More Manhattan nightmares in Trump jury selection: Potential juror B354 lives in NoMad, his friends all work in finance, and he's an occasional Barstool Sports listener (via Tyler McBrien, Lawfare)
The latest potential juror mentions that she dated a lawyer once. "It ended ... fine," she says. (Gets a big laugh in the press overflow room, per Tyler McBrien of Lawfare)
A prospective juror from the Upper West Side—a public high-school teacher for 27 years—says, when asked if she is signed up for newsletters, "Somehow I get e-mails from—is it called Daily Caller or something?" (via Tyler McBrien, Lawfare)
One prospective juror who thinks she's better than us says she often spends time off the grid and blocks out a couple days a week as "no-news days." (via Tyler McBrien, Lawfare)
Trump attorney Todd Blanche claims, with the jury box cleared, that there are a number of prospective jurors whose social-media posts conflict with the answers they gave in voir dire. (via Tyler McBrien, Lawfare)
One post is a video depicting a group of people saying they want to get in a car to spread the honking cheer. Judge Merchan is confused. Blanche says this was around the time that Trump lost the election. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass stands and calls this "ridiculous." Merchan: "Show me the bias."
"It's clear from the video that it's a celebration of the results of the election," Blanche says. Judge Merchan says that we can't conclude that this is an anti-Trump celebration, nor that she was definitely there. (They're going to bring the juror back in and ask her questions.)
She's back in the courtroom. Blanche asks her about the Facebook post circa 2020 election. She went to move her car for alternate side parking (a very NY answer), and when she saw people dancing it reminded her of the 7pm cheer for service workers during COVID (another NY answer)(via Tyler McBrien)
Blanche now asks about the caption—get in the car to spread the honking cheer, it's a full on dance party—she repeats that she just thought it was a celebratory moment in NYC, that was it. (via Tyler McBrien)
The prospective juror leaves the room, and Judge Merchan says that Trump was muttering audibly, speaking in the direction of the juror while she was at the podium. Merchan's voice raises a bit; he says wants to make it crystal clear that he won't tolerate anything of the sort. (via Tyler McBrien)
Judge Merchan is reading Trump memes reposted by prospective jurors into the record and periodically apologizing for any offense given. The latest: "Trump invites the Thai boys to the White House, and the boys request to return to their cave."
We now have 6 jurors sworn in for Trump's NY criminal trial! That's a third of the way there (12 jurors + 6 alternates). We also have a foreperson. He has an Irish accent, lives in Harlem, likes to do outdoorsy things, and watches both Fox News *and* MSNBC. Pool description from yesterday:
I’m sympathetic to people’s concerns about revealing details that might allow jurors to be identified, and I’m doing my best to be thoughtful about the details I repeat. (In this case, all we know is that he’s Irish-born and lives in a cosmopolitan neighborhood of 150K.)
The one from yesterday that revealed a person's place of employment though... that's incredibly misguided and dangerous, if not for this potential juror, at least for his misidentified co workers!
...and that he's outdoorsy, married with no kids, works in sales, and was born in Ireland. It's at least enough for some loons to *think* they've found the guy's social media and harass somebody over it.
But also as others have asked, what's the journalistic benefit of all of this information? Who is the audience for it?
And, in this case, what you posted was a lot more than just "Irish-born and lives in a cosmopolitan neighborhood of 150K." Be honest.
That is a more common person in Brooklyn than some people may understand, and you are simply repeating facts that are already out there, so I say it’s fine while also completely understanding those concerns.
I’m more concerned that this loose description is enough for *anyone* who matches it to be on the receiving end of a crapload of harassment. It may not be all of them, and it might not be the right guy, but that’s not going to be much consolation.
I don’t know why I inserted Brooklyn in there in my head! I would say not enough sleep or coffee, but I’ve had plenty of both. Regardless, even if we didn’t know any details about these jurors, I’m always anxious for them in these Trump trials. 😬
I actually thought that the trial was going to be under mafia/cartel rules regarding the identities of the jurors 🤷🏼♀️
And it’s not a criticism of Joshua, the facts are out there, and every big city in America has a thousand guys who fit that description, but I agree these people are in danger.
there are a lot of people On Here who have no idea how many Irishmen overstayed their tourist visa in NY, then married a US citizen, is what I'm seeing today
oh, but he used to wait tables, you say? well, THAT's dispositive!
I don’t think anything has made me as angry lately as seeing journalists put this stuff out there. This is not a normal case. There are going to be bad guys doing everything they can to save trump’s ass and you guys are doing the legwork. It is far easier to identify people than you seem to think
I hear you, and I hope the journalists who are covering the trial are having serious conversations about what sorts of details are safe to report. The reporting yesterday that named someone's employer crossed a line, I think (and I'm not suggesting that *only* naming an employer would cross a line).
Can you explain why reporting biographical details about jurors is newsworthy? Can you explain why you think that giving out details about their interests, occupations, neighborhoods, and families won’t get them doxxed, threatened, and potentially killed?
There are going to be like, Russian spies using this info to figure out who these ppl are. In a world where Ashley Feinberg can figure out Comey’s Instagram account using almost no information, this is just wildly irresponsible. CNN just posted a dossier of info on the jurors so, fuck them I guess
But you just posted a whole bunch of additional details. For people with a normal social media presence, that is enough to ID them with a few hours' work, and there are plenty of people sufficiently motivated to do that.
Yeh, but why do people need to know?
Are these details that need to be repeated.
And are you and others putting these people's lives in danger.
Whatever "it" this information is satisfying, its not worth the risk.
You are still giving too many details for a trial which a lot of people are going to follow and a worrying number of the defendant's fans are *unhinged*. How about NOT giving where they live, even a little, NOT giving a background, and sticking with stated gender and MAYBE ethnicity.
You need few enough details not just to protect the jurors, but also anyone else who fits their description – if there are few enough of those, *they* will all get harassed by people convinced they found those 🕸️eeeeevil🕸️ jurors.
I think if anything exposes the jurors it will be the specific quotes of posts they made.
But really - this is up to the judge how much detail goes out. Anything in the pool is going to everyone eventually.
Did you read what you posted? There’s a lot more than that. Knock it off, and tell the pool reporters to knock it off. This is dangerous and irresponsible.
I read an op-ed by one in the Washington Post, I think. Maybe the NYT. And I knew about them. So yes. And trump’s polled New Yorkers and then released it, whining about how unfair it was.
the judge should extend the gag order to journalists writing this stuff, i have absolutely seen enough details about several prospective jurors that it would be trivial to figure out their identities
serving on this jury is *dangerous* and jurors should be protected
i wish we could add information to old posts. a gag order on journalists is apparently unconstitutional even if narrowly targeted, that’s why this idea is a nonstarter.
To help this rudimentary learning process along:
- if you make information public or state it in open court, in an intensely watched case, the press is probably going to write about it
- you can’t just order them not to write about it; that’s prior restraint, a constitutional no no.
