Current Events > Is America prepared for a hung jury from the Trump trial?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Even though the facts point to a guilty finding, all it would take is one juror (i.e. someone who only gets their news from Truth Social) and Trump would be found not guilty.

Arent like jurors restricted from looking up any information on the case they are actively on the bench for?

I doubt anyone expects him to face any actual consequences

Baha05 posted...

Arent like jurors restricted from looking up any information on the case they are actively on the bench for?

The ability to find a group of 12 completely impartial people on such a large and prolific trial would probably be like finding 12 specific grains of sand on a beach. The only real thing they need to hope for is that they didn't pick from the greasy, gross red sand.

Nemu posted...

The ability to find a group of 12 completely impartial people on such a large and prolific trial would probably be like finding 12 specific grains of sand on a beach. The only real thing they need to hope for is that they didn't pick from the greasy, gross red sand.

Not really an answer there

Baha05 posted...

Arent like jurors restricted from looking up any information on the case they are actively on the bench for?

Correct only information at the trial that was admitted as evidence. The introduction of outside information by a juror would be a major problem and would lead to juror dismissal.

Baha05 posted...

Not really an answer there

The details of the trial don't really matter if someone with preconceived notions of the defendant is allowed onto the jury, and, given the defendant, that's a pretty hard ask. Even if the juror states that they can remain impartial, that's not necessarily true. I assume they'd do things like comb social media to check for major biases (assuming that's allowed), but you could still easily get someone who claims they'd be impartial while not actually being impartial. Properly filtering that out is probably a near impossible task.

Nemu posted...

The details of the trial don't really matter if someone with preconceived notions of the defendant is allowed onto the jury, and, given the defendant, that's a pretty hard ask. Even if the juror states that they can remain impartial, that's not necessarily true. I assume they'd do things like comb social media to check for major biases (assuming that's allowed), but you could still easily get someone who claims they'd be impartial while not actually being impartial. Properly filtering that out is probably a near impossible task.

I mean they kind of do if said people are not allowed to review the materials of the trial via third party sources so again you provided no damn answer.

furb posted...

Correct only information at the trial that was admitted as evidence. The introduction of outside information by a juror would be a major problem and would lead to juror dismissal.

Thank you this person provided an answer

Yeah, I have a hard time imagining that a jury wouldn't have at least one Trumper that snuck through the selection process. Here's hoping the ones that were in a position to all got weeded out by their own vocal idiocy, but I'm doubting it.

Baha05 posted...

I mean they kind of do if said people are not allowed to review the materials of the trial via third party sources so again you provided no damn answer.

You can try to keep people from reviewing outside information DURING the trial, but there's no effective way to ensure they weren't exposed to outside information BEFORE the trial.

Baha05 posted...

I mean they kind of do if said people are not allowed to review the materials of the trial via third party sources so again you provided no damn answer.

The point is that it's an irrelevant question. Whether someone sees the details of the trial or not, nearly everyone in the country is going to have some bias for Trump, for or against him, so even one fan of him getting onto the jury could lead to a hung jury. That's what the OP is implying, as far as I can tell. In a perfect world, everyone would be impartial, but I don't think it's possible to guarantee.

Nemu posted...

The point is that it's an irrelevant question. Whether someone sees the details of the trial or not, nearly everyone in the country is going to have some bias for Trump, for or against him, so even one fan of him getting onto the jury could lead to a hung jury. That's what the OP is implying, as far as I can tell. In a perfect world, everyone would be impartial, but I don't think it's possible to guarantee.

Whatever then.

I mean, a jury did find him guilty in his E. Jean Carroll civil trial. I think the burden of proof is a lot different in a civil trial vs. a criminal trial, but 12 jurors still agreed on a guilty verdict, so