Will Trumps trial be fair and unbiased?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you also think trump haters(non-maga's) will be biased?

I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent and well informed. I despise Trump.

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, there is no way that this bias would not play an all but consuming role were I a juror. I'd be operating under a presumption of guilt and bending over backwards to compensate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with @Revoltingest that the likelihood of jury nullification is considerable.

I think jury nullification very unlikely.

Jury nullification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A lone Maga preventing conviction is different.

 

[libre]

I think jury nullification very unlikely.

My mistake. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It seems like a realistic possibility to me.

A lone Maga preventing conviction is different.

How so?
A single juror choosing not to not apply the law fairly to Trump due to their own politics or political consequences beyond the case itself would constitute jury nullification according to the definition here.

jury nullification

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[PureX]

My mistake. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It seems like a realistic possibility to me.

How so?
A single juror choosing not to not apply the law fairly to Trump due to their own politics or political consequences beyond the case itself would constitute jury nullification according to the definition here.

jury nullification

www.law.cornell.edu

Since the jurist would very likely not know they had done so, it would be very difficult to determine that it happened.

What's going on here is that Trump's lawyers are trying very hard to create a problem that doesn't exist so they can appeal when they lose, and so Trump can continue to play the victim of an unjust justice system for his sicophants.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm surprised he isn't already in clink for his continual subtle threats and outbursts to the media, even when he is chastised by a judge. He seems to think his position alone should allow him this privilege when any other individual wouldn't be allowed to do so.

 

[Pogo]

What is this case even about?

It is an election interference case, that was trump's intent in having Cohen buy the silence of Stormy Daniels about her relationship with Trump and then his illegal reimbursement of Cohen. It is another case where the conspiracy to hide the original behavior like Watergate is the ultimately most damning action.

 

[Pogo]

Since the jurist would very likely not know they had done so, it would be very difficult to determine that it happened.

What's going on here is that Trump's lawyers are trying very hard to create a problem that doesn't exist so they can appeal when they lose, and so Trump can continue to play the victim of an unjust justice system for his sicophants.

You really think that jurists are that dumb that they would not know why they were voting opposite of everyone else in the jury?
As to his persecution claims, yes they are aimed at his sycophants and it is really sad that he has so many.

 

[HonestJoe]

One problem is Trump isn't an ordinary defendant. He is known by most everyone and has been for many years.

Sure, that's why I said "As much as possible". Trump isn't the first ever famous criminal defendant though and certainly isn't the first defendant to have characteristics that could lead a lot of prospective jurors to be biased, for or against them.

The system is never going to be perfect, even for "normal" defendants but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are a whole load of laws, rules and practices to make trials as fair as possible for everyone involved, and we're hearing about them in action in this case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah but its the jury who will decide verdict, the outcome of the trial, not the judge.

It's both.

The judge decides what information the jury sees. The judge gives instructions to the jury to guide them on how to decide the verdict.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you also think trump haters(non-maga's) will be biased?

The objective isn't to get 12 people who have zero biases; the objective is to get 12 people who will be able to set aside their biases and be led by the law and the evidence.

 

[PureX]

You really think that jurists are that dumb that they would not know why they were voting opposite of everyone else in the jury?

I have never met a bigot yet that thought he was a bigot, or that anything he said or did was because he was a bigot. So yes, I am sure that if anyone on that Jury really was "out to get" Trump, that person would see himself as being the smartest, most just person in the room.

As to his persecution claims, yes they are aimed at his sycophants and it is really sad that he has so many.

In all the court actions Trump has ever been in the tactics were always the same: delay, poison the well, accuse the accuser, delay some more, drag it out as long as possible, then appeal and do it all again.

 

[We Never Know]

It's both.

The judge decides what information the jury sees. The judge gives instructions to the jury to guide them on how to decide the verdict.

The judge isn't in the room discussing with the jury when they are deliberating about the verdict.
Its jurors who can sometimes change the minds of other jurors.

 

[We Never Know]

Sure, that's why I said "As much as possible". Trump isn't the first ever famous criminal defendant though and certainly isn't the first defendant to have characteristics that could lead a lot of prospective jurors to be biased, for or against them.

The system is never going to be perfect, even for "normal" defendants but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are a whole load of laws, rules and practices to make trials as fair as possible for everyone involved, and we're hearing about them in action in this case.

However he is the first former president.
IMO he is more well known than many famous people.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One problem is Trump isn't an ordinary defendant. He is known by most everyone and has been for many years.

So, what's the alternative? Should Trump just never be able to stand trial? He can just commit crimes and never be tried?

 

[Spice]

The first 7 of 18 have been selected, with Thursday scheduled to continue the process. Opening arguments anticipated for early next week.

"The panelists who were selected are an information technology worker, an English teacher, an oncology nurse, a sales professional, a software engineer and two lawyers." PBS Newshour online.

 

[Revoltingest]

My mistake. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It seems like a realistic possibility to me.

How so?
A single juror choosing not to not apply the law fairly to Trump due to their own politics or political consequences beyond the case itself would constitute jury nullification according to the definition here.

jury nullification

www.law.cornell.edu

Jury nullification is typically different.
I'd expect a true believer Maga to
merely believe him innocent.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Considering that his goals are to tick off the members of the court, obviously not.

 

[HonestJoe]

However he is the first former president.
IMO he is more well known than many famous people.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the kind of consequences and difficulties that can cause the legal processes are unique or unaccounted for.

I know some of Trump's rabid supporters (and I'm not saying that is necessarily you) want to spin the idea that he is somehow uniquely unable to get a fair trial but it isn't anything like as simple or definitive as they'd like everyone to believe.

 

[EinGeheimkonto]

I don't think it will. Practically everybody in the world has an opinion about Trump being that he was the former US president, one way or another.

Personally, I think that a lot of the attempts to prosecute him are basically political showboating. He made enough enemies and pissed enough people off that people are out for blood.

 

[Tomef]

In the business case, Trump is accused of inflating his worth to gain favorable loans? We are told to believe that Banks in NYC. with the $Tillions in assets, are so easy to fool. These are the same Poor helpless Banks, that the DNC also says need to be regulated. Does this exaggerated worth crime, now apply to all used car salesmen, who have ever sold used cars? "This car was only driven on Sundays, by an old lady". "That car is mint, accidence free and was never in a flood." We need to accept a poor helpless teen is more capable on a used car lot, then a meek and mild, NYC Bank, that needs to be regulated. Who buys this crap?

To make up for unleashing such rampant stupidity on an unexpecting audience, you should be required to write an essay on the differences between buying a used car (and who would be the salesperson and who the buyer in this bizarre analogy?) and taking out a bank loan. Your essay should include details of the bank loan process, the opportunities for fraud this presents, and how a bad actor could use highly paid specialist accountants to exploit these. This would require references to the real world, random notions plucked out of the air should be left out. Once completed, you may exchange your essay for a pair of big boy trousers and the feeling that you have finally arrived back in Kansas, where real things actually happen.