurors behind him as some of the people in the group were excused, according to journalists inside the courtroom.

It's the first time he's looked back at the prospective jurors today.

---

Oh no! He looked at them! Horror of horrors!

---

that's almost as bad as when he said some of the jurors were biased. AN ATTACK! INTIMIDATION! Give me a break.

Quote:

---

There are 39 potential jurors remaining of the initial batch of 96, after 48 were excused because they felt they could not be fair and impartial, and another nine who had other conflicts.

---

The first 96 member panel was down to 34 before they even got to the questionnaire. Those percentages are holding steady which makes for a better argument for the defense about the venue issue.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There are 39 potential jurors remaining of the initial batch of 96, after 48 were excused because they felt they could not be fair and impartial, and another nine who had other conflicts.

---

The first 96 member panel was down to 34 before they even got to the questionnaire. Those percentages are holding steady which makes for a better argument for the defense about the venue issue.

---

Libs will gaslight and act like they were biased in favor of Trump

In reply to aggiehawg Almost no way that panel doesn't get busted, no?

Quote:

---

A prospective juror who says she works for a law firm said she has previously discussed the legal merits of Donald Trump's case with coworkers when she worked as a law clerk.

At one point, after a long pause and a deep sigh, she said she thinks she can be fair.

She reiterated her knowledge of this case several times: "It's hard to unring a bell," she said.

---

Or as EDB says, "put the s*** back in the horse."

That sigh tells me she understands the gaping holes in this case. State will strike her is my guess.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There are 39 potential jurors remaining of the initial batch of 96, after 48 were excused because they felt they could not be fair and impartial, and another nine who had other conflicts.

---

The first 96 member panel was down to 34 before they even got to the questionnaire. Those percentages are holding steady which makes for a better argument for the defense about the venue issue.

---

Half admit to being not fair or impartial for sure, then you have the ones who claim they can be "impartial" openly talk about all the reasons they hate Trump when asked how they feel they can be impartial. By my math, 117.5% of the potential jurors should be excused for being biased partisan hacks and Bragg should be disbarred for charging a guy for crimes he knows are past the statute of limitations

In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Almost no way that panel doesn't get busted, no?

---

Of the first 96 batch they seated seven, with one of those pulling out this morning, so six currently.

We'll see how many make it through the questioning by the judge and then both sets of counsel.

I know Baston focuses on race, but there should be some area statistics that the jury must be within the standard deviation of when tested.

Quote:

---

Another prospective juror says she is a stay-at-home mom with three kids. She's originally from Colorado and is not married. She used to teach and has a master's degree. She says she does not follow the news.

---

Rich ex-husband? She lives in Manhattan after all with three kids. That can't be cheap.

In reply to aggiejayrod

Quote:

---

They've eluded to revealing the underlying felony at trial and somehow that's survived a motion to dismiss. I'm not sure how you can prepare your defense when the prosecutor refuses to tell you what you've been charged with before trial.

---

In Hussein's Amerikkka, we have trials with secret evidence. And secret trials.

Quote:

---

A group of potential jurors are being questioned by the judge now. Here's how things are playing out at the moment:

• The prospective juror in seat three said he us investment banker and follows Donald Trump's and Michael Cohen on social media. He said he has read Trump's book "The Art of the Deal."
• The woman in seat four said she works in publishing and read several pages of Cohen's book "Disloyal" for business reasons.
• In a lighter moment, the potential juror in seat five couldn't get the microphone to work. The court officer said "testing" but it didn't work, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

• The juror in seat six also said he read "The Art of the Deal." He said he has feelings about how Trump's being treated in this case but added they won't affect his ability to be fair.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump appears engrossed with potential jurors seated in the jury box as they give their answers to the questionnaire, according to reporters in the courtroom.

He has is leaning way back in his chair as he cranes his head to get a good view of them as they speak.

---

Not talking to counsel. Just paying attention to the prospective jurors as they answer questions.

Is that intimidating? Shouldn't be but if a prospective juror complains?

I'm surprised so many progressives are actually willing to concede they couldn't be objective.

Though I would imagine Trump's lawyer's scouring their social media is contributing to their honesty.

Quote:

---

Court is now in a 15-minute break.

---

Quote:

---

We're down to six empaneled jurors in former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, and another batch of potential members is currently under consideration.
Here are some of the key developments so far today:

• A woman who was already empaneled to the jury expressed concerns that part of her identity was made public by the media.
• Judge Juan Merchan excused her and urged journalists to limit their physical descriptions of jurors.
• Merchan also ruled media outlets cannot publish the jurors' answers to question 3 on the questionnaire, which inquires about their current and past employers.
• Meanwhile, prosecutors say Trump has violated his gag order seven more times, pointing to posts online and calling the situation "ridiculous."
• Prosecutors have also called into question the truthfulness of one empaneled juror's answers to questions about their past, and that juror has been called back to court today.

---

So the state may boot another empaneled juror today. That would leave five from the original 96, if that happens.