One point of agreement between the prosecution and defense in the hush-money trial involving former President Donald Trump is that he is unlike any other defendant.
Formerly the most potent man on earth, he now desires to regain that position. His adeptness in utilizing various media platforms, including social media, ensured that he was widely recognized by the majority of Americans. The overwhelming majority of them have strong visceral reactions to him; Gallup reports that less than one-third of them find him appealing.
“Since President Trump is universally recognized, we might be in an alternate universe,” his attorney Todd Blanche stated on Tuesday, the second day of the trial.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass concurred with him, stating, “Everyone and their mother has an opinion regarding this case and the appropriate verdict.”
This creates a dilemma for the court and its officers: It is possible that there are not twelve eligible jurors in New York, or even in the United States, who are uncertain about their stance on Trump.
Tuesday, Judge Juan Merchan was remarkably tasked with determining whether or not a number of jurors were unsuited to serve due to their social media posts concerning the defendant. That is an extremely rare occurrence in trials.
However, this initial prosecution of a president, whether current or former, is setting yet another precedent.
An attorney has never been required to inquire whether potential jurors would be able to set aside their personal sentiments regarding a sitting or former president in order to determine his culpability. However, by Tuesday morning, Blanche and Steinglass had both accomplished that.
“Our objective is to appoint a jury that is impartial towards all parties involved,” Steinglass stated to commence the selection procedure, also known as “voire dire.” “This case has nothing to do with your personal politics … it’s not a referendum on the Trump presidency.”
Blanche advocated a line that was complementary. He solicited potential jurors’ views on Trump in a context unrelated to the current trial in order to determine whether or not they might be too prejudiced to fairly evaluate the former president. Before lunch, the group provided him with assurance that they could.
Blanche was armed with politically fraught social media posts from jurors who had pledged to be impartial when the trial resumed at 2:15 p.m. Merchan authorized him to summon those jurors to the stand so they could be questioned regarding the postings.
Potential jurors were disqualified for valid reasons. The judge stated that one individual had written “Lock him up” after a court reversed Trump’s travel ban.
Subsequently, one was dismissed for volunteering: “My occupation prevents me from serving for New York and one of our great presidents, despite my deepest desires to do so.” I am unable to take six weeks off.”
Merchan, on the other hand, intervened when Blanche attempted to disqualify a juror by referencing her husband’s testimony.
“These are posts from more than eight years ago that involve the juror’s spouse and not the juror himself,” Merchan explained, adding that he was consoled “if this is the worst that you can discover about this juror.”
Locating suitable jurors for both parties was not an insurmountable challenge. Seven of them were seated by the time the session on Tuesday concluded. Merchan stated that this left “about six” alternate jurors and six additional ordinary jurors to select.
In addition to the six reserves, this group of a dozen individuals will be tasked with the extraordinary challenge of disregarding the Trump in the room while applying the law to the facts.
