Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[A2SG]

You may have thought you did but you can't document something that did not happen.

Jury selection definitely happened.

-- A2SG, the proof is there, in black and white....

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well apparently that wasn't a priority in this case considering the judge should have recused himself for starters according to some.

Unless you're claiming that a completely different jury selection process was used for this case (which, again, would make for a slam dunk appeal), I don't see the relevance of this statement to what we're discussing.

I meant all the nuances and complexities involved in the whole legal machine.

We aren't talking about that though - we're just talking about the jury selection.

 

[A2SG]

Right he supposedly told a lie every novice would point a finger at to advance his career. Happens all the time!

Maybe he thought Trump supporters wouldn't figure that out.

I'm waiting for Elon Musk and his $210 billion dollars to get in on it. That will be hilarious.

What's Elon Musk got to do with anything?

-- A2SG, is he paying Trump's legal expenses now?

 

[rambot]

You may have thought you did but you can't document something that did not happen.

I can't imagine a sadder effort to gaslight someone.

It's like if someone was in a rush to find a QUICK example and only had time to say a ONE sentence.

 

[ozso]

If he was unable to find even a single unbiased juror throughout the voie dire process, then he's not doing his job very well.

But, I guess that does give Trump a basis for appeal: incompetent representation. Maybe he'll get a new trial out of it.


I know enough to know what I'm talking about.

That's what you think.

Actually, I've known it for a while now. I've even served on a jury myself.

Many people have. And most people know as little as you do.

Show me where I got any facts wrong.

The fact that you didn't point out any formal education or professional experience in law when asked makes it clear you're novice.

He's biased, of course. He lost what might be the biggest case of his career.

Do you have a better source for me to go by?

And there's a good chance Trump will appeal based on Blanche's inadequate representation.

-- A2SG, gee, I wonder who will be hired for the retrial....

It wouldn't be the first time. You're acting like an 85 year old with a 60 year long illustrious career is anxiously awaiting his big break

 

[ozso]

Maybe he thought Trump supporters wouldn't figure that out.

That's as good of a ridiculous theory as any.

What's Elon Musk got to do with anything?

-- A2SG, is he paying Trump's legal expenses now?

He might based on what he said about the trial

 

[FaithT]

Find the needle in the haystack.

You wanted proof. You got proof. Find that part by yourself.

 

[ozso]

Unless you're claiming that a completely different jury selection process was used for this case (which, again, would make for a slam dunk appeal), I don't see the relevance of this statement to what we're discussing.

I don't know all the various aspects of jury selection.

We aren't talking about that though - we're just talking about the jury selection.

Which is part of the complexed legal machine.

 

[ozso]

You wanted proof. You got proof. Find that part by yourself.

That was already covered. Playing catch up are we?

 

[FaithT]

LOL that excerpt doesn't say the judge didn't pick the jury. And were you there during the trial to authenticate everything in that document is 100% accurate and forthcoming covering every aspect and detail? Go find a Harvard law professor who was there during the entire trial to tell us how it went down.

Didnt that same Harvard law professor have a hand in OJs defense?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You would love to move on so you don’t have to deal with facts. Dershowitz did not lie about the case that is your flawed opinion of what was said. Label him a liar then feel justified in ignoring everything else he said.

He absolutely lied about jury selection in THIS CASE. He also revealed that he was a Trump-selected ally in court. He burns he credibility on this case (and likely all things Trump) down with this alignment.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're most likely going to say something like that about anyone who's not on your side. It's an easy out.

Some people "on the other side" are harder to listen than others. Shapiro is one of those.

Look, I've got plenty of useless and annoying conservatives blocked on this site. You're not one of them.

 

[Belk]

Do you need a list of all the people connected with Trump targeted and another list of all of the people connected with Biden given a pass?

No, as none of those would denote a police state.

 

[ozso]

Didnt that same Harvard law professor have a hand in OJs defense?

Yes, does that diminish his knowledge and experience?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't know all the various aspects of jury selection.

The point is that there is a standard jury selection process, used for every jury trial, designed to minimize any bias or appearance of bias. Even if we assume that the judge in this particular case was biased, that's irrelevant to jury selection because the standard process is to isolate the jury pool from the judge as part of those efforts to minimize bias. If you're going to claim that the process was, in fact, affected by this supposedly biased judge, then that would mean that the standard process was not followed. Which would have been grounds for the defense to move for a mistrial before the opening arguments and would make for a slam dunk appeal.

 

[ozso]

He absolutely lied about jury selection in THIS CASE. He also revealed that he was a Trump-selected ally in court. He burns he credibility on this case (and likely all things Trump) down with this alignment.

I think he was talking about the the jury pool the defense was stuck with choosing from. Or something along those lines. Also I've never known him to not be a Trump ally since at least the Mueller days. Being an ally doesn't make someone not credible. If an ally of Obama wrote a favorable book about him, would it lack credibility because it was written by an ally?

 

[ozso]

The point is that there is a standard jury selection process, used for every jury trial, designed to minimize any bias or appearance of bias. Even if we assume that the judge in this particular case was biased, that's irrelevant to jury selection because the standard process is to isolate the jury pool from the judge as part of those efforts to minimize bias. If you're going to claim that the process was, in fact, affected by this supposedly biased judge, then that would mean that the standard process was not followed. Which would have been grounds for the defense to move for a mistrial before the opening arguments and would make for a slam dunk appeal.

Below is the table of contents PDF for a book about jury section that costs $1319.00

https://static.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/product_files/relateddocs/241108_2023282_95919.pdf

Doesn't look quite as simplistic as the four steps you posted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Jury selection consists of weeding out a group of the people who got a jury summons for that case. If they all had bias against the defendant, then jury selection becomes moot.

Why think they *all* had bias against Trump. There is no evidence of that. The only thing slightly unusual in jury selection was that when the large groups were brought into the court room, the judge asked them a group question something like "raise your hand if you don't think you can be fair in this trial" and then dismissed anyone who raised their hands. (Legal commentators noted this was the easiest trial for anyone to get out of if they just didn't want to be on a jury or this jury. It was clear the judge did not want to spend weeks of the juries time picking them and weeding the prospective jurors.)

After that, the prosecution and defense, jointly questioned each juror, requested dismissal "for cause" from the judge, and applied their peremptory challenges.

Also I've heard of cases in the news where the trial was held elsewhere because it was decided the defendant couldn't get a fair trial where the incident took place.

Who in the US, let along NY state (where the trial *must* take place) has never heard of Donald Trump or doesn't have some opinion of Donald Trump? The selection is about finding those who have not formed a determination on the case prior to hearing evidence and will judge the case on what is presented in court only.

I heard a couple of people in the news saying it should have been held in Stanton Island, NY.

Never heard of it.

I tracked down how it went down:


I think what Dershowitz is saying is basically what Blanche said. That he only had a room full of people who had a negative opinion of Trump to choose from. So while Blanche was involved in selecting the 12 people for the jury, he didn't choose all the people summoned who made up the entire jury pool.

This is what's know as apologetic. Just excuse making for Dersh's statements.

 

[Pommer]

There is information on line about each juror. what they do for a living what news sources they use and the like. Look for it.

No there isn’t any such information.

 

[Hans Blaster]

At what point in the video did he say "Trump's attorneys had no say in jury selection"? They did have no say in the jury pool because a change of venue was denied by the judge. Therefore the judge did select the jury pool limiting the ability for Trump to get an impartial jury. The entire jury pool was hand selected for that reason by the crooked judge.

I already stated that in response to the posting of the video.