Weird. What benefit is there for Trump himself to know their identities? The judge agreed that they should be kept from the public, so why not just make them fully anonymous?
They’re making sure he has plenty of rope.
And he will post them within fucking minutes.
If you read the article, if he were to do so, he would risk…
… Losing access to the names. That he already knew. And are now public.
Shit. Yep, im that guy this time.
More zero consequences for snot nose spoiled baby powty face
Only Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors will be allowed to know the addresses of the jurors’ homes and workplaces, Merchan said. Trump could risk forfeiting access to the names if he were to disclose them publicly.
Wtf. I thought you were joking.
So…. MAGALAND is going to have their names- and the jurors know this.
I wonder how they’ll find the defendant now.
I’m sure he will keep their names a secret as well as he kept classified documents secret in his shitter
So there will be a mistrial as the first jury list gets leaked, and Trump “loses access” to the information as the jury immediately starts to get death threats. In the next trial, the Jury names will be closely kept secrets.
Further delaying the trial, which is still a win for him.
I’d be running for the hills
What the fuck
How many minutes will it take before he doxxes them on “truth” social?
My optimistic side thinks this will be monitored, at least some of the names he gets will be wrong in ways that will identify him as the leaker when their names become public or they are harassed by MAGA types. My pessimistic side thinks this is the way our justice system works- with rules that don’t apply to wealthy or powerful people and even though he’s repeatedly set his flying monkeys after his enemies or those he wants to ‘go through some things’, they’ll let him because he’s innocent until proven guilty again
It wouldn’t matter to him if he were caught or revealed, because they won’t lock him up for it, or anything else, and the jurors’ lives would still be in danger from his pet army of deniable accomplices.
This is the most asinine reasoning from a judge I’ve heard yet, barring Aileen Cannon:
Only Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors will be allowed to know the addresses of the jurors’ homes and workplaces, Merchan said. Trump could risk forfeiting access to the names if he were to disclose them publicly.
At first I thought this was an error, but then it was repeated a couple times after that, so no error. That’s actually what they mean.
They are literally treating juror identities – personally identifying information – as though they are tangible items that can be handed out and withdrawn at will, lol. “If you don’t behave I’ll take them back, Mr. Trump!”
Yeah, no. Good luck with getting that data back in its bottle, judge. What’s the old phrase? Like trying to pull pee out of a swimming pool.
I’m not in the prospective juror area, and I don’t believe in openly refusing civic duty, but in this case I think if I were called it would be time to wild up my old hair, pull out a beret and a vintage revolutionary t-shirt – Fidel or Che or Zapatista – along with a boldly titled copy of Mein Kampf to tuck under my arm to read during the long waits in the courthouse, and a brief speech disparaging the “injustice” system mentally at the ready just in case.
Because there’s really ONLY ONE reason the defense team wants and needs the jury members’ names, and the judge’s “compromise” – if you reveal them publicly I’ll take them back! – is a complete joke.
Just imagine if a juror said they don’t feel they could focus on the trial for fear of their life if they were to get doxed with no significant repercussions towards the defendant.
Then imagine if that were said in front of other jurors
God, I can’t even. I’m not an attorney but I’ve been a juror several times and had a couple cases of my own, so I’ve seen a good bit for a layperson.
Unfortunately, I think the most it would do is get them a lecture from the judge. A huffing and a puffing about civic responsibility, and everyone deserving a fair trial, and the tree of freedom needing a volunteer watering can from time to time, and how horribly selfish it is for an individual in a free society to put his or her own safety first instead of selflessly serving the Glorious Cause of Justice (the same Glorious Cause that also happens to be making a really good living for the judge and lawyers in that same room).
Judges get REALLY huffy when their ability or integrity are questioned or even seem to be, and they are already armed for whatever excuses jurors want to give for not wanting to serve, so IMO it’s a tossup as to how that would fly. It all really depends on the judge.
But worst case scenario, they’re not jurors yet, so that particular roomful of jurors is simply dismissed in its entirety because it was said in front of other jurors (voir dire – jury selection – is usually done group style), an entirely new group is led in by the bailiff, and voir dire begins anew.
with no significant repercussions
Yeah, that’s even worse, lol. Alleging that expectation of future favoritism toward the defendant is outright accusing the judge of either corruption or incompetence. There are plenty of judges that are absolutely both, but it’s best left unsaid by the average juror. This is why they often ask if jurors are lawyers or in law enforcement up front, before they get into the real questioning, so that they can be excused: usually neither side wants jurors who actually know how the sausage is made.
But I’ve seen a judge verbally rip some poor juror’s head off for next to nothing, so a juror telling a judge they expect the judge’s future inaction toward the defendant is a bold move. This is why I personally favor the silent but effective repellent method. NOBODY paid to be in a courtroom ever wants a revolutionary juror, lol.
And if someone really wants to poison a jury, they should simply start speechifyin’ about jury nullification, lol. Don’t do this. It’s the nuclear option. People have been criminally charged just for handing out fliers in front of courthouses that tell prospective jurors what it is. If there is any single thing that gets up a judge’s ass like a wayward roman candle on a lit fuse, it’s those two words. I don’t know what the full repercussions would be in any given district, but for a start they would absolutely NOT be serving on that jury, and walking out any prospective juror that heard it might only be the beginning of the fallout.
