Correct me if I’m wrong but as another method, I believe he just needs one fuckstick on each jury to force a mistrial which would push everything past the election, feed into the “it’s all political” narrative, and hand him what will become the emperor’s throne. And there is currently no shortage of fucksticks.
Basically the selection process (voir dire) is more like an interview than what you’d see in your low level petit courts where they just ask questions to the room. They focus less on familiarity with the case and more on impartiality and dedication to rule of law. I’m sure they go through hundreds.
Now I want a TV show where they actually summon a dozen people from remote villages of sane countries who actually have zero idea who Trump is and retell them all he did with a straight face.
If that is the case, and it absolutely could be, blame the prosecution lawyers.
Striking jurors during selection is their responsibility, both defense and prosecution can say no to a juror selection until you get a jury that both have agreed is fair. Incidentally it’s how you get out of jury duty, say something crazy on purpose and they’ll throw you out.
The fact remains that this process can fail, you can still get a juror who will not hear facts and will not make a decision based on rule of law. But it’s supposed to work, it’s supposed to weed out any juror that will not reach a fair decision.
Correct me if I’m wrong but as another method, I believe he just needs one fuckstick on each jury to force a mistrial which would push everything past the election, feed into the “it’s all political” narrative, and hand him what will become the emperor’s throne. And there is currently no shortage of fucksticks.
how do they even find jurors for this anyway? you’d have to be blind and deaf in order to not be aware of what’s going on.
I just read a thing on the subject https://news.northeastern.edu/2017/07/03/how-do-lawyers-handle-jury-selection-with-high-profile-clients-like-shkreli-or-cosby/
Basically the selection process (voir dire) is more like an interview than what you’d see in your low level petit courts where they just ask questions to the room. They focus less on familiarity with the case and more on impartiality and dedication to rule of law. I’m sure they go through hundreds.
Now I want a TV show where they actually summon a dozen people from remote villages of sane countries who actually have zero idea who Trump is and retell them all he did with a straight face.
If that is the case, and it absolutely could be, blame the prosecution lawyers.
Striking jurors during selection is their responsibility, both defense and prosecution can say no to a juror selection until you get a jury that both have agreed is fair. Incidentally it’s how you get out of jury duty, say something crazy on purpose and they’ll throw you out.
The fact remains that this process can fail, you can still get a juror who will not hear facts and will not make a decision based on rule of law. But it’s supposed to work, it’s supposed to weed out any juror that will not reach a fair decision.