CT Blue

I was not surprised at all to learn that they’re having a bit of trouble picking a jury  for the civil case against the Trump Organization. It seems that a lot of people have preconceived notions about Donald Trump, and although he’s technically not a party, it just might affect their judgment. What a surprise!

I’ve written about this before, and it looks like it’s happening pretty much as I expected. The anti-Trumpers, who are mostly honest, are outing themselves, but you can bet the Trumpers will swear up and down that they’ll be totally fair and will certainly listen to all the evidence. They exist even in New York, so I think we can expect a jury that is predisposed to rule for Trump. Another thing to think about, especially if Trump himself ever goes on trial, is, that to the extent you can get a fair minded jury, those people have to be protected somehow from the inevitable death threats should they convict him. You have to hope that any presiding judge would be aware of the danger and take steps to protect their identities, even going so far as not letting anyone see them physically.

I think these cases pose some interesting legal issues that have, perhaps, never arisen to the extent they have in the Trump related cases. At first blush it would seem only fair that any juror who expresses doubt about the honesty of any party during voir dire should be disqualified. But, one must ask, doesn’t there come a time when a potential juror is allowed to rely on common knowledge when responding to questions. Assume for the moment that a trial involved a flat-earther and a juror was asked if he or she had any preconceived notions about whether the earth was flat or round? Should that juror be disqualified if he or she said that they were of a fairly firm opinion that the earth was round? The fact that Trump is a congenital liar is something that he has proven over and over during his entire lifetime, and it is as incontestable as the shape of the earth. It really isn’t rational to exclude a person from a jury because he or she is unwilling to deny an obvious fact.

As a practical matter, no sentient American citizen (and I’m even conceding for purposes of this post that Trumpers are sentient) has no preconceived notions about Donald Trump. You either worship him despite his lies, or you recognize that he is a liar. If we hold a potential juror to a “no preconceptions” standard, then only liars will be seated as jurors.

Different rules apply in libel and slander cases involving public figures, for a reason. For folks like Trump, justice might be served by crafting standards for jury selection that permit a juror with a preconceived notion about a public figure’s honesty to qualify, so long, for instance, as he or she asserts that they will make their findings based on the evidence presented in the court. At present, the system is such that it is biased toward jurors who will lie their way onto the jury in order to rule in favor of a liar.