Current Events > Trump asked to know Juror names in defamation case; judge denies

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rejects-trumps-bid-learn-juror-names-defamation-trial-2023-04-14/

Donald Trump will not learn the identities of jurors expected to decide at an upcoming civil trial whether the former president defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll, who also claims Trump raped her.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan on Friday rejected Trump's renewed effort to require that prospective jurors provide their names, employment and 38 other pieces of information on written questionnaires.
Kaplan said the law was "abundantly clear" it was his choice whether to use questionnaires, and nothing has changed his decision to seat an anonymous jury at the April 25 trial, reflecting the threat of juror harassment.
Lawyers for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Trump had argued that his recent criminal indictment filed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had brought on a "deluge of prejudicial media coverage" that would make it tough to find an impartial jury in Carroll's civil case.
His lawyers said the coverage dwarfed the media attention given to Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, biotech executive Elizabeth Holmes and Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell just before their recent high-profile criminal trials began.
While jurors would hear much about Trump even in "normal" circumstances, "the risk of prejudice is even more elevated" because of Bragg's case, Trump's lawyers said.
Trump is leading the Republican field for the 2024 presidential election.
Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, has said Trump forced himself upon her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in late 1995 or early 1996.
The trial concerns whether Trump defamed her in October 2022 by saying the rape claim was a "hoax" and "lie" and that she was not his "type."
Carroll also wants Trump found liable for rape under a New York law giving adults a one-year window to sue their alleged abusers even if statutes of limitations have expired.
She is separately suing Trump for defamation over his June 2019 denial that the dressing room encounter happened.
The case is Carroll v Trump, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-10016.

Can't believe it's legal to know a jury's names before the decision is made.

What purpose does this serve?

Questionmarktarius posted...

What purpose does this serve?

threaten them to vote his way

Questionmarktarius posted...

What purpose does this serve?

He would likely doxx them and him and his cult following would threaten them

SSJKirby posted...

threaten them to vote his way

Jury fuckery is very illegal. Trump's handlers are fucking up, or they may not even exist anymore.

CableZL posted...

He would likely doxx them and him and his cult following would threaten them

This, Trump knows his cultists will do so without him even having to spell it out

Im still wondering how in the Hell would they even be able to find an impartial jury for this.

Is there anyone in the US who has a neutral opinion about Trump or really any recent president?

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Im still wondering how in the Hell would they even be able to find an impartial jury for this.

is Canada an option?

wackyteen posted...

His lawyers said the coverage dwarfed the media attention given to Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, biotech executive Elizabeth Holmes and Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell just before their recent high-profile criminal trials began.

Gee, who would have thought that a lawsuit against one of the objectively worst, most divisive presidents in US history would receive insane amounts of media coverage? Brilliant observation, dumbasses.

Questionmarktarius posted...

is Canada an option?

Come on now, Canada always has strong feelings about the USs antics. I suppose thats understandable.

Maybe youd have to go to Fiji.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Maybe youd have to go to Fiji.

Perhaps Mongolia?

Canada's opinion of 'Merica! has to be the most facepalmy thing ever.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Perhaps Mongolia?

French Polynesia, take it or leave it

remandramdoll posted...

French Polynesia, take it or leave it

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/3/AAEhCpAADdT9.jpg

The fact that he would even ask that should have gotten his ass thrown in jail..

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Im still wondering how in the Hell would they even be able to find an impartial jury for this.

Is there anyone in the US who has a neutral opinion about Trump or really any recent president?

In cases like these, it's not so much neutral opinion as is it to determine the facts impartially despite opinions.

This isnt fair.

How is Trump or his supporters meant to threaten them now?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Jury fuckery is very illegal. Trump's handlers are fucking up, or they may not even exist anymore.

Yeah we had a guy local to here who was always getting off Scott free cause he had a senator in his pocket (black mail for having sex with him as a minor) but one time he attempted jury tampering and he went down hard. He was so shocked he jumped out the window (2nd story) and broke his legs. So I guess he got attempted escape too.

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Im still wondering how in the Hell would they even be able to find an impartial jury for this.

Is there anyone in the US who has a neutral opinion about Trump or really any recent president?

There's plenty of people capable of putting aside personal biases in order to make an impartial judgement based on the facts. As a third party, determining who these people are unquestionably may be difficult however.

Anyway, being a Trump juror is probably terrifying. If he get's convicted, and his followers ever find out the jurors identities, who know how those animals will react

Kloe_Rinz posted...

There's plenty of people capable of putting aside personal biases in order to make an impartial judgement based on the facts. As a third party, determining who these people are unquestionably may be difficult however.

Anyway, being a Trump juror is probably terrifying. If he get's convicted, and his followers ever find out the jurors identities, who know how those animals will react

I think there is few and far in between that would be impartial.

I'd like to think I would be but hell there is a thing called unintentional bias. Where you are biased and don't even realize it. Have had to take several training courses on it for my job. Basically you'll have a positive or negative opinion of someone but can't really pin point why if scrutinized on it. Like you might bring up legit things then have it pointed out you didn't take it into consideration with another person.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I think there is few and far in between that would be impartial.

I'd like to think I would be but hell there is a thing called unintentional bias. Where you are biased and don't even realize it. Have had to take several training courses on it for my job. Basically you'll have a positive or negative opinion of someone but can't really pin point why if scrutinized on it. Like you might bring up legit things then have it pointed out you didn't take it into consideration with another person.

That is a good point. But how else would they really do this? They could just drill it down to simple facts/maths. Did he do this, yes/no. Did he do that, yes/no. And then the sum of the answers equals the judgement. I've never been on a jury so I don't know how they typically play out, and it may be that there simply don't exist people who are unbiased for this particular trial

Kloe_Rinz posted...

That is a good point. But how else would they really do this? They could just drill it down to simple facts/maths. Did he do this, yes/no. Did he do that, yes/no. And then the sum of the answers equals the judgement. I've never been on a jury so I don't know how they typically play out, and it may be that there simply don't exist people who are unbiased for this particular trial

Surely they have encountered this problem plenty of times before though. Like even in smaller cases, if it was say a big business vs a small company or something, that sets up a sort of underdog type trial which would inherently give jurors some level of bias even if they didn't know anything about either side

That's how a jury is supposed to work. You are supposed to just make a guilty/not guilty decision based on facts even if you disagree with the law or sentencing around the law. But you'll have people who don't follow that even in regular cases. We had a guy when I was picked for jury who just refused. He said he would vote not guilty no matter what cause a a religious mane he felt wrong condemning another man to prison regardless of if he was guilty or not. Judge kept trying to argue it was her that would condemn the man to prison all he was doing was saying if he felt the man was guilty or not. He just wasn't having it.

Court system will never be perfect. In a perfect world a jury wouldn't be needed and we could trust the judge to do the job. But that opens the door for all sorts of corruption.