Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(131,063 posts)
Thu Apr 18, 2024, 02:41 PM Apr 18

Two of the seven jurors who had already been seated in Donald J. Trump's criminal trial were excused before lunch.

'The precise reason for the dismissal of one juror was not immediately clear, but prosecutors had raised concerns about the credibility of answers he gave to questions about himself. Asked outside the courthouse whether he believed he should have been dismissed, the man, who declined to give his name, replied: “Nope.”

His removal, shortly before the lunch break, followed the dismissal of another juror who said she had developed concerns about her identity becoming public.

Although the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, has kept prospective jurors’ names private, some have disclosed their employers and other identifying information in court. After excusing the woman at the start of the morning session, Justice Merchan instructed journalists to stop reporting on prospective jurors’ employers.

“I have the legal authority to do it,” the judge said of blocking the news media from reporting the information. Lawyers for news outlets, including The New York Times, were expected to question the order.'>

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-hush-money-trial

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Two of the seven jurors who had already been seated in Donald J. Trump's criminal trial were excused before lunch. (Original Post) elleng Apr 18 OP
Excusing the doxed nurse was totally appropriate, but what's with the male? Brother Buzz Apr 18 #1
Excuse me. But.. WE should not have any background information on any of these people. Srkdqltr Apr 18 #2
The names are protected but the background information is from that voir dire thingy, and is public record Brother Buzz Apr 18 #7
Discussed here: elleng Apr 18 #3
Thanks Brother Buzz Apr 18 #4
I think they need to be sequestered jimfields33 Apr 18 #5
I don't disagree Brother Buzz Apr 18 #6

Brother Buzz

(36,456 posts)
1. Excusing the doxed nurse was totally appropriate, but what's with the male?
Thu Apr 18, 2024, 02:51 PM
Apr 18

Do we have any info on his background, or why the credibility of his answers were called into question?

Srkdqltr

(6,313 posts)
2. Excuse me. But.. WE should not have any background information on any of these people.
Thu Apr 18, 2024, 02:59 PM
Apr 18

It's none of OUR business.
This comes close to jury tampering

Brother Buzz

(36,456 posts)
7. The names are protected but the background information is from that voir dire thingy, and is public record
Thu Apr 18, 2024, 03:37 PM
Apr 18

In California, voir dire only becomes public record at the conclusion or the trial. I'm guessing New York works a little different.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Two of the seven jurors w...