News

Sounds like he's a bit of a ... Snowflake lmao

Haha. He's still complaining about Kimmel?

That moron doesn't even realize his complaints cause more people to tune into Kimmel to see Kimmel make fun of him every night.

And I hope Kimmel brings this up tonight.

As per his own words, he's a whiner cause he'll do it till it wins. Unsure how well that works in criminal court though. I'm hoping we get to find out the court's limits sooner than later

If you can't do the mild inconvenience, don't do the crime.

Complained the looseys cost too much.

Trump always complains when he has to follow the rules. Doesn't matter what the rule is, he always wants to be the exception.

It probably comes from the decades of experience he has in not having to follow the rules.

I'm not familiar with New York jury procedure, but I vaguely recall reading that -- not specific to New York -- typically there are unlimited "for cause" removals, and a finite number of "not for cause". Like, you can object to someone who isn't going to actually do a sane job as a juror.

googles

Yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause

Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.

During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a suitable punishment.[1] An example would be a potential juror in a murder case, where the sentencing options include the death penalty and a lesser sentence (such as life without parole), who states that they "would sentence a defendant to death if found guilty"; such a statement may indicate the person's unwillingness to fairly consider a life without parole sentence.

Unlike a peremptory challenge (the number of which are limited by the court during voir dire, and unless a Batson challenge is raised the challenge is automatically granted) there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must state a specific reason (in the example above, the reason would be the juror's bias against a non-death penalty sentence) and be granted by the trial judge; often both attorneys and sometimes the judge will question the juror being challenged.

If one attorney moves to strike a juror for cause but the judge rejects the motion, the attorney may still use a peremptory challenge (if they have any remaining) to strike the juror, and on appeal may raise a claim that the motion should have been granted but, because it was not, the attorney had to either use a peremptory challenge or seat a biased juror.

I'd happily do it. I'm not a us citizen, though.

They pay $15 a day where I live. I expect they will get similar lol

If you threaten the family members of a federal judge a few dozen more times we will slowly start to count down from 5.

I was pretty chuffed about that $1000 ask, but it turns out that that's the maximum fine allowed for contempt of court in a criminal trial in New York.

Beyond that, there's either exclusion from the courtroom (and no judge wants to exclude a defendant from the courtroom) or detention up to thirty days.

"Man, if I didn't have to follow all these rules, I would be winning right now!"

That's what happens when the defendant is a polarizing fascist asshole.

No idea why you got downvoted. Nearly everyone will know who he is, since he was the damn President of the country. Nearly everyone will know a lot of stuff about him, since he never fucking shuts up on social media. He has a large percentage of the country who loves him and a larger percentage of people who absolutely hate him. Finally, the case and jury selection is in New York, where he has been in the news for 40 years.

People seem to think that a prior opinion about the dependent automatically means that a potential juror cannot be impartial. All that is required is that the juror can render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Plenty of people with strong opinions about Trump himself can still be impartial jurors.

I agree. Trump has done everything possible to spread his propaganda and poison the jury pool.

That’s why they’re not allowed to ask nix people for being biased.

Everyone already has their opinions. The best they can do is look for people that aren’t dogmatic.

I am pretty certain jury verdicts have to be unanimous or it's a mistrial, so, yeah, that's a reasonable thing to think

On the plus side this is New York, the city that knows him best. And they fucking hate him.

It's up to the government to decide whether or not they re-try a case if there is a hung jury. It's my understanding that most of the time, they do not re-try the case because of the time and effort involved with no guarantee that the outcome would be any different. So usually a hung jury is a victory for the defense.

I'm not a lawyer, that's just my layman's understanding from the legal stuff I've seen and read.