Two Unicorns on the Trump Jury
Two Unicorns on the Trump's Jury
Paid subscriptions and one-time tributes embedded in each article allow me to keep publishing critical and informative work that is sometimes made available to the public — thank you. If you like this piece and want to support independent journalism further, you can forward this article to others, get a paid subscription or gift subscription, or donate once, as much as you like today.
I’ve always wanted to be chosen to serve on a jury, even before I thought about going to law school. My mom was picked for a jury just after she attended law school, when she was studying for the bar exam and I remember her coming home everyday to excitedly tell us the amazing things she was learning each day about procedure. It was a federal drug trafficking case and I swear she learned more in that week than she did in an entire semester of Criminal Law class.
As a practicing attorney now, I would consider a young lawyer to be the most dangerous kind of juror, similar to a medical resident who only knows a little bit about their profession. They tend to be overconfident about what they know and have no idea about the true level of their own ignorance —they know just enough to be dangerous. But, the other jurors on my mom’s case felt oppositely about this and elected her to be the foreperson. No doubt she gave off the perception of confidence that she still has no idea she has.
I always hoped that this unique opportunity my mother had could one day be mine, despite my decision to go into the law. I was optimistic about my chances even after my mom became a judge, and I had to fill out a recusal form in our county that kept me from being called for jury duty. I know wanting to serve on a jury is a strange thing, but I love procedure and service and more than that, I wanted to believe that the lawyers involved were qualified and smart enough to know that another attorney would be the perfect juror for them, if they had a solid case.
I got called to jury duty once during the short time I lived in Arizona after law school, when my name got back on the jury pool list somehow. I was a licensed attorney by this time, but the prosecuting attorney for the case worked in my mom’s old office, and I was hopeful she would see the benefit of having me on her jury. Sitting in a full courtroom for jury duty was surreal — the presiding judge was a family friend and everyone there knew who I was given my last name and how much I resemble my mom.
Attorneys are a special breed of possum and female attorneys are a special breed of tea cup possum. As a whole, litigators trust no one, and they are painfully competitive. They tend to be a little too hostile and they can be socially awkward at times. I don’t know why the prosecutor in the case was so insecure about my presence, but I did know that this was hardly the first time that it has happened to me professionally. Needless to say, I did not get on that jury, and it was a huge mistake for the prosecution who was scared to make a mistake at every turn.
A full jury panel of 12 jurors was selected for Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York yesterday afternoon. Jury selection for the alternate seats will resume today, and Judge Merchan has told both sides to be prepared to begin on Monday with opening statements.
The jury is made up of seven men and five women who live in different parts of Manhattan, including the Upper East Side, Harlem, Hell’s Kitchen and the West Village. They come from a range of personal backgrounds and employment histories. Several jurors said they had no strong opinions on Trump, and a few said that they do not closely follow the news. The exact racial makeup of the jury, and the ages of the jurors, is unclear.
Two jurors were excused yesterday. One juror, a female, expressed her concern about her ability to remain impartial and about people in her life discovering that she was a juror after the media gave out too much information about her. Judge Merchan has since limited what information is made public and the media is supposed to limit how much it says.
The entire trial is expected to last six weeks and Trump, who is mandated to be in the courtroom during the trial, will be spending his spare time campaigning and fending off charges and appeals in five other cases. It is an understatement to say that a lawyer being seated on a jury of any kind is unusual. However, this jury for Trump’s first criminal trial, has two attorneys serving on it. I can’t stress the rarity of this kind of occurrence.
The only explanation for both sides choosing attorneys, is that both District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Defense Attorney Todd Blanche feel that their case is strong in terms of the law. Bragg likely believes that a lawyer will be the best kind of person to discern the complicated nature of the charges he has levied. Defense attorney Todd Blanche is relying on the same things to exonerate his client. Both attorney jurors picked for this criminal trial practice in different areas of the law, including Corporate and Civil law.
The evidence in the case is fairly clear and very strait-forward. The witnesses for the prosecution are strong. The major weakness in this case is the possibility that a juror might think Bragg has overcharged a misdemeanor and made it a felony because of an alleged vendetta against Donald Trump. On the flip side, Bragg’s strength in his case revolves around his ability to show Trump’s intent to defraud, and relies on a savvy juror understanding his ability to prove the exact elements of the crime.
The professions of the other jurors that have been revealed include a salesman, an investment banker, a security engineer, a wealth manager, a woman who works in tech, a physical therapist, and a man who works in e-commerce. If I were prosecuting this case, I would have more concern about the banker, the wealth manager, and the salesman, over attorneys who should be well versed in criminal legal procedure.
There is one factor here that you won’t hear a lot of legal pundits discussing due to the unspoken omertà among practicing lawyers, which is not to disparage certain basic aspects of the profession. But this is the sad truth: lawyers are incredibly judgmental and critical of how another lawyer goes about doing their own job.
This is a natural thing as we are all taught to fine-tune these traits in law school to become better at what we do. But most attorneys don’t bat an eye at this accusation, even though they may not readily admit it, and this may be a problem for Bragg or Blanche depending on their own style or how they appear to handle themselves during the trial.
The only person more opinionated than someone who has something to say about a lawyer is a lawyer. For this reason, having an attorney on the jury could be the best or worst thing to happen in the trial for a number of reasons that may end up being completely subjective. Clearly Bragg and Blanche are counting on these lawyers understanding the importance of this case, and the need to look at the law over everything else. Let’s see if they have been given too much credit.
Amee Vanderpool writes the SHERO Newsletter and hosts the live SHERO podcast on Callin. She is an attorney, published author, contributor to newspapers and magazines, and analyst for BBC radio. She can be reached at avanderpool@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @girlsreallyrule.
Paid subscriptions and one-time tributes embedded in each article allow me to keep publishing critical and informative work that is sometimes made available to the public — thank you. If you like this piece and want to support independent journalism further, you can forward this article to others, get a paid subscription or gift subscription, or donate once, as much as you like today.
I am a lawyer. Never thought I’d be selected for jury. Selected twice. First time civil (most boring trial ever) and I was foreperson. I actually knew not much more than anyone else since that was not my area. But I was young and my ego was in full swing. Second time (criminal) I refused the position. But they still looked to me for answers. I learned so much from my fellow jurors.
Every lawyer should be a juror. I learned the need for a representing attorney (defense, plaintiff, prosecutor) to anticipate and answer all questions. Why no DNA/fingerprints etc (not always like tv and maybe not possible). How am I supposed to not think about that answer like the judge said? Well pretend you never heard the answer- does it have an impact on decision. If answer would color or change opinion there is something that you don’t know about the value or weight of the answer and you should not use it. Or make yourself believe that that answer was just not true or tainted. It helps. Why? Because sometimes information carries more weight or less truth than it is worth and this is about a person’s life.
Why are all the lawyers and judge whispering and sending us away? Because people on trial deserve the very best we can give them and sometimes knowing irrelevant/iffy stuff makes us think differently about the case we are suppose to decide. Sometimes we don’t even know how that information works on our decisions. We all want the defendant to get the benefit we would want and we all have”stuff” we are not proud of doing that would not relate to potential charges but might make us look bad. No one should be convicted of a crime just because he was not always a “good” person or made mistakes.
Juries are comprised, generally, of a group of people who want to do the right thing. They feel disrespected when they think the judge and lawyers know a secret they won’t tell. In my opinion, it is the rare juror who doesn’t talk about the case with a significant other. If case is newsworthy- everyone badgers them. Who doesn’t want to be the “one in the know.” So much “advice” is given. It’s the hardest job, to remember what you’ve heard outside the court and what is actual evidence presented can be confusing.
The most important thing that a lawyer can do in opening and closing is explain reasons behind all of these very understandable questions. If you know in advance that there will be an issue, explain it early. Always know that jurors ALL want to hear from defendant. You must explain clearly why that may not or did not happen.
Watch tv. Look for the stuff that makes you choke. Explain why that did not happen in your case. Generally, jurors learn law from tv and their neighbor. Absolve them discretely from hearing information but impress upon them that only information obtained in the courtroom is evidence. Acknowledge their dilemmas and confusion. Do not ignore elephants in the room. Do not accuse or cast doubt on their integrity, honesty, efforts or sacrifice. Just ask that they give the defendant the same consideration that they would want for themselves. Simply acknowledge the difficulties and express gratitude for their honest efforts.
Prosecutors in OJ should have asked the jury (among other things) “Given evidence that there were at least x number of 911 calls to Nicole’s house and horrific abuse pictures and no arrests or trials, why would anyone believe that a random 911 call would cause police to arrive prepared to plant evidence of blood (from where?), a glove, etc. why would the LA police kill the golden calf of parties, tickets, and gifts when they had always protected him? They should have poisoned the Rodney King well. They should have acknowledged the terrible outcome. Emphasized King’s mercy and gone after the hearts and souls of the jurors by asking if they truly believed that Simpson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should be exonerated so that he could raise the children of the mother killed. These are jury issues.
The trial is not everything. Lawyers need to know what pieces are missing. When given the chance to tell the story acknowledge the questions that the jurors understandably have about procedures. The most famous line in a modern US criminal case closing should never have been “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit.” There (I believe) was evidence as to why the glove did not fit. (Lack of anti inflammatories and effort) Plus I think anyone can make a leather glove look too small. Dang things are tight.
Bottom line. So much legal inside baseball happens in courtrooms. Jurors are people. They want to know. They don’t like being outsiders wondering. Address this. Help them. Include them as the most important part of the team.
#SHERAH great piece.