From Techno Fog


Juror #1: Because he was selected first, he'll serve as the jury foreman. He lives in West Harlem but is originally from Ireland. He works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has attended some college. He is married. His spouse is in school and they have no children. In his spare time he enjoys doing anything outdoorsy. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, and some Fox News and MSNBC. (Identified as B400.)

Juror #2: A Native New Yorker who has lived on the Upper East Side for the past 3 years. She has a Masters in nursing and has been an oncology nurse at a large hospital for 15 years. She is not married and has no children. She lives with her fiancé, who works in finance. She enjoys spending time with her family and friends and taking her dog to the park. She gets her news from the New York Times, CNN, Google, and has a Facebook account.

Juror #2 stated "I don't really have" an opinion on President Trump. She stated "he will be treated as anyone else can be treated and no one is above the law." She further stated she didn't have an opinion on Trump before he walked into the courtroom: "I am here for my civic duty. I'm here to listen to the facts." She said she was there to do her "civil duty." (Identified as B280.)

Juror #3: He's likely in his early 30s. He is originally from Oregon and works as a corporate lawyer. He's Asian. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Google. He is aware of Trump's other criminal cases but is not "super familiar with the other charges." (Identified as B381.)

Juror #4: He said he found Trump to be "fascinating and mysterious." Commenting on Trump, Juror #4 stated: "He walks into a room and he sets people off one way or another. I find that really interesting. Really, this one guy can do all of this. Wow, that's what I think." (Identified as B89.)

Juror #5: Juror #5 is a black woman in her 20s. She said she isn't a "political person," though her friends have strong opinions on Trump (likely negative). She stated she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. She does appreciate Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was unaware that Trump faces charges in other criminal cases. (Identified as B374.)

Juror #6: She is a software engineer likely in her 20s. She says she has no strong feelings about President Trump either way, and said "I will be fair and impartial." She is unmarried, has no kids, and lives with three roommates in Chelsea. She gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok. (Identified as B297.)

All in all, this jury isn't bad. Manhattan voting demographics put the odds of a Trump voter being on the jury at roughly 1/6. The jurors aren't overtly political, a couple of them might lean conservative or even be Trump voters. One even described Trump as "fascinating."

That's assuming they're telling the truth. Jurors in politically-charged cases are notorious for hiding their beliefs for the sole purpose of getting on the jury. As we discussed last week, it happened to Roger Stone - his forewoman was a vocally anti-Trump on social media. She deceived the court about that fact and helped lead the effort to convict Stone.

It's tough to tell what jurors really believe, and whether they're actually being truthful. Already during jury selection, we saw a number of jurors who failed to disclose their political biases. After Trump's team received the jurors' names, they did a quick social media search. One juror, after stating she "didn't remember" any anti-Trump posts on Facebook, admitted to posting a photo that says: "Trump invites Thai boys to the White House, Thai boys request to return to cage." Another juror, after failing to recall any anti-Trump sentiments, conceded that he posted on social media a desire that "Donald Trump be locked up." Without the research of Trump's team, these potential jurors - these liars - could have been seated.

That's not to say that there aren't concerns. Here's a couple of them:

Juror #2 lives on the Upper East Side - one of the more affluent neighborhoods in New York City. Politically, it's a Democrat stronghold. Her social circle is likely liberal.

Juror #5, while she says she has not much interest in politics, will be mindful that her friends "have strong opinions on Trump." She'll feel the pressure to not want to disappoint her friends. What could happen if she doesn't vote to convict? Ostracization.

It's probably safe to say that there won't be an acquittal. Not a guarantee, but those are the unfortunate odds. Trump's best bet is for a hung jury, for 1 or 2 jurors to resist the pressure to go along with others and vote guilty. Is there a juror, or are there multiple jurors, with the courage to stand alone? We'll find out.

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2024, 07:28:14 AMFrom Techno Fog


Juror #1: Because he was selected first, he'll serve as the jury foreman. He lives in West Harlem but is originally from Ireland. He works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has attended some college. He is married. His spouse is in school and they have no children. In his spare time he enjoys doing anything outdoorsy. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, and some Fox News and MSNBC. (Identified as B400.)

Juror #2: A Native New Yorker who has lived on the Upper East Side for the past 3 years. She has a Masters in nursing and has been an oncology nurse at a large hospital for 15 years. She is not married and has no children. She lives with her fiancé, who works in finance. She enjoys spending time with her family and friends and taking her dog to the park. She gets her news from the New York Times, CNN, Google, and has a Facebook account.

Juror #2 stated "I don't really have" an opinion on President Trump. She stated "he will be treated as anyone else can be treated and no one is above the law." She further stated she didn't have an opinion on Trump before he walked into the courtroom: "I am here for my civic duty. I'm here to listen to the facts." She said she was there to do her "civil duty." (Identified as B280.)

Juror #3: He's likely in his early 30s. He is originally from Oregon and works as a corporate lawyer. He's Asian. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Google. He is aware of Trump's other criminal cases but is not "super familiar with the other charges." (Identified as B381.)

Juror #4: He said he found Trump to be "fascinating and mysterious." Commenting on Trump, Juror #4 stated: "He walks into a room and he sets people off one way or another. I find that really interesting. Really, this one guy can do all of this. Wow, that's what I think." (Identified as B89.)

Juror #5: Juror #5 is a black woman in her 20s. She said she isn't a "political person," though her friends have strong opinions on Trump (likely negative). She stated she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. She does appreciate Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was unaware that Trump faces charges in other criminal cases. (Identified as B374.)

Juror #6: She is a software engineer likely in her 20s. She says she has no strong feelings about President Trump either way, and said "I will be fair and impartial." She is unmarried, has no kids, and lives with three roommates in Chelsea. She gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok. (Identified as B297.)

All in all, this jury isn't bad. Manhattan voting demographics put the odds of a Trump voter being on the jury at roughly 1/6. The jurors aren't overtly political, a couple of them might lean conservative or even be Trump voters. One even described Trump as "fascinating."

That's assuming they're telling the truth. Jurors in politically-charged cases are notorious for hiding their beliefs for the sole purpose of getting on the jury. As we discussed last week, it happened to Roger Stone - his forewoman was a vocally anti-Trump on social media. She deceived the court about that fact and helped lead the effort to convict Stone.

It's tough to tell what jurors really believe, and whether they're actually being truthful. Already during jury selection, we saw a number of jurors who failed to disclose their political biases. After Trump's team received the jurors' names, they did a quick social media search. One juror, after stating she "didn't remember" any anti-Trump posts on Facebook, admitted to posting a photo that says: "Trump invites Thai boys to the White House, Thai boys request to return to cage." Another juror, after failing to recall any anti-Trump sentiments, conceded that he posted on social media a desire that "Donald Trump be locked up." Without the research of Trump's team, these potential jurors - these liars - could have been seated.

That's not to say that there aren't concerns. Here's a couple of them:

Juror #2 lives on the Upper East Side - one of the more affluent neighborhoods in New York City. Politically, it's a Democrat stronghold. Her social circle is likely liberal.

Juror #5, while she says she has not much interest in politics, will be mindful that her friends "have strong opinions on Trump." She'll feel the pressure to not want to disappoint her friends. What could happen if she doesn't vote to convict? Ostracization.

It's probably safe to say that there won't be an acquittal. Not a guarantee, but those are the unfortunate odds. Trump's best bet is for a hung jury, for 1 or 2 jurors to resist the pressure to go along with others and vote guilty. Is there a juror, or are there multiple jurors, with the courage to stand alone? We'll find out.

"All in all, this jury isn't bad."

I agree with you. Could be a lot worse.

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 17, 2024, 08:09:13 AM"All in all, this jury isn't bad."

I agree with you. Could be a lot worse.

Whatever happened to 12 jurors, is this a civil case?    

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2024, 10:48:10 AMWhatever happened to 12 jurors, is this a civil case?    

Seven more will be selected along with, I believe, eight alternates.

Quote from: supsalemgr on April 17, 2024, 11:52:44 AMSeven more will be selected along with, I believe, eight alternates.

Ahh, they aren't done, didn't know that.

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2024, 07:28:14 AMJuror #1: Because he was selected first, he'll serve as the jury foreman.

Looks like New York's rules are different from Ohio.
When I served on a jury, it was left to the jurors to select the foreman.

Quote from: je_freedom on April 17, 2024, 02:15:41 PMLooks like New York's rules are different from Ohio.
When I served on a jury, it was left to the jurors to select the foreman.

Yeah, that was new to me as well.
But, as is typical with the left, competence plays no part in reality.

Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2024, 11:58:19 AMAhh, they aren't done, didn't know that.

There will be six alternates, not eight.

The complete list...


Juror #1: He'll serve as the foreman because he was seated first. He lives in West Harlem but is originally from Ireland. He works in sales and previously worked as a waiter, and has attended some college. He is married. His spouse is in school and they have no children. In his spare time he enjoys doing anything outdoorsy. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, and some Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror #2: He works in investment banking. He follows Twitter and Truth Social posts from Trump and stated: "I don't have any beliefs that might prevent me from being fair or impartial." He follows Michael Cohen on Twitter (sorry, we still don't call it "X") and "other 'right wing' accounts" like Kellyanne Conway. He said he would keep an "open mind" about the evidence, commented that his feelings about Trump go "both ways," and said Trump has done some good for the country.

Juror #3: He's likely in his early 30s. He is originally from Oregon and works as a corporate lawyer. He's Asian. He gets his news from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Google. He is aware of Trump's other criminal cases but is not "super familiar with the other charges."

Juror #4: A security engineer. He's married with three children. His wife is a teacher and he's originally from California. In his spare time, he enjoys woodworking and metalworking. He doesn't use social media, and expressed "no feelings" about Trump's prosecution.

Juror #5: A black woman who teaches English. She has a master's in Education. Per Fox, she previously worked as a caseworker at a juvenile detention center. She is unmarried with no children. Her godfather was a homicide detective. She gets her news from TikTok and Google. She stated that she enjoys listening to podcasts on relationships and pop culture.

She said she isn't a "political person," though her friends have strong opinions on Trump (likely negative). She stated she tries to avoid political conversations and doesn't really care for the news. She does appreciate Trump's candor: "President Trump speaks his mind and I'd rather that than someone who's in office who you don't know what they're thinking." She was unaware that Trump faces charges in other criminal cases.

Juror #6: She is a software engineer likely in her 20s. She says she has no strong feelings about President Trump either way, and said "I will be fair and impartial." She is unmarried, has no kids, and lives with three roommates in Chelsea. She gets her news from the New York Times, Google, Facebook, and TikTok.

Juror #7: A lawyer who practices civil litigation. He has children and enjoys spending time outdoors. His wife works in risk management for a bank. He gets his news from The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and the Washington Post. He admitted to having "political views as to the Trump presidency" but said he didn't pass any judgment on Trump's character.

Juror #8: He's retired; previously worked for a major wealth manager. He enjoys skiing, fly fishing, and yoga. He said he could be objective.

Juror #9: A speech therapist with a Masters degree who gets her news from CNN. She's single and lives alone. She said she wouldn't be pressured by others when making judgments on the case. According to Fox: "She said she does have opinions about Trump, but said she believes she can put them aside and be fair and impartial."

Juror #10: An Ohio native who lives in Manhattan. He has a college degree and works in commerce for a large company. He's unmarried, has no children, and lives with a roommate. He enjoys the outdoors and loves animals. He also has an interest in podcasts with a focus on behavior psychology, and he reads the New York Times.

Juror #11: She works for a multinational apparel company. She is unmarried and has no kids. With respect to her opinions on Trump: she doesn't like Trump's "persona" and said "he just seems very selfish and self-serving."

Juror #12: A female physical therapist (she has a doctorate) who enjoys running and tennis. She listens to podcasts on sports and faith. Married, no children. She reads the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN.

Alternate #1: She is an analyst for an asset management company who was raised in England. She reads the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. In her spare time, she enjoys running and socializing with friends.

Two of the jurors who were initially seated were excused from service. The first - who was only identified as "Juror #2" - informed the Court that her friends identified her as a potential juror. She admitted, contrary to her statements earlier this week, that "I don't think I can be fair."

The other juror - identified as "Juror #4" - had the "same name" as a man previously arrested for tearing down right-leaning political advertisements. It was also discovered that his wife was involved in a corruption scandal. Fox is reporting that it was the same man, though we're not sure it has been confirmed. But it sure seems likely - he was excused after a private conference with the judge.

As we previously discussed, the trustworthiness of jurors is always an issue in jury selection, and that concern is only heightened in Trump's trial. Political bias, absent social media comments or marching for a cause, is difficult to prove. That's why honesty is necessary.

Already we've seen potential jurors who lied about their political leanings. Some more probably slipped through the cracks. The concern isn't just that they're liars - it's why they lied.