NYT (“No Jurors Picked on First Day of Trump’s Manhattan Criminal Trial“):
The criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president and the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, started Monday with potential jurors assembling in a drab courtroom in New York City while Mr. Trump looked on.
Mr. Trump was charged in Manhattan, a deeply Democratic county and his former home, with falsifying nearly three dozen business records in an attempt to cover up a payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who has said she had a brief sexual encounter with him in 2006.
[…]
The trial, which is expected to last weeks, has a fascinating list of potential witnesses: Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer turned apostate, who made the payment; Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who says she, too, had an affair with Mr. Trump; and Hope Hicks, a former aide to Mr. Trump. Ms. Daniels herself may testify.
Before any of that happens, a jury must be selected, a winnowing that began Monday.
[…]
It’s easy to forget how long it takes to do a little in legal settings. On Monday, the morning session was dominated by maneuvering by prosecutors and the defense, even as prospective jurors waited. By lunch, they were still waiting.
Jury selection could take days or weeks, and the trial itself may take two months. The Passover holiday could cause delays, Justice Merchan said, though he might make some of that up by holding hearings on court matters on Wednesdays, which was previously going to be an off day.
By afternoon, prospective jurors finally made their way into Justice Merchan’s courtroom. He warmly welcomed them, introduced the lawyers and Mr. Trump and read them a summary of the case.
Justice Merchan asked if any believed they could not be fair and impartial to the former president. Of the 96 prospective jurors in the room at that time, more than 50 raised their hands. They were immediately excused.
The remaining jurors were each asked 42 questions. By the end of Monday, 11 jurors had been questioned and two more were excused: a woman who said she could not be fair and a man who said his child’s wedding date could conflict with the trial.
As a Virginia resident, I’m not in the potential jury pool. Do I have very strong feelings about Trump? I can’t imagine the sentient adult who doesn’t. Could I be “fair” in hearing his case? I guess that depends on one’s definition. I would certainly vote to acquit him, despite my feelings about him, were the prosecution to fail to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. But Trump, reading my volume of writing on him, certainly wouldn’t think he was getting a fair trial if I was one of the dozen judging his fate.
Beyond that, while it would surely be quite interesting to be involved in such a high-profile case, I would do pretty much everything in my power to avoid being trapped in a courtroom for months. To say nothing of the likelihood of Trump and his minions encouraging the harassment of my family and myself.
It seems likely that this jury will be comprised entirely of people who really, really want to be on it. Some will have very strong opinions about Trump that they’re hiding. Others will be hoping to cash in on the experience. Maybe some will just want to be part of history. That’s not exactly conducive to justice.
