147
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

The Washington Post also has live updates

Today is jury selection, so they'll be asking a lot of potential jurors about all the ways they could be biased or have a conflict of interest.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

Man I wish I could be a juror on this case. It seems like it would be hard to find an unbiased juror though, considering how publicized the case is and how galvanizing Trump's rhetoric has been around it.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

I think at this point everyone has an opinion on Donald Trump, and particularly people living in Manhattan. The key question is whether they can find 12 people willing to put aside whatever opinions they have, and judge the case solely on what is presented in court.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Idk, you'd probably be getting death threats and and stalkers for a good while.

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

True... Maybe just a fly on the wall in the jury room then.

Out of 12 people, there's likely 1 that wears a maga hat... The jury will never reach a verdict if that's the case.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 5 months ago
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I'd fail 33. Is it like a mega crime to lie on that questionnaire?

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

A question so nice they asked it twice! I'd also fail #38

And the question about bias in an election year. Isn't that kind of the point? He committed the felonies in an effort to secure to 2016 election, so you disregard that because... He might do it again??

[-] youngGoku@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago
  1. Can you give us your assurance that you will decide this case solely on the evidence you see and hear in this courtroom and the law as the iudge gives it?

Yeah haha that's a tough one

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago

More than half the jury pool said 'no' to that

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

The defendant's ironclad case when jury nullification walks in the room

Or in this case, whatever the opposite of that is

[-] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago

I'd guess maybe perjury, but I'm not a lawyer

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Thanks for posting the questionnaire. I don't think I'd pass it. I'm not sure anyone I know would pass it. I'd be tempted to answer a lot of those questions in a way the defense wouldn't like.

  1. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in state court?

I have a strong opinion and firm belief that it is a miscarriage of justice that it has taken this long for Trump to be charged in any court.

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

Yea I'm more concerned about the type of person who actually makes it through the process. Anyone with any morals would be biased against him, and we all know who the type of person with no morals who would be fine with lying vote for.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I think my morals and ethics would let me answer "in the spirit" with which they are asked.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

politics

18894 readers
6468 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS