Some people can do their job as jurors. Some can't. Most of the time the verdict is decided before the trial begins. As a defense attorney who thinks his client is innocent you would hope that partisan jurors are evenly split at worst. And hopefully some jurors could be persuaded by the end evidence.
Indeed. Some people might not vote to convict a person for rape, for example, because they agree with rape. That is what jury selection is for. As a defense attorney, why would you want partisanship evenly split? Why would you even want fairness? Your goal would be to make the jury unfair in your favor. And the Plaintiff's attorney's goal is to prevent that. But you are assuming that people on the jury weren't fair because it makes you feel better to assume that. Because if they were fair as people who spent weeks of their lives listening to testimony and evidence, you support a rapist. And...well...that causes cognitive dissonance.
The evidence is DC juries are extremely biased. J6ers did not get due process. The DC court system and DC itself should be abolished
Translation, it was the supporters who don't understand the jury selection process that are the buffoons.
That would be a mis-translation. I just watched a CNN reporter get raped on live television by Stephen Miller. Quote enjoyable
TY What I actually said: "As a defense attorney who thinks his client is innocent you would hope that partisan jurors are evenly split at worst. And hopefully some jurors could be persuaded by the end evidence" "at worst" Trump or Trump supporters getting a fair trial in Manhattan or DC is about as likely as a black man accused of raping a white woman getting a fair trial in 1920's Mississippi. Not impossible but the odds would not be good
I'm sorry comrade, but you see, in America, we have this thing we call voir dire. You might want to look it up. That is the type of thing that gets you the big bowl of borscht.
So you think it would be impossible to pick a fair jury in a city where he only got 44% of the vote even with extensive research and questions? Or is it possible that you simply want to think that to avoid the more disturbing possibility for you, that you support a rapist happily and even came here to defend rape to defend him?
Alan Dershowitz said it was highly unlikely Trump could get a fair jury in Manhattan. Do you think he might know a thing or two about voir dire?
Probably. He just figures that you don't and since nobody respectable will associate with him anymore, he will use you for attention and money.
One has to be smoking out of the same crack pipe as Hunter Biden's to even attempt to deny January 6, 2021 ever happened
Link? What jurisdiction was the jury selected from? What What borough (or boroughs) was the jury selected from and what percent of the vote did Trump get there?
You stated that he couldn't get a fair trial in New York or in NYC, depending on the post, because those areas voted against him (setting aside your unwillingness to believe that a person can't get a "fair" trial in areas that voted for him). Once again, why do you suppose that it is impossible to find a jury of relatively apolitical people in just about any jurisdiction in the country? Also, why do you suppose that a jury would be a random draw of political leanings from the overall population when the defense gets to question and dismiss any jurors that they want? It all seems like motivated reasoning to avoid the more obvious conclusion: a jury found that he raped a woman because he probably raped a woman. Pretty much like his new bud McGregor, who was also found to have raped a woman in a civil case.
Conor McGregor isn’t the only lowlife rapist Trump has warmly welcomed into his space, he also had former NFL players Le’Veon Bell and Antonio Brown campaigning for him and at his MAGA rally. Bell was accused of…well I’ll let you read it yourself and Brown has a couple of sexual assault cases himself. Trump really does surround himself with the best of the best!
