In Politically Charged Cases

[Independent thinker]

is it fair the public knows details about the jurors? Jurors are supposed to be fair and unbiased but should they be investigated to make sure they aren't biased partisans, at least by the powers that be, even if it isn't made public? For the sake of argument, let's pick the Trump jurors. Should they be investigated to make sure they aren't politically biased and can make a fair, honest judgment? If one or more is a member of Truth Social shouldn't they be disqualified? If one or more has used social media to blast Trump, shouldn't they be disqualified? As far as I know, they just ask jurors questions and never follow up on the answers to those questions. We would want a fair trial with unbiased jurors, wouldn't we? We shouldn't rely on just their word that they could make an honest, fair, and unbiased decision. We should know that they can.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

All of these stupid prosecutions should be delayed until either (1) after Trump loses, or (2) after Trump's next presidential term ends. If these are not, in fact, chicken shit, banana republic political prosecutions (they are), then there is no harm in waiting.

If the response is that it is harmful for Trump to be in office, so we have to stop him from winning, then you are admitting that these are political prosecutions (which they are).

 

[d0gbreath]

It's called voir dire. It's used by the attorneys, in every jury selection in America.

 

[Independent thinker]

It's called voir dire. It's used by the attorneys, in every jury selection in America.

It's bullshit, is what it is, in regards to politically charged cases such as this. You ask a juror questions on paper. Then you ask them questions in person. They can lie. No one checks. Lawyers have a chance to disqualify if they want but no investigations are done to make sure the jurors answered questions truthfully.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

the Trump jurors. Should they be investigated to make sure they aren't politically biased and can make a fair, honest judgment?

That would run afoul of the law.

quotes:

jury tampering​

Primary tabs​

Jury tampering refers to improper communications with a juror with the purpose of influencing the juror’s deliberative process via private communication or contact regarding matters directly related to the case being tried. Examples of jury tampering may include providing outside information to a juror and bribing, threating or intimidating a juror to influence the verdict. Both lawyers and jurors themselves can be involved in jury tampering.

Jury tampering is not only an ethical infraction, but a criminal offense. Depending on states, jury tampering can be a felony offense or a misdemeanor. Penalties for jury tampering may also vary from states to states. In New York, for example, bribing a juror is a class D felony and is subject to a maximum of seven years of imprisonment.

The law of jury tampering is to ensure a party’s constitutional right to a trial before an impartial jury. The Supreme Court in Remmer v. United States held that jury tampering in criminal cases are presumptively prejudicial, meaning that the party faced with allegations of jury tampering bears the burden to prove that there is no reasonable possibility that the tampering affected the impartiality of the jury.

[Last updated in July of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]

jury tampering

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Marener]

All of these stupid prosecutions should be delayed until either (1) after Trump loses, or (2) after Trump's next presidential term ends. If these are not, in fact, chicken shit, banana republic political prosecutions (they are), then there is no harm in waiting.

If the response is that it is harmful for Trump to be in office, so we have to stop him from winning, then you are admitting that these are political prosecutions (which they are).

The public deserves to know the facts about these cases and delaying the trial deprives us of vital information that we need to know before the election.

The fact you want this buried demonstrated you’re scared of the truth.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It's bullshit, is what it is, in regards to politically charged cases such as this. You ask a juror questions on paper. Then you ask them questions in person. They can lie. No one checks. Lawyers have a chance to disqualify if they want but no investigations are done to make sure the jurors answered questions truthfully.

Trump made the charges political. Federal investigations into Trump were ongoing before he announced his candidacy.

Fears of being found guilty, does not make the case for investigating a jury.

and 'you people' fear reality -- Trump is guilty of some of the charges. You admit so as you attempt to defend him.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

All of these stupid prosecutions should be delayed until either (1) after Trump loses, or (2) after Trump's next presidential term ends. If these are not, in fact, chicken shit, banana republic political prosecutions (they are), then there is no harm in waiting.

If the response is that it is harmful for Trump to be in office, so we have to stop him from winning, then you are admitting that these are political prosecutions (which they are).

Mister Trump is not King. He doesn't get special treatment because he was once a president.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It's called voir dire. It's used by the attorneys, in every jury selection in America.

'Those people' act as if it's a case for nullification of a jury decision, because an independent jury finds a defendant guilty.

and a jury is made up of peers -- citizens. Back in the colonial/early American days, most everyone knew about the case, the defendent(s), and more Look at the so-called Boston Massacre case.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Mister Trump is not King. He doesn't get special treatment because he was once a president.

Justice delayed, is justice denied.

Thank you for your comment. Believe it or not, I am actually going to pay you a compliment. See, I do not actually believe that you are as stupid as you pretend to be online. I even have my suspicions that you do not even believe the ridiculous nonsense you espouse to others on a regular basis. I know it is fun to act stupid and be snarky. Thanks to the advent of the internet you can now do this with little to no consequence.

A virtuous man, or woman, of honor knows that there are a number of things that must be collectively valued highly in order to maintain a civil society. These things consist of matters such as honesty, having a strong work ethic, being productive, and tolerance of diversity of opinions and ideas. Too many people today choose to live without virtue and a sense of honor. But it is our duty to seek a virtuous life if we are to effectively live in peace with one another. This requires, inter alia, education on a myriad of topics fueled by a natural curiosity and drive to better oneself and, therefore, society in general.

Such a heightened and enlightened consciousness cannot be found on the internet. Cyberspace is a dark, virtueless morass of social toxicity that is the antithesis to virtue. I acknowledge this, and I have some some time now. Therefore, I begrudge nobody their words and thoughts in the cyber world. I expect nothing from them. They are nothing, and they are of no consequence to me. Their value, if any, is what you choose it to be.

In order to stave off the inevitable nihilism associated with internet socializing, I choose to accept faith in the belief that nobody can really be as stupid and ignorant as you appear to be from the comments you publicly make. Most assuredly you are merely saying what you say in order to derive some sort of pleasure from a deviant fetish you harbor based on watching people respond to your bullshit.

 

[d0gbreath]

It's bullshit, is what it is, in regards to politically charged cases such as this. You ask a juror questions on paper. Then you ask them questions in person. They can lie. No one checks. Lawyers have a chance to disqualify if they want but no investigations are done to make sure the jurors answered questions truthfully.

Should we amend the Constitution to provide for investigations and polygraph tests to be performed on everyone in the jury pool?

But, even that wouldn't satisfy you, since the first sentence in your OP, states that the public needs to know everything about every potential juror. Good luck with that one.

 

[g5000]

is it fair the public knows details about the jurors? Jurors are supposed to be fair and unbiased but should they be investigated to make sure they aren't biased partisans, at least by the powers that be, even if it isn't made public? For the sake of argument, let's pick the Trump jurors. Should they be investigated to make sure they aren't politically biased and can make a fair, honest judgment?

That's what voir dire is about, dumbass.

Don't try to make excuses for people who want to hunt these jurors down and kill them for indicting Dear Leader.

You make me sick.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Maybe Trump will ask for a bench trial

 

[Darkwind]

is it fair the public knows details about the jurors? Jurors are supposed to be fair and unbiased but should they be investigated to make sure they aren't biased partisans, at least by the powers that be, even if it isn't made public? For the sake of argument, let's pick the Trump jurors. Should they be investigated to make sure they aren't politically biased and can make a fair, honest judgment? If one or more is a member of Truth Social shouldn't they be disqualified? If one or more has used social media to blast Trump, shouldn't they be disqualified? As far as I know, they just ask jurors questions and never follow up on the answers to those questions. We would want a fair trial with unbiased jurors, wouldn't we? We shouldn't rely on just their word that they could make an honest, fair, and unbiased decision. We should know that they can.

It is without question that Trump could never get a fair trial from any court in the D.C. jurisdiction. It just is not possible given the Demographics of the area and the six years of 'hate Trump' drumbeat.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Thank you for your comment. Believe it or not, I am actually going to pay you a compliment. See, I do not actually believe that you are as stupid as you pretend to be online. I even have my suspicions that you do not even believe the ridiculous nonsense you espouse to others on a regular basis. I know it is fun to act stupid and be snarky. Thanks to the advent of the internet you can now do this with little to no consequence.

A virtuous man, or woman, of honor knows that there are a number of things that must be collectively valued highly in order to maintain a civil society. These things consist of matters such as honesty, having a strong work ethic, being productive, and tolerance of diversity of opinions and ideas. Too many people today choose to live without virtue and a sense of honor. But it is our duty to seek a virtuous life if we are to effectively live in peace with one another. This requires, inter alia, education on a myriad of topics fueled by a natural curiosity and drive to better oneself and, therefore, society in general.

Such a heightened and enlightened consciousness cannot be found on the internet. Cyberspace is a dark, virtueless morass of social toxicity that is the antithesis to virtue. I acknowledge this, and I have some some time now. Therefore, I begrudge nobody their words and thoughts in the cyber world. I expect nothing from them. They are nothing, and they are of no consequence to me. Their value, if any, is what you choose it to be.

In order to stave off the inevitable nihilism associated with internet socializing, I choose to accept faith in the belief that nobody can really be as stupid and ignorant as you appear to be from the comments you publicly make. Most assuredly you are merely saying what you say in order to derive some sort of pleasure from a deviant fetish you harbor based on watching people respond to your bullshit.

"Virtue" was valued most, maybe even more than anything else -- by John Adams and many of his brethren of the colonial/founding era.

and your analysis is taken with a grain of salt, otherwise I'd have to see you as disingenuous and full of shit. Maybe ignorantly so, but still.

MAGA world does not want to live in peace and harmony. The resentments, anger, frustrations and such motivating that group expose the lie. And we have statements from the far right going back to when they first gained a few seats at the table of power (late 1970s), and with Newt's contract that explicate state they seek to destroy opponents putting forth they as enemies, and not merely opponents.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Should we amend the Constitution to provide for investigations and polygraph tests to be performed on everyone in the jury pool?

But, even that wouldn't satisfy you, since the first sentence in your OP, states that the public needs to know everything about every potential juror. Good luck with that one.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It is without question that Trump could never get a fair trial from any court in the D.C. jurisdiction. It just is not possible given the Demographics of the area and the six years of 'hate Trump' drumbeat.

Of course you have no faith in America's system of justice

 

[SavannahMann]

All of these stupid prosecutions should be delayed until either (1) after Trump loses, or (2) after Trump's next presidential term ends. If these are not, in fact, chicken shit, banana republic political prosecutions (they are), then there is no harm in waiting.

If the response is that it is harmful for Trump to be in office, so we have to stop him from winning, then you are admitting that these are political prosecutions (which they are).

So Senators and Governors can face charges while in office. But Presidents can’t. In fact Presidents are so far above the law that if you say I am running you get an automatic free pass. Is that what you are saying?

 

[d0gbreath]

So Senators and Governors can face charges while in office. But Presidents can’t. In fact Presidents are so far above the law that if you say I am running you get an automatic free pass. Is that what you are saying?

Let me take a moment to announce my candidacy for the presidency of the United States of America in 2024.
This could well work for my benefit.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

So Senators and Governors can face charges while in office. But Presidents can’t. In fact Presidents are so far above the law that if you say I am running you get an automatic free pass. Is that what you are saying?

Yep. Congress can function without one or two members. But the entirety of Article Powers are vested in one man. Do you understand?

Many, you are an ignorant pos, aren't you? Get a fucking education.