If you look at all the crimes the 18 defendants are charged with, I’d say that 150 is actually pretty freaking economical! If math is right, that’s like 4.92 indictments per witness.
If Trump and his team could dream it up in far less than a month, mere mortals will be able to follow it. It’s not really all that complex. Just f*** over the election counting process in a variety of ways.
There’s too much search engine garbage to find an original source, but PhDs, scientists, physicians, and attorneys (of course) are basically disqualified from jury duty.
Funny how demonstrating that you’re able to think for yourself with a degree disqualifies you.
I'm a nurse and was on a murder jury trial with a sheriff deputy. They're not allowed to ask your profession in voir dire. What you cannot do is provide expert testimony as a juror in deliberation. You are, of course, expected to use your experiences in your decision.
They don’t want someone to start adding context or outside information during the jury deliberation. If you do, then the defense has no opportunity to argue against you.
They don’t want any additional discussion that could sway the case unfairly one way or the other.
No, you are supposed to be able to put up a defense.
Who’s to say the jury is correct? What if the specialist made an assumption that was wrong, shared it with the jury, and found a person guilty because they trusted this expert. Now you have no way of challenging this, and rebutting the assumption.
You DON’T want those “independent thinker” jurors you need them to only consider what’s been presented in the case. It’s the only way it can be fair.
I’ve got two jury duty summons so far and haven’t even made it to any form of interview. It may be due to my age at the times, but my job pays me for jury duty so I’ll gladly do my duty.
Who told them this was a good idea? Are they so uncertain of their case that they're bringing for over a hundred witnesses, in case tons of their testimonies fall through?
My guess is that they have a sequence of events they want to prove took place, and they also want to prove that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong at each step. So maybe the first thing is that there was a plan in advance to subvert the election, and they get testimony from a few different people who were at a meeting about it, another couple people who were on an email discussion, and someone who Trump spoke to personally. Do that kind of thing for every step in a long chain, and it can add up. But any weakness in the chain could be grounds for reasonable doubt, so they have to make sure it’s all solid.
Wait… You think MORE witnesses mean less guilty?! … bahahahaha holy shit, you retards are truly beyond any ability for logic… Literally, a rock is smarter than you.
No wonder he thinks he could shoot someone on Main St. and you morons would think he’s innocent if MORE witnesses mean less guilty. Again, you are literally too stupid to properly parse reality. Seek help. Preferably a conservatorship, because you are clearly too dumb to take care of yourself.
Does Trump have to be present for the whole thing? My adhd is getting triggered just thinking about sitting still for a 4 month trial. Good luck orange dude 😂
Does Trump have to be present for the whole thing?
That depends on whether the judge orders an appearance. The lawyers for Trump must be present the whole time, but Trump does not necessarily have to be there unless ordered to by the judge.
My adhd is getting triggered just thinking about sitting still for a 4 month trial.
It seriously sounds awful… couldn’t happen to a better person.
Fuck what Trump has to do. Feel bad for the 14 ish jurors who have to sit there for 4 months getting paid less than minimum wage. I’d say it’s likely they get sequestered at some point, meaning they don’t even see their families.
Those jurors are definitely going to need to be sequestered and will probably need protection too. The GOP is already openly supporting domestic terrorism so I don’t expect them to stop now.
Being jurors on this case would suck. That being said, not shitty employers often pay your full salary for jury duty. And some states require employers to pay too.
It would suck. But also, you would be a part of history forever.
Some people go overseas and risk their lives in the military and lose family time as well without having as much of an impact on the world. Here, the potential to have a positive impact on society is also profound. To show that all people are equal under the law.
So, yes, it would suck. But it’s still worth it as a society to require people to do this and as a juror it’s better than the equivalent trial that nobody hears about for commercial fraud that takes the same amount of time.
I don’t know if it was a California thing or not, but back in the day they used to pay you $5 a day for jury duty. The aerospace company I worked at paid full salary for jury duty days, but for a while they required your to reimburse the company for the $5/day. It sort of makes sense philosophically because you don’t need the court compensation if you’re getting guilt paid, but it always seemed kind of cheap. I think they stopped that because they realized it was costing them more to process the reimbursement than they were getting from it.
I know in some states it’s law that if the employer agrees to pay your salary the jury duty wages may(must?) be claimed by the company as income, so they are selling your time at a loss basically. It’s meant to be an incentive for companies to do it, but at $5/day yeah that’s not worth the paper work.
Agreed. Like I said it makes sense philosophically, it’s just the amount is so low it seems miserly.
On the other hand, the company pays full salary for unlimited jury days, which I think is unusual, so I don’t think they’re being cheap at all in reality.
They are just being efficient with their accountant and tax preparers time. The state policy to incentivize employers just isn’t working since there’s not enough value there. I’m a business owner with hourly employees, and as long as the program was optional and paid, oh, half the employee wages I’d be totally on board with it.
Add comment