The selection of the 12 members of the jury: the great ‘casting’ of the ‘People against Trump’ case

Thursday, the third day of jury selection in the first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump for paying a bribe to a porn actress, began with seven jurors, who had been chosen on Tuesday (there is no session on Wednesdays) after a day prior marked by the resignation of dozens of them for doubting their impartiality. The seven suddenly became five after two of them were abruptly removed, but within minutes the number shot up to 13, the 12 starters and the first of the six substitutes. On Friday the selection of the 18 was completed in a timely manner, within the scheduled time frame. The pace of the trial at the start is similar to that of the film series Fast & Furious: speed, braking, tire squealing and even spins. A maelstrom in which there were no shortage of hints of contempt on the part of the accused. Trump also dozed off on Monday, and on Thursday he complained of the freezing cold in the room.

A young woman, chosen as the main member of the jury on Tuesday, had second thoughts after receiving a barrage of calls from friends and family who read descriptions of those elected in the media and recognized her instantly (all members are protected by anonymity, but they are portrayed when answering the questions of the suitability questionnaire). Seeing herself the center of attention, the young woman panicked and considered that she could no longer be impartial. Judge Juan Merchan dismissed another jury because he had not responded accurately about his background, and that was a leak in the process: a candy for the defense.

Jury selection is part of the casting of a blockbuster titled The People against Trump. Although the system guarantees their anonymity, the candidates sit with their faces uncovered on the stage, two inches from Trump and his lawyers, and the journalists, in addition to their approximate age and the main features of their physiognomy, report in detail even the number of pets or children they have. Or about their place of work, which, together with other information such as the neighborhood where they live, gives enough clues to identify them.

This is not, however, free information, but rather the applicants’ own responses—almost half a thousand, examined in batches of 96—to the 42 questions of the suitability questionnaire. An interrogation so exhaustive that it seeks to find out if they belong to associations (including their neighborhood association); They have been previously sworn, they have acquaintances in the security forces, including prison officials, or if someone close to them, or they themselves, have been convicted by justice. “Yes, I have several close friends who are criminals,” one candidate declared on Friday.

The American judicial system, which provides so many good trial movies, tests its rigor and elasticity in this case, an extraordinary process—even though the procedures are the usual ones—due to the track record of the accused: a former president, the first in US history who is undergoing a criminal trial, who is also the Republican candidate for re-election in November. It is rare for a juror to be removed after being sworn in, no matter how much additional information is gathered about him or her. a posteriori. The scrutiny of their social networks has been decisive. The exposure, and the pressure, from the media, as demonstrated by the fright of the young woman identified by her friends, too.

In all cases, Merchan, of Colombian origin, is as firm as he is kind, often even empathetic. Especially with the woman who burst into tears in the room on Friday when she acknowledged her history of drug use. Merchan and her team literally wrapped her up to protect her from stares—especially Trump’s—while the woman explained the shame of telling that dark part of her life in front of 150 people. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reminded candidates on Friday what the job of a jury entails: “It’s not about who you’re going to vote for in the fall,” she warned. A woman who said she attended the Women’s March against the Republican presidency assured that her criticism of Trump for his racist or homophobic comments would not compromise her impartiality: “That is an issue that I will have to resolve at the polls, not in the courts.”

Among the candidates, a sound technician offered himself to the court in case the microphones did not work and a woman being treated for anxiety said the case was beyond her. Other examples are more shocking: one of the candidates declared under oath that he finds Trump “fascinating and mysterious.” The names of the jurors are protected from the media and the public. Initially, Merchan did not impose any other restrictions on the dissemination of information, because that is the norm. But after the young woman chosen on Tuesday backed out after being so easily identified by her people, Merchan ordered the journalists present in the room not to publish information about her current and previous jobs, even if those summoned had to give that information. to court. He also asked that the physical appearance or accent (for example, the native Irish accent of the one he will serve as president) not be reported. de facto of the jury). Among the substitute jurors there is a woman born in Spain.

Rules for broadcasting views

Rules limiting media coverage in court dates back nearly a century, when a cloud of cameras and flashes dazzled witnesses during the trial of someone accused of kidnapping and killing the young son of aviator Charles Lindbergh. in 1935. New York law prohibits televising the hearings, although it allowed them on an experimental basis between 1987 and 1997, until the pressure of the official shift thwarted the attempt. In the absence of televisions, Merchan allows a handful of photographers to take photos of Trump sitting among his lawyers before the day’s proceedings begin. But by the time the session begins, only the cartoonists are left in the room, those anonymous artists who capture every last pout of the accused.

The only live images are provided by the closed circuit television that broadcasts from the main room to the adjacent one, filled mostly with journalists but also some individuals. Only those who get up very early manage to enter.

The simple fact that Trump is present during jury selection has also had an impact on some hopefuls. A candidate became so nervous on Friday after her gaze met the defendant’s that she began to chew on the corner of the card they give to those summoned (with a letter and a number). For others, however, Trump is an almost familiar figure because he is a New Yorker: judging him is like judging the skyline and the tinsel of unleashed luxury of the eighties and nineties, when the tycoon surfed the foam of the nights in Manhattan and as a real estate developer embodied the image of the city on his person, with the Trump Tower as an icon.

Trump’s constant publications about the case, as well as the campaigns led by his collaborators on the Internet and in conservative media such as Fox, have raised important concerns about security: it is no longer just about maintaining the anonymity of the jurors, but also its integrity. If we add to that the mixed feelings that are difficult to metabolize between one’s own convictions, the obligatory impartiality and, in many cases, the visceral reaction that the Republican provokes, jury selection has become almost a risky sport. The defense immediately exhausted its 10 wildcards to automatically rule out a candidate; The accusation was more moderate in the expulsions. Once the preliminaries are satisfied, the trial moves on to the second phase.

Follow all the international information onFacebook andxor inour weekly newsletter.

_