Potential jurors do not excuse themselves. They are excused by the court, generally either because it doesn’t appear they can be impartial or because serving on the jury would work a particular hardship (for example, employment-wise or they’re caring for an elderly or sick relative).
— The first seven jurors for Donald Trump’s hush money trial were seated Tuesday
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. This went faster then I would have guessed.
I don't understand Trump's claim that this trial is an attack on America. Does he think every married American male cheats on his wife and has to pay hush money to his other women? Is he right?
I think what he means is: the American people legitimately chose him as POTUS in 2020, but he was denied the office, and now the powers-that-be are using ginned-up charges to ensure that the people never again get to have their prefered man as president.
I have never heard any Canadian court disclose juror occupations or immigration status. Gender occasionally but anonymity to the public is the rule.
I remember when Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted for performing abortions in 1980s Ontario, Maclean's Magazine had a photo of the jurors leaving the courthouse, and one outlet(possibly also Maclean's) gave a list of their occupations. I assume that information was somehow provided by the courts.
That's since been changed; the Paul Bernardo jury was completely anonymous and pictures of the jury specifically banned. The only identification has been voluntary and long after the case has ended as at least one of those jurors has advocated for counselling for jurors post-case.
That's since been changed; the Paul Bernardo jury was completely anonymous and pictures of the jury specifically banned. The only identification has been voluntary and long after the case has ended as at least one of those jurors has advocated for counselling for jurors post-case.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
Interesting that they made that change due to the Bernardo case, given that that jury ended up bringing down what must've been the most popular verdict in Canadian history.
Morgentaler in its day was much more divisive, though I suppose had the Bernardo jurors, without benefit of anonymity, declared him not guilty, they would likely have been at risk of, shall we say, a rough reception back in the community.
That's since been changed; the Paul Bernardo jury was completely anonymous and pictures of the jury specifically banned. The only identification has been voluntary and long after the case has ended as at least one of those jurors has advocated for counselling for jurors post-case.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
Interesting that they made that change due to the Bernardo case, given that that jury ended up bringing down what must've been the most popular verdict in Canadian history.
Morgentaler in its day was much more divisive, though I suppose had the Bernardo jurors, without benefit of anonymity, declared him not guilty, they would likely have been at risk of, shall we say, a rough reception back in the community.
The Guardian has a list of all twelve Trump jurors, with sparsely detailed information about their occupations, and somewhat more revealing info about their media habits.
That's since been changed; the Paul Bernardo jury was completely anonymous and pictures of the jury specifically banned.
That's how it should be. The jurors are not being chosen because they're good electricians, shop assistants or whatever. They're there because they are members of the community
New York state Attorney General Letitia James on Friday asked the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial to reject the former president’s bond, which has been dogged by reports of the insolvency of the company backing it.
Earlier this month, James gave Trump and Knight Specialty Insurance, the insurance company that underwrote his civil fraud case bond, 10 days to guarantee that the $175 million surety could be justified. Those 10 days are now up.
Trump and Knight Specialty Insurance, which is not licensed as a surety in New York state, could not prove the surety “meets the requirements of trustworthiness and competence,” according to a memo from James’s office, and thus failed to demonstrate that they would be good for the $175 million.
As I've said before, Trump trying to use an allegedly fraudulent bond to cover the fines from his fraud conviction is totally on brand for him.
I would love to see Trump Tower seized by the sheriff.
As enjoyable as that would be to watch, Trump Tower as such won’t be seized by the sheriff, because much of Trump Tower is not owned by Trump. He or the Trump Organization owns his penthouse apartment, his offices, and maybe some commercial space. Most of the building is condominiums owned by others.
I would love to see Trump Tower seized by the sheriff.
As enjoyable as that would be to watch, Trump Tower as such won’t be seized by the sheriff, because much of Trump Tower is not owned by Trump. He or the Trump Organization owns his penthouse apartment, his offices, and maybe some commercial space. Most of the building is condominiums owned by others.
Yes, I am aware of that. But just to have a Sheriff's car parked in front of the entrance would be a sight to behold.
Well, that was fast. First, they said it would take a while to seat a jury. It was done in days. Then the media was saying opening statements would take days. They appeared to be done in one morning. Now the first witness is on the stand. David Pecker, the former owner of the Enquirer is on the stand. They still say it will take six weeks to get it to the jury.
Trump: It is very, very sad day for America. No, sir, it is the beginning of happy days once again.
Well, that was fast. First, they said it would take a while to seat a jury. It was done in days. Then the media was saying opening statements would take days. They appeared to be done in one morning. Now the first witness is on the stand. David Pecker, the former owner of the Enquirer is on the stand. They still say it will take six weeks to get it to the jury.
I note the defense lawyers want everyone to refer to DJT as "The President." I hope the DA's office will refer to him as only "Mr." at the most. Must be humiliating to sit there at the defense table and have no control over the proceedings.
It's hard for me to ponder the Trump trial without thinking about the both movie The People Vs. Larry Flynt, and the real events that inspired it.
The movie is not at all pornographic(or even just erotic), and doesn't make a particularly compelling case for free-speech, either. But it's pretty good as a farcical parody of high-minded courtroom dramas.
Check YouTube for "People Vs. Larry Flynt court scenes". In all honesty, I doubt Trump will reach Flynt's heights of narcissistic disruptiveness, though we can hope.
Suppose Trump had not paid off anyone in regard to his sex life. Would that have made any difference at all in the 2016 election?
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
Just under 100,000 votes. I can't see your paywalled article, but I suspect it was published before final tallies were available. There were, at the final count, 136,669,237 valid ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election. The total Trump margin in the three closest states was 77,744 votes (22,748 in Wisconsin, 44,292 in Pennsylvania, and 10,704 in Michigan). In other words, a 0.057% margin. Victory in those states would have give Hillary Clinton 273 electoral votes and the presidency.
Of course, moving votes only in those particular states and nowhere else is a near impossibility, barring a candidate saying something particularly insulting about those specific states. So how much would the national electorate need to tip in order to shift Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin by 0.72 percentage points? Running the math and assuming that voters are shifting from Trump to Clinton (rather than not voting or voting third party) means a Clinton victory in 2016 would require shifting 490,908 votes nationally, which is about 0.3% of the national electorate that year.
Just under 100,000 votes. I can't see your paywalled article, but I suspect it was published before final tallies were available. There were, at the final count, 136,669,237 valid ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election. The total Trump margin in the three closest states was 77,744 votes (22,748 in Wisconsin, 44,292 in Pennsylvania, and 10,704 in Michigan). In other words, a 0.057% margin. Victory in those states would have give Hillary Clinton 273 electoral votes and the presidency.
Of course, moving votes only in those particular states and nowhere else is a near impossibility, barring a candidate saying something particularly insulting about those specific states. So how much would the national electorate need to tip in order to shift Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin by 0.72 percentage points? Running the math and assuming that voters are shifting from Trump to Clinton (rather than not voting or voting third party) means a Clinton victory in 2016 would require shifting 490,908 votes nationally, which is about 0.3% of the national electorate that year.
Thank you.
Sorry, didn't realise the article was being Paywall.
Anyway, the election was a very close one.
The Trump campaign and presumably Trump himself were worried. Hence the conspiracy.
Why can former presidents still be addressed or referred to as President?
It's a courtesy title, something established through practice rather than legal measures. I suppose that means whether you use it or not depends on whether you think the former president in question deserves courteous treatment.
Heh. As I understand it, the older practice was to revert to whatever rank you might have had pre-presidency, and leave "Mr President" to the current incumbent. I rather doubt Jimmy Carter expects to be addressed this way all the time. But of course THIS individual....
That's fascinating. For a few months after the election I would look at the date on news articles that referred to "President Trump" wondering if I was reading old news.
It looks like SCOTUS is going to let him off the hook re Presidential immunity. At least to some extent. And provide a basis for a further delay.
Meanwhile Merchan still holds back the result of the contempt of court hearing. 30 days jail time times 10 for contempt would be good, suspended, but enforced if he offends again?
It looks like SCOTUS is going to let him off the hook re Presidential immunity. At least to some extent. And provide a basis for a further delay.
Meanwhile Merchan still holds back the result of the contempt of court hearing. 30 days jail time times 10 for contempt would be good, suspended, but enforced if he offends again?
If anything, four of the five conservative justices may want to grant limited immunity for official acts as President, but even they realize some of the accusations against Trump do not appear to be official acts as president. They may send everything back to a lower court to determine what is official and what is unofficial or private.
Merchan seems to want to avoid sending Trump to jail. But he might put him under house arrest.
If anything, four of the five conservative justices may want to grant limited immunity for official acts as President, but even they realize some of the accusations against Trump do not appear to be official acts as president. They may send everything back to a lower court to determine what is official and what is unofficial or private.
The distinction between "official" and "private" acts of the president does not appear in the Constitution, and as Jamelle Bouie points out in the New York Times [ gift link ] the idea that the president was above the law would have been abhorrent to the Framers of the Constitution.
What’s more, as the brief explains, ratification of the Constitution rested on the “express” promise that “the new president would be subject to criminal conviction.”
“His person is not so much protected as that of a member of the House of Representatives,” Tench Coxe wrote in one of the first published essays urging ratification of the Constitution, “for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law.”
James Iredell, one of the first justices of the Supreme Court, told the North Carolina ratifying convention that if the president “commits any misdemeanor in office, he is impeachable, removable from office, and incapacitated to hold any office of honor, trust or profit.” And if he commits any crime, “he is punishable by the laws of his country, and in capital cases may be deprived of his life.”
Yes, you read that correctly. In his argument for the Constitution, one of the earliest appointees to the Supreme Court specified that in a capital case, the president could be tried, convicted and put to death.
I can't think of any definition of the term under which Justices espousing such a radical revision of the Constitutional order could be considered "conservative", unless "conservative" is just a new euphemism for MAGA.
It looks like the Supreme Court has once again denied former Trump advisor Peter Navarro 04370-510's request to be released from prison while his appeal works its way through the courts. Sorry Pete! Executive immunity isn't for the minions.
It looks like SCOTUS is going to let him off the hook re Presidential immunity. At least to some extent. And provide a basis for a further delay.
Meanwhile Merchan still holds back the result of the contempt of court hearing. 30 days jail time times 10 for contempt would be good, suspended, but enforced if he offends again?
If anything, four of the five conservative justices may want to grant limited immunity for official acts as President, but even they realize some of the accusations against Trump do not appear to be official acts as president. They may send everything back to a lower court to determine what is official and what is unofficial or private.
Merchan seems to want to avoid sending Trump to jail. But he might put him under house arrest.
Another hypothesis and one tipped by the Chief Justice is that the Court wants to "round out" its presidential immunity jurisprudence, stating once and for all that it is for official acts during the term of a obedience only. Which means Trump still loses but there is a litigation delay.
Another hypothesis and one tipped by the Chief Justice is that the Court wants to "round out" its presidential immunity jurisprudence, stating once and for all that it is for official acts during the term of a obedience only. Which means Trump still loses but there is a litigation delay.
Ruling broadly beyond the facts of the immediate case seems like a mistake. It also violates the principle of judicial restraint which conservative jurists claim to find so compelling. Steve Vladek has a long form explanation about why this is likely true in this case.
There are lots of reasons why the latter, narrower option ought to be more attractive to justices from across the ideological spectrum. In 2004, a relatively unknown D.C. Circuit judge named John Roberts so summarized the “cardinal principle of judicial restraint”: “if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” Here, if a majority of the Court believes that the January 6-related charges can be prosecuted, it ought to be fairly quick work to hold as much and make explicit that the Court is just not deciding the issue as applied to any other cases. Indeed, there are lots of examples, some more controversial than others, of the Court thus limiting its holdings in prior cases. Yes, allowing these charges to go forward requires at least a modicum of line-drawing, but only enough to explain why these offenses can be tried. This is the exact move that a unanimous Court made in the Watergate tapes case — holding that, although there was such a thing as “executive privilege,” it had to give way in Nixon’s case because of case-specific reasons that … have not recurred. Almost exactly 50 years later, we’re still waiting for the Court to further articulate the cases in which executive privilege can be overcome.
<snip>
I’m skeptical not because, as some have suggested, Thursday’s argument reveals a Court that wants to insulate Trump from accountability for January 6. Rather, I’m worried because there appear to be five or more justices who think that they have an obligation to do more than is required in the instant case — apparently without regard for the very real institutional and political costs such a move could (and, I fear, would) incur.
There are lots of contexts in which it makes sense for the Court to declare a broad, forward-looking principle to guide future cases — especially when lower courts regularly confront the same issue, or when relief in future cases depends upon the Supreme Court having already established a particular constitutional rule (as with respect to qualified immunity and federal post-conviction review). In those contexts, at the very least, guidance from the justices can help reduce the need for the Court to take second- and third-generation cases. And in the qualified immunity and habeas contexts, such guidance is often the only way that future plaintiffs can win.
But to this point in American history, Trump is, fortunately, a class of one. The more that the Court tries to hand down a ruling that doesn’t reflect that fact (or that reflects it only through a fractured and fractious disposition), the more that it will be making an error for the ages, rather than a rule for them.
The whole thing is worth a read for those who are interested in such things.
Judge Merchan has ruled that Trump is in violation of his gag order and has fined him $9,000. That's $1,000 for each violation. This may seem like small potatoes, but his discretion does not extend to larger amounts. From his ruling:
PUNISHMENT AND ORDER
Criminal contempt is punishable by a fine not exceeding $ 1 ,000, by jail not exceeding 30 days or by both in the discretion of the court, for each violation of a court order. Judiciary Law §751(1). The Judiciary Law permits this punishment "to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates," Matter of McCormick, 59 NY2d 574t [1983] and "to punish the contemnor for disobeying a court order." Rush v. Save My Home Corp., 145 AD3d 930 [2d Dept 2016]. However, the Judiciary Law, does not vest the Court with authority to craft an appropriate punishment when a $1,000 fine will not achieve the intended purpose. While $1,000 may suffice in most instances to protect the dignity of the judicial system, to compel respect for its mandates and to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it unfortunately will not achieve the desired result in those instances where the contemnor can easily afford such a fine. In those circumstances, it would be preferable if the Court could impose a fine more commensurate with the wealth of the contemnor. In some cases that might be a $2,500 fine, in other cases it might be a fine of $150,000. Because this Court is not cloaked with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment.
THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment; and it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant pay a $1,000 fine for each of the nine violations of this Court's lawful order by the close of business on Friday, May 3, 2024; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant remove the seven offending posts from Defendant's Truth
Social account and the two offending posts from his campaign website by 2:15 pm Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
Bold and italics from the original. Underlining added by me to emphasize some important bits.
Comments
Thanks for clarifying - It's the same here
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. This went faster then I would have guessed.
I think what he means is: the American people legitimately chose him as POTUS in 2020, but he was denied the office, and now the powers-that-be are using ginned-up charges to ensure that the people never again get to have their prefered man as president.
I remember when Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted for performing abortions in 1980s Ontario, Maclean's Magazine had a photo of the jurors leaving the courthouse, and one outlet(possibly also Maclean's) gave a list of their occupations. I assume that information was somehow provided by the courts.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
Interesting that they made that change due to the Bernardo case, given that that jury ended up bringing down what must've been the most popular verdict in Canadian history.
Morgentaler in its day was much more divisive, though I suppose had the Bernardo jurors, without benefit of anonymity, declared him not guilty, they would likely have been at risk of, shall we say, a rough reception back in the community.
His on-line manifesto and his street-sign declared that Biden and Trump are in cahoots and planning "a fascist coup".
The Guardian has a list of all twelve Trump jurors, with sparsely detailed information about their occupations, and somewhat more revealing info about their media habits.
That's how it should be. The jurors are not being chosen because they're good electricians, shop assistants or whatever. They're there because they are members of the community
He has died.
The photo of him in the Guardian looks rather beatific.
As I've said before, Trump trying to use an allegedly fraudulent bond to cover the fines from his fraud conviction is totally on brand for him.
Yes, I am aware of that. But just to have a Sheriff's car parked in front of the entrance would be a sight to behold.
Trump: It is very, very sad day for America. No, sir, it is the beginning of happy days once again.
Yes, but this morning's trial will be delayed a bit while the court considers the prosecution's motion on holding Trump in contempt for violations of his gag order. I suppose that's one way Trump still has to slow things down, though it's not a tactic that most lawyers would advise their clients to try.
Personally I favor "the defendant".
See here.
The movie is not at all pornographic(or even just erotic), and doesn't make a particularly compelling case for free-speech, either. But it's pretty good as a farcical parody of high-minded courtroom dramas.
Check YouTube for "People Vs. Larry Flynt court scenes". In all honesty, I doubt Trump will reach Flynt's heights of narcissistic disruptiveness, though we can hope.
From a legal perspective the point is moot. There appears to be (or at least, is alleged) an illegal contribution to a campaign which raises the misdemeanour charges to the level of a felony.
However, the evidence that is floating around is that following on from the Access Hollywood tape, another sex scandal was one the Trump campaign could ill afford. It's all conjecture, of course but it's worth remembering how narrow Trump's victory was. A few thousand votes in the right place is all it would have taken to change the outcome.
More interestingly to me, the Trump campaign appeared to believe another sex scandal at that moment would have lost them the election.
AFZ
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/
Just under 100,000 votes. I can't see your paywalled article, but I suspect it was published before final tallies were available. There were, at the final count, 136,669,237 valid ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election. The total Trump margin in the three closest states was 77,744 votes (22,748 in Wisconsin, 44,292 in Pennsylvania, and 10,704 in Michigan). In other words, a 0.057% margin. Victory in those states would have give Hillary Clinton 273 electoral votes and the presidency.
Of course, moving votes only in those particular states and nowhere else is a near impossibility, barring a candidate saying something particularly insulting about those specific states. So how much would the national electorate need to tip in order to shift Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin by 0.72 percentage points? Running the math and assuming that voters are shifting from Trump to Clinton (rather than not voting or voting third party) means a Clinton victory in 2016 would require shifting 490,908 votes nationally, which is about 0.3% of the national electorate that year.
Thank you.
Sorry, didn't realise the article was being Paywall.
Anyway, the election was a very close one.
The Trump campaign and presumably Trump himself were worried. Hence the conspiracy.
It's a courtesy title, something established through practice rather than legal measures. I suppose that means whether you use it or not depends on whether you think the former president in question deserves courteous treatment.
Meanwhile Merchan still holds back the result of the contempt of court hearing. 30 days jail time times 10 for contempt would be good, suspended, but enforced if he offends again?
If anything, four of the five conservative justices may want to grant limited immunity for official acts as President, but even they realize some of the accusations against Trump do not appear to be official acts as president. They may send everything back to a lower court to determine what is official and what is unofficial or private.
Merchan seems to want to avoid sending Trump to jail. But he might put him under house arrest.
The distinction between "official" and "private" acts of the president does not appear in the Constitution, and as Jamelle Bouie points out in the New York Times [ gift link ] the idea that the president was above the law would have been abhorrent to the Framers of the Constitution.
I can't think of any definition of the term under which Justices espousing such a radical revision of the Constitutional order could be considered "conservative", unless "conservative" is just a new euphemism for MAGA.
Another hypothesis and one tipped by the Chief Justice is that the Court wants to "round out" its presidential immunity jurisprudence, stating once and for all that it is for official acts during the term of a obedience only. Which means Trump still loses but there is a litigation delay.
Ruling broadly beyond the facts of the immediate case seems like a mistake. It also violates the principle of judicial restraint which conservative jurists claim to find so compelling. Steve Vladek has a long form explanation about why this is likely true in this case.
The whole thing is worth a read for those who are interested in such things.
Bold and italics from the original. Underlining added by me to emphasize some important bits.
It looks as if it could end up as a classic example of the maxim that hard cases make bad law.