Here's where we are at the end of the day: Seven jurors have been selected to serve on the jury. The remainder will be selected from 96 people who will return to the courthouse on Thursday morning when jury selection continues. That’s not bad for just over a day and a half of jury selection. Many people were predicting it could take weeks. My feeling this morning, when Preet Bharara and I taped
I for one am not eager. She needs to have some respect for paying members, and above all for the author, Joyce Vance. Let her post poems until she drops - on her own Substack.
Such a joy to read this! 👍👍Thank you for sharing your gift Gloria... it helps brighten this dark scenario of watching the Justice System at work on a pompous, law flouting, low EQ man-child.
We've been riding a brutally savage wave these past several years, an emotional cyclone that first built up with that freak tsunami of Hillary's loss in '16. I was fully prepared to revel in the bliss of the first woman commander-in-chief, but that night was a soul-scorching gut-punch that ripped away that sweet fantasy.
From there, it was a completely unhinged downward spiral into pure armageddon as we all got strapped into the violent, turbulent slipstream of that unshackled madman's tenure. The human atrocities at the border, the constant licking of dictator boots, the gale forces of compulsive lying - it was one earth-scorching firestorm of calamity after another, each more depraved than the last.
I stared into the ruby red eye of the final, cataclysmic meltdown when that army of zoned-out fanatics tried to butcher democracy itself on January 6th. At that point, I was damn near feral, frothing at the mouth in primal anger, ready to completely unhinge from reality's rusty shackles.
But I couldn't allow myself to totally abandon the truth inscribed in frenzied prose. So I launched myself into an epic binge of constant writing, lashing wordstorms onto the page in hopes of exorcising the venom and horror clogging my mind's eye. Every time that burnt, rotting cantaloupe of profanity regained the spotlight without consequence, my pen reinvigorated in rebel yowls of disgust.
The crippling whirlwind hasn't abated, not with that groteque jack-o-lantern still looming. Yet this perpetual marathon of transfixing writing has become my onlysurvival salve, my adrenaline-soaked reprieve when the rest of reality seems hopelessly adrift in hostile nightmares. Words have been the constant lifeline, however mangled, keeping me tethered as the gates of hell remain willfully unhinged all around us.
It was clever writing. Read or don't read. Some of us will enjoy the insertion of a little levity in these darkly serious times, others will not.
It's OK, it doesn't make either group bad people.
In the darkest moments, Joyce often shares only a few chicken pictures. Levity, connection, nature, humanity, not really relevant to events, but appreciated.
None of us is captive here. Peace to you. We really are in this together.
?? Ok, so you're an overly judgmental thief of joy... more's the pity. What exactly are you bringing to the community or the discussions that merit the misconceived notion that it's OK to dish-out scorn on others? 🙄🤷♂️
Maybe she doesn’t want to read your comments either. We are here for a variety of reasons. Some to simply be better informed. A common refrain is to thank the writer but I’m sure Joyce is not reading the hundreds of comments. Others post comments to engage with each other and create dialogue. Still others hope their own blogs are picked up by readers as I hope my blog is. So we have a myriad of reasons and I would caution kindness and forbearance. If you are irritated just move on and read other comments. Maybe we are irritated by you repeating your refrain. But also perhaps you find it therapeutic to post such and if this is so, then I trust it improves your overall disposition.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to build an audience. Commenting on other people's Substacks can help with that. But that's not what Gloria's doing. Gloria isn't commenting on Joyce's post, or responding to other people's comments: she's posting her own poetry, which is far longer than any other comments. And because so many people have liked it, and because she keeps responding to it, it's the first thing "Civil Discourse" readers see when they get to the end of Joyce's column -- unless they change their Comments setting from Top to New, which not everyone knows how to do.
IOW, the first thing they see is a long, long comment that has nothing to do with what Joyce wrote. I've been subscribing to Civil Discourse for quite a while. The give-and-take in the comments is a great supplement to Joyce's legal commentary, so to be greeted by this very long Top comment that had nothing to do with Joyce's column was a bit of a shock.
However, since it's Joyce's Substack, what to about it, if anything, is up to her.
Gloria, you have your own Substack. Why are you hijacking Joyce's Substack with your poetry? Maybe you haven't followed Civil Discourse long enough to realize what a valuable space for, well, "civil discourse" it is.
I believe a fair enough jury can be found. Why? I am an activist here in my county for Democratic candidates. I knock hundreds of doors every election. The one thing that’s true in every neighborhood is how utterly uninformed people are. So if their source of information is what they hear in the courtroom, possibly we find reasonable people in there. (Which wouldn’t be me, but I mean most people.)
I have been phone banking, Deborah, for my School Board candidate and I too have been surprised by the lack of knowledge about the candidates. Especially since she’s the most qualified. One of the candidates she's running against has been censured by our County's Ethics Committee;; the other believes all students should have some books banned. There is a parental process in place to have books banned from your own student but that is not enough for these parents. The upshot is the first question I ask my phone "bankees" is whether they have had a chance to look at the School Board candidates yet (our Primary Early Voting starts May 2). And many of them say they have not. My job then becomes to educate them about why I volunteer for the candidate I believe has the best experience and qualifications to perform the job!
Jury selection reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, this one with special resonance these days, from the late U.S. Senator and diplomat Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” Btw --- there's a very good PBS documentary on this seminal political figure.
Her ex-husband, George Conway, is on a podcast on the Bulwark network with Sarah Longwell. It’s called “George Conway Explains Legal Stuff To Sarah Longwell.” It’s pro democracy, antiTrump and concerns the legal and civil cases Trump is facing. The first time I watched, George Conway shared that he’d donated a million bucks to Joe Biden’s campaign! I just love that a former Republican and member of the Federalist Society has left the GOP and now stands decidedly on the side of saving our democracy. Way to go, George!!
I agree completely with Moynihan. Unfortunately, the rightwing propaganda machine has spent years dedicated to the opposite position. The MAWA movement is a result.
Being a very deep thinker, Trump is unquestionably grappling with the metaphysical distinction between the concept that no one is above the law and his belief that he is the law. Unfortunately, while Trump may be able to mentally reconcile both concepts, he has difficulty articulating the confluence of the two due to the limitations of his fourth grade vocabulary.
Ah, the eternal struggle of the philosopher-king! Trump, our modern-day Plato, finds himself ensnared in a metaphysical quandary that would make even the most seasoned scholars scratch their heads in bewilderment.
On one hand, we have the lofty ideal that no one, not even a president with a penchant for gold-plated toilets and questionable hair choices, is above the law. It's a concept that has been enshrined in our legal system since the days of powdered wigs and quill pens, and one that has served as a bedrock of our democracy.
But then, on the other hand, we have Trump's unshakable belief that he is not merely subject to the law, but that he is the very embodiment of it. In his mind, he is the alpha and omega of jurisprudence, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, the final word on all matters legal and otherwise.
It's a dizzying paradox, to be sure, and one that would require a level of intellectual gymnastics that would put even the most flexible of yogis to shame. But alas, poor Trump finds himself stymied by the cruel limitations of his fourth-grade vocabulary, unable to articulate the nuances of his legal philosophy in terms more sophisticated than "Very unfair!" and "Sad!"
One can only imagine the inner turmoil that must be raging within that orange-hued head of his. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole while simultaneously arguing that the hole is actually a peg and the peg is a hole.
But fear not, dear friends, for even in the face of such existential angst, Trump remains undaunted. He may not be able to express the finer points of his legal worldview, but he can still take solace in the fact that he has the best words, the biggest words, the most beautiful words the world has ever seen. And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
Or (oh wise one, Gloria), he may be in sundown stage of dementia, up and about all night and sleeping in the daytime whether at trial or not. And yes, he will have the ‘best’ words: after all, did he not coin the two-word phrase “believe me”?
I’ve never believed anyone so much as Trump because he says that in a way that no one else ever has before.
A group of neuroscientists, psychologists and psychiatrists came together to assess what they have observed re: Trump’s mental status. They wrote that he shows signs of dementia, including symptoms of aphasia (as seen when speaking at his rallies when he uses words that don’t make sense, seem meaningless. He’ll try to say a word but what comes out is nonsensical.) He thinks he is running against Obama at times and confuses which election this is (the year.) He rambles on and sometimes just trails off and puts his head down. It makes sense that sundowning is happening as he stays up quite late writing rage posts on his social media platform. Then he falls asleep in court.
Yes, Mary Ann, John Gartner was one of these psychiatrists and his interview with Jay Kuo was posted on Substack on April 11 ‘The Big Picture’ ‘ Trump’s brain is not OK.’ It was even more poignant to read Joyce’s and others’ reports of Trump nodding off in court. His brain is not OK and he needs medical treatment. The judge should order that.
Thank you so very much! You are VERY talented. Your poetical eloquence has beautifully lifted my thoughts into the realm of lofty and not too subtly excoriating sarcasm far beyond what I had strived to achieve. In the future, I will be tempted to first submit my thoughts to you for transposition into the likes of Dryden, Pope and Keats.
I would like to take you up on your gracious offer. I have found great beauty and solace in the poetry of W. B Yeats, and would like to request that you allow him to serve as your momentary Muse to do a riff on the famous last 2 lines of his poem "Among School Children", of which I am taking the liberty of transposing into the following:
L.D. Michaels, I don't know who the former president hates more - himself or the rest of us. He's as desperate as he is because he despises himself, and that explains his obsessive need for attention. Once a favorite of his, Hope Hicks, testifies against him, that will be a show! Those of us who can't stand him are mirroring his estimation of himself. The guy's got a great act going; I'm thinking of Death of a Salesman. When it's this salesman's turn, the 'Wows' will go around the world.
Thanks so much Joyce!! I'm wondering what the chances are they'll sequester the Jury? I know Prosecutors hate doing that because it puts so much pressure on them. But it's an option too since there's so much media attention on this case.
Just a thought. Glad we're all in this together!! ❤️🇺🇸💙
Hi Lisa, My thought as well - to keep them safe from harm, having police protection going to and from their hotel. But unspeakably difficult for a parent of a young child. If it’s six weeks, it’s simply too long for that kind of separation.
Maybe but they did it with the OJ jurors. I forget exactly long that was. It was awhile though. They let the families come visit too if I remember correctly.
Allowing the families to visit would help to change the scenario. It would help the jurors to see their families to have dinner and bedtime story time, so they would have that physical presence. And if it were a two person couple, they would have that other person to ‘tuck them in.’ But allowing those kinds of visits In this Trump created environment with MAGA followers willing to do the sociopath’s bidding creates a logistical nightmare. Harken back to the social conditions surrounding OJ. OJ. didn’t have a group of crazed supporters at his beck and call trying to find sitting jurors’ residences to make threats and then act them out. That threat looms after the trial, but Judge Merchan did not disclose to the jurors that their identities were protected because he didn’t want to cause that alarm. Unless they were well informed, they wouldn’t know that. Because we’re part of this Substack, we have more information than the average citizen. Another way we differ in our social climate from that of OJ’s trial is the way reporters disclose every piece of information they can get their hands on - and this will be turned into a circus because of the salacious tone. A clown reporter for Washington Post disclosed information on two so far as what their jobs were and the general neighborhoods where they lived. I didn’t read the reporter’s disclosure myself, and there was a disclosure like this was in the comments to another article in the Washington Post. ‘Loose lips’ needs to be a policy for reporters, and if they don’t have enough sense to be discreet, they should be monitored by an editor with some common sense. Trump is already creating his victimized persona: his first daily news conference entailed a whine that the judge wouldn’t allow him to attend Barron’s high school graduation, including that Baron had worked so hard and had always looked forward to both his mother and father attending his graduation. No part of Trump acknowledges that he created the situation that caused the criminal trial. So now Melania has to explain to Barron that daddy can’t be home tonight because he allegedly committed a crime and has to be in.court. What about flying his private jet to Miami after court, attending the graduation and sleeping on the plane going back to New York arriving in plenty of time for the trial. Unless the order from the judge says he can’t leave the city of New York. His privileged and he caused this problem for himself. And now he’s caused problems for citizens who have stepped up to honor their jury duty at the expense of their families. It would be a tough call for a juror, but in the interest of safety, they might up to have zoom calls as do military families.
Not sure but I think if the judge intended to sequester the jury, that decision might have been made earlier. And that’s kind of the purpose of the gag order and the judge’s keeping certain information on the jurors from Trump.
Used to be --- and not so very long ago --- NY criminal trial jurors would automatically be sequestered. But you're right, Merchan would have ordered that by now considering the defendant's history and the notoriety of the trial. He does reserve the right, however, to change his mind if things go sideways in terms of the tenor of Trump's rants --- and particularly if a juror name or two is leaked, despite his order in that regard. Trump is very much like a wounded animal and likewise at his most dangerous to himself and others, so IMO, he was, and is now even more capable of doing anything.
Thank you, Joyce. I predicted yesterday that we would ave a jury by April 26, looks like we may. With this trial taking place in New York and the next one hopefully in DC I have faith the jurists will be honest, listen carefully, and come to a rational decision. The trial in Florida, not so much. Any citizens of a State that thinks Ron DeSantis is an appropriate governor has a questionable mentality.
New York and DC I trust. Georgia too, in spite of bimbo taylor greene, they do have some bright spots like Raffensperger and Fani Willis
Thank you Joyce, for your sage words, guiding those of us who have not been in front of, or on a jury. I am especially grateful to hear that you have faith in this system. So far, it’s been working in New York with E. Jean Carroll’s case. You must be exhausted, so I hope you are having some time with Bella, Tofu and the chickens, and your family receiving unconditional, love and regeneration. 💙
Valere, I too have faith in the jury system, and it comes from nearly 20 years in the federal system and another 12 in various state courts. This case certainly is different because of the defendant’s sociopathy and constant violation of rules and norms, not to mention gag orders, but the extremely thorough voir dire that this judge is doing is absolutely the best way to ensure an honest and fair jury. As mentioned above, the rest of the jurors will be able to tell if one or more of their number is not deliberating in good faith, and with six alternates, that can be addressed at the appropriate time.
I have seen it happen albeit not in a situation like this of course, this situation being unprecedented. I have seen situations where jurors have been booted for various reasons, i.e., bullying, smuggling contraband (not drugs but emails about the case) into the jury room, and one time a juror who just refused to participate in deliberations, which may be the closest to this situation as I’ve seen, the juror was excused, and all parties agreed to substitute an alternate. The jury’s then instructed to start their deliberations from the beginning. But I don’t know what the rules in NY are for this situation.
No, relief would probably not be that immediate. Jury deliberations are sacrosanct. Alternate jurors are available in case of illness of a juror, but if a juror is caught breaking the rules, for instance, been seen having lunch with Trump during the trial, the trial judge could boot the juror and call up an alternate, or in the alternative declare a mistrial.
I’ve already commented about the possibility of a Trump supporter weaseling themselves onto the jury to sabotage a conviction. I am heartened by discussion of the possibility of rejection of a juror who does not negotiate in good faith. A clever holdout could probably get around this, but as we all know, MAGAts are not known for their intelligence.
Ironically, on Monday, when summoned (via the county), I had to play my "over age 70 get out of jury free card" (due to my worsening immune disorder). My two previous experiences on a jury were enlightening - like "age of enlightenment" enlightening: How good citizens can respectfully hear and watch, then just as respectfully deliberate and decide (even when most of us JUST KNEW that scrappy teenager was guilty and that fashionably stillettoed shopkeeper was innocent. Not!). After reading Joyce's article and these comments I have hope. Thank You.
'There has been lots of talk about the possibility of a stealth juror—someone who pretends to be neutral but who, once seated on the jury, will refuse to vote to convict no matter how strong the evidence is.'
Katie neglected to also write the reverse; a 'stealth juror' could also be one determined to find Trump guilty because he or she 'knows' the former president is guilty of so many crimes against the country and or people he hasn't paid...there are so many crimes he committed this 'stealth juror' cannot account for them all.
joyce, i have two questions: you have used the term “strike” when discussing jury selection. i take it this is synonymous with “seat.” but i guess there’s some reason to use “strike.” what is it?
also, do the alternate jurors know from the start that they’re alternates, or do they find out only when jury deliberations begin?
thanks. you are doing all of us a great sevice here.
In the event Joyce is catching her breath, I'll presume to answer for her. As for the "strike" question: to "strike" a potential juror means to challenge or remove them from consideration. Also, alternates (six in this case) are chosen after regular jurors and do know that are are understudies from the beginning. They hear the evidence just as the other jurors do, but they don’t participate in the deliberations unless they replace an original juror.
thanks. i was referring to this, from joyce’s april 8 substack. “Apparently, jurors will not be asked which Substack newsletters they read. That seems like a glaring oversight. On the other hand, I’d be willing to bet that a surprising number of potential jurors will tick the box to say they don’t follow the news. This never failed to surprise me when striking a jury.” did she mean “juror”?
Ah yes, used in that sense (actually, it is technically the same sense) --- a "struck jury" is the process of selecting a jury from a pool which, of course, does involve "striking" or removing from consideration potential jurors either for cause or via peremptory challenge (no cause).
Another question regarding the alternates … Once deliberations begin if a juror appears to be unwilling to budge on their opinion of the outcome, they will not deliberate, can they be struck!
I assume you mean deliberations for a verdict, since jurors are usually instructed not to discuss the case among themselves until then. So, unfortunately no. The judge would send the jury back to try again and could do several times. If a unanimous verdict is not forthcoming after extended deliberation, the jury would be declared as "hung," and the prosecution would have the option to retry the case with a new jury.
In the face of the daunting task before them, the prosecutors in this case have demonstrated an admirable steadfastness and unwavering commitment to the principles of justice. They have navigated the treacherous waters of jury selection with the deft touch of seasoned professionals, undeterred by the looming specter of a defendant whose very name has become synonymous with chaos and controversy.
And yet, even as they confront the myriad challenges inherent in this most unusual of cases, they do so with a quiet confidence born of an abiding faith in the fundamental soundness of our legal system. For all its flaws and imperfections, the American jury remains a bulwark against tyranny and a guardian of our most cherished freedoms.
It is true, of course, that the specter of jury nullification looms large over these proceedings. The siren song of partisan loyalties and ideological affinities may prove too seductive for some to resist. But to succumb to such temptations would be to abdicate the sacred duty with which every juror is entrusted - to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented, free from the taint of bias or prejudice.
And so, as this drama unfolds before us, let us take heart in the knowledge that the prosecutors in this case are guided by a fierce commitment to the rule of law and an unwavering belief in the fundamental decency of their fellow citizens. They will not be cowed by the bluster and bravado of a defendant who has made a career of sowing discord and division. They will not be swayed by the machinations of those who seek to subvert the course of justice for their own selfish ends.
Instead, they will press on, secure in the knowledge that the truth will ultimately prevail, and that justice will be served. And in so doing, they will reaffirm the enduring strength and resilience of a legal system that has weathered countless storms and emerged all the stronger for it.
So let us watch and wait with bated breath as this riveting drama plays out before us. And let us never lose sight of the fact that, in the end, it is not the bombast of the defendant or the histrionics of his enablers that will carry the day, but rather the quiet, steady dedication of those who have sworn to uphold the law and to see justice done.
Maybe she doesn’t want to read your comments either. We are here for a variety of reasons. Some to simply be better informed. A common refrain is to thank the writer but I’m sure Joyce is not reading the hundreds of comments. Others post comments to engage with each other and create dialogue. Still others hope their own blogs are picked up by readers as I hope my blog is. So we have a myriad of reasons and I would caution kindness and forbearance. If you are irritated just move on and read other comments. Maybe we are irritated by you repeating your refrain. But also perhaps you find it therapeutic to post such and if this is so, then I trust it improves your overall disposition.
Judith, please stop. I tend to agree with your take that sometimes there are people who highjack conversations for the purpose of hearing their own voice rather than engaging in the conversation. I agree that people who want to can go to the other substack. I also think it is just as disruptive to keep hammering on about it. Just scroll past. As for this post: it is innappropriate and, well, Trump-like. If that is all you've got to contribute, please take it elsewhere.
Interesting that two attorneys made it on to the jury so far. There's at least two schools of thought among trial types about having fellow lawyers on juries. A little known, but perhaps surmised fact: trial lawyers are self-entitled to a minimum of two opinions on any one subject... 😊
I'm surprised that two lawyers made it on the jury. But I am unaware of vocations that might be excluded. I know that engineers are easily kicked off; I suppose because they are too practical and will poke holes in logic. I assume in the best sense if lawyers are on the jury, then they will have some interesting viewpoints to consider. If not, it could be deadlocked.
All too true, but I think the lawyers on the jury will not be able to resist explaining the fine points of the law to the other jurors. While usurping the prerogative of the judge who is the law explainer, it might be instructive for jurors who think this case is merely about a payoff to a porn star.
Amusing as I tried to be, you are, of course, correct. And since we're dealing here with essentially a two-step or phase alleged crime (misdemeanor elevated to a Class E felony) based on a somewhat novel, but reasonable, theory, having an attorney (or two) on the jury could be very useful, especially for the prosecution.
I did think it was amusing. I always appreciate lawyer jokes, unless someone quotes Shakespeare (“First, let’s kill all the lawyers”) without putting it in context. See William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.
I would think that it would benefit the defense having someone who can make sure the jury is clear on what Bragg needs to prove to convict at the felony level.
Yes, of course. But in that way too their education and expertise helps the prosecution --- assuming the defense will keep raising the burden of proof issue anyway --- presuming the lawyers can properly frame and simplify what it (the defense) will try to complicate and confuse further, especially in terms of the applicable laws.
Totally agree Laura. When we are not an attorney, we tend to go off on a tangent or a tailspin. That is what is really great about this Substack having prosecutors and civil rights lawyers, a couple of judges to keep us centered more or less when Joyce is not able to do one on one responses. I can only think it will be helpful and then it’s up to the jury members to sift and weigh the evidence (But the added guidance would only help in my view).
Thanks, Valere. I’m a former state prosecutor and my true calling was criminal appellate work. Not as lucrative perhaps as civil law but far more fascinating. I was never picked for a jury but I’ve picked plenty of them.
Prosecutors have learned the hard way not to exclude “classes” of potential jurors. First, the assumptions might not always be true, and second, the famous Batson case (SCOTUS) that prohibits cutting potential jurors on the sole basis of race, has been extended, i.e., construed by other courts to include other classes. Following jury selection, the smart defense lawyer will lodge an objection based on Batson, and the judge is required to hold a hearing on the record where the prosecutor bears the burden of explaining why a certain juror was cut. It’s absolutely terrifying. But it’s more terrifying to be writing a brief on appeal following a conviction, looking at a “cold” record where the trial prosecutor screwed up the hearing.
They always ask what you do for a living regardless. A person might consider the logic of the prosecution or defense, either way could torpedo. A person with these tendencies might have a hard time deciding guilt or innocence because of their total belief in their own logic. I have come to believe that most of Engineering 101 is, “Never be wrong.”
Not surprised. Your knowing how society actually works, as opposed to the strictly legal view, would presumably automatically disqualify you. Something along the lines of, the "truth" setting you free.
Actually David, Trial attorneys hire experts for opinion testimony but, only if the expert passes the initial screening by the Gatekeeper, the Judge. Trial Attorney opinions have no evidentiary value whatsoever. Full stop.
The state of New York has its own rules evidence, but, generally Trial Attorneys' argument is not evidence. Judges instruct Jurys on the Law not Attorneys. Jurors are bound by their impartial, common sense.
I concur with the Professor, Jurys understand their duties & it all works out.
I look forward to seeing justice done (with balance and blindfold) & be true to our values!
Jurors represent the Best of Us as a nation. As our service members do! Jurors are our fellow citizens, those we ask & trust to make decisions based on evidence & through their thoughtfulness give us decisions that Will help repair the injury we, our society, and our country suffered.
I don’t live in NYC or even on one of the “coasts” - but I believe we can trust our fellow Americans in NYC to do their service honorably, honestly.
Thanks again, Joyce for being you! And helping us through this moment in time, our living American history lesson happening in NYC.
I want to say something that may offend others’ sensibilities: I’m actually not confident that Trump is guilty -- because I haven’t heard all the evidence. Because I too believe in juries.
Not always, God knows.
But when I hear people talking about how a jury got it wrong in some prominent trial, I think, “They are the ones who actually heard every piece of evidence and decided the case. Not those who heard only sound bites on the evening news.”
I hope he’s convicted because of what a danger he is. But we haven’t actually heard the evidence yet. We have to just stay tuned.
Certainly under the very system he wants to tear apart if he's allowed to get close to the White House again, he enjoys the presumption of innocence for now (not a constitutional guarantee per se, btw). Having said that, and made an effort to inform myself of as much of the vetted, public information available as possible (although not necessarily admissible as evidence in court, I am quick to add) --- even with that presumption and my training --- I am more than willing to find him guilty of at least one of the 34 counts. Haven't decided yet, however, whether I'll go for the federal or state campaign finance law violation, election interference or tax fraud.
I agree with you in principle. If I were sitting on the jury, I would absolutely expect Bragg to prove the election interference before convicting. I can't condemn him for his contempt for the rule of law if I don't follow it myself.
But, for the purposes of discussion, I don't really have a problem with assuming he's guilty. The evidence I've heard and the defense (or lack thereof) presented by Trump tends to point in that direction. That assumption is conditional and made with full knowledge I don't necessarily have all the facts.
The Oompa Loompa's Lament
There's no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going
There's no knowing where we're rowing
Or which way the trial is flowing
•
Is it raining, is it snowing?
Is a hurricane a-blowing?
Not a speck of light is showing
So the danger must be growing
•
Are the fires of Hell a-glowing?
Is the grisly reaper mowing?
Yes, the danger must be growing
For the lawyers keep on rowing
•
And they're certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing
Donald's ego keeps on crowing
As his grip on power's slowing
•
Round and round in circles spinning
Donald's lies keep on beginning
Judge Merchan's patience thinning
As the trial keeps on winning
•
In Room 1530, history's made
Donald's crimes on full parade
Parker warning, rules are laid
But his narcissism can't be swayed
•
Cameras banned, a travesty
Justice hidden from you and me
Donald's spin, a comedy
Of lies and mediocrity
•
Jurors serious, facts they find
Despite the MAGA crowd's combined
Efforts to subvert and blind
The truth, they cannot unwind
•
Double, triple, quadruple down
Donald pushes, the world's his town
But now the law has come around
To bring the king without a crown
•
To testify or not to be
That is the question, we shall see
If Donald's hubris sets him free
Or seals his fate in infamy
•
Alone he sits, no family near
Melania, children, nowhere here
Transactional, their love so dear
When power fades, they disappear
•
Boredom, disrespect, control's loss
Donald's psyche pays the cost
Unremitting, his mind's accost
As he faces his demons, long since crossed
•
Rallies, his fix, he'll surely seek
After hours in court, so bleak
His narcissism, springing leak
As inevitability's peak
•
Draws ever closer, day by day
The piper's tune, he must now pay
For decades of deception's sway
In Merchan's courtroom, no delay
•
The danger's growing, row by row
As Donald reaps what he did sow
Justice's hand, so sure and slow
Will guide this trial, high or low
•
To its conclusion, come what may
In SheScribe's style, we now convey
This zany rhyme, in court's array
Donald's fate, on full display!
Hey Gloria, will there be a collection of daily rhymes? You have a captive audience eager for the next one.
Yes! That’s my intent.
Doing quite well, so far. I'm sure Joyce would want a copy too.
Love it! If you indeed this daily, you will
Have enough for a book😎
Maybe hold a contest. Ask composers to set it to music.
How's some hard driving rock.
I for one am not eager. She needs to have some respect for paying members, and above all for the author, Joyce Vance. Let her post poems until she drops - on her own Substack.
Good point.
Such a joy to read this! 👍👍Thank you for sharing your gift Gloria... it helps brighten this dark scenario of watching the Justice System at work on a pompous, law flouting, low EQ man-child.
We've been riding a brutally savage wave these past several years, an emotional cyclone that first built up with that freak tsunami of Hillary's loss in '16. I was fully prepared to revel in the bliss of the first woman commander-in-chief, but that night was a soul-scorching gut-punch that ripped away that sweet fantasy.
From there, it was a completely unhinged downward spiral into pure armageddon as we all got strapped into the violent, turbulent slipstream of that unshackled madman's tenure. The human atrocities at the border, the constant licking of dictator boots, the gale forces of compulsive lying - it was one earth-scorching firestorm of calamity after another, each more depraved than the last.
I stared into the ruby red eye of the final, cataclysmic meltdown when that army of zoned-out fanatics tried to butcher democracy itself on January 6th. At that point, I was damn near feral, frothing at the mouth in primal anger, ready to completely unhinge from reality's rusty shackles.
But I couldn't allow myself to totally abandon the truth inscribed in frenzied prose. So I launched myself into an epic binge of constant writing, lashing wordstorms onto the page in hopes of exorcising the venom and horror clogging my mind's eye. Every time that burnt, rotting cantaloupe of profanity regained the spotlight without consequence, my pen reinvigorated in rebel yowls of disgust.
The crippling whirlwind hasn't abated, not with that groteque jack-o-lantern still looming. Yet this perpetual marathon of transfixing writing has become my onlysurvival salve, my adrenaline-soaked reprieve when the rest of reality seems hopelessly adrift in hostile nightmares. Words have been the constant lifeline, however mangled, keeping me tethered as the gates of hell remain willfully unhinged all around us.
Heartache is sometimes abated.
Your pen is as mighty as any sword of justice. I hope the latter is soon made equally visible. 🙏
Ne, too!
Thank you a million times.
Brilliant !
On a par with the nite Thoreau Spent In Jail !
The Arts reflect the truth beyond the legal diatribes!
Notwithstanding Joyce. !!!
Thank you so much.
WOW! Thank You, Gloria!
Oh I do like "rotting cantaloupe"!
Me, too. I’m tickled that you like it.
Wow Gloria! Thanks for putting into the most colorful prose and poetry how myself and millions of others feel.
Thank you. 🙏
It was clever writing. Read or don't read. Some of us will enjoy the insertion of a little levity in these darkly serious times, others will not.
It's OK, it doesn't make either group bad people.
In the darkest moments, Joyce often shares only a few chicken pictures. Levity, connection, nature, humanity, not really relevant to events, but appreciated.
None of us is captive here. Peace to you. We really are in this together.
Not captives, but paying subscribers - to read Joyce Vance.
Yikes. So don’t read it. We have so many worse issues before us! If you do enough research, you’ll learn to skim read. . .
?? Ok, so you're an overly judgmental thief of joy... more's the pity. What exactly are you bringing to the community or the discussions that merit the misconceived notion that it's OK to dish-out scorn on others? 🙄🤷♂️
Here enjoy my song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSaG6I77RU
Incredible, thank you!
Thank you. 🙏
You are a remarkable author and writer! Such a delightful gift.
Thank you very much.
😊 thanks
Maybe she doesn’t want to read your comments either. We are here for a variety of reasons. Some to simply be better informed. A common refrain is to thank the writer but I’m sure Joyce is not reading the hundreds of comments. Others post comments to engage with each other and create dialogue. Still others hope their own blogs are picked up by readers as I hope my blog is. So we have a myriad of reasons and I would caution kindness and forbearance. If you are irritated just move on and read other comments. Maybe we are irritated by you repeating your refrain. But also perhaps you find it therapeutic to post such and if this is so, then I trust it improves your overall disposition.
I enjoy good writing. What's incredible to some is attention grabbing to others. Thank you for your opinion.
Why don't you subscribe to Gloria's Substack then? Clearly she's trying to build her audience.
How do you know I don't subscribe? What is wrong with writers wanting to build an audience? I don't understand your hostility.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to build an audience. Commenting on other people's Substacks can help with that. But that's not what Gloria's doing. Gloria isn't commenting on Joyce's post, or responding to other people's comments: she's posting her own poetry, which is far longer than any other comments. And because so many people have liked it, and because she keeps responding to it, it's the first thing "Civil Discourse" readers see when they get to the end of Joyce's column -- unless they change their Comments setting from Top to New, which not everyone knows how to do.
IOW, the first thing they see is a long, long comment that has nothing to do with what Joyce wrote. I've been subscribing to Civil Discourse for quite a while. The give-and-take in the comments is a great supplement to Joyce's legal commentary, so to be greeted by this very long Top comment that had nothing to do with Joyce's column was a bit of a shock.
However, since it's Joyce's Substack, what to about it, if anything, is up to her.
Thank you, Gloria! Love your poems!
Thank you very much. 🙏
Brilliant as ever!
Means so much that you like my poems
More! Gloria🙏🙏🙏
Working on it. 😊
Other-worldly, inspiring🙏🏼
❤️❤️❤️
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Gloria, you have your own Substack. Why are you hijacking Joyce's Substack with your poetry? Maybe you haven't followed Civil Discourse long enough to realize what a valuable space for, well, "civil discourse" it is.
Gloria, you really should publish!
Thinking about it.
Gloria, here is a little something to accompany your words of rhyme. Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BSaG6I77RU
I would love to see you at Joe Biden's second inauguration ceremonies, Gloria!
So, I had to research what Oompa Loompa was all about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya36h56msXQ&t=13s
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍👍💯😎
🙇
🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️🙇♀️Dogeza!
( ´ ▽ ` ).｡ｏ♡ you
I hear this sung to dramatic music!
Good reminder-and why does it get no press- that he’s ALONE! Zero family with him, and that this is very unusual.
Top of the Hip Hop charts again oh talented Gloria!
Thank you!!!
Beautifully done!
You are quite talented with words! I loved it! Thank you for writing it and sharing with us!
Our Substack poet laureate.😀😀😀
Gloria! I feel like you should see about a collaboration with Randy Rainbow!
I believe a fair enough jury can be found. Why? I am an activist here in my county for Democratic candidates. I knock hundreds of doors every election. The one thing that’s true in every neighborhood is how utterly uninformed people are. So if their source of information is what they hear in the courtroom, possibly we find reasonable people in there. (Which wouldn’t be me, but I mean most people.)
I have been phone banking, Deborah, for my School Board candidate and I too have been surprised by the lack of knowledge about the candidates. Especially since she’s the most qualified. One of the candidates she's running against has been censured by our County's Ethics Committee;; the other believes all students should have some books banned. There is a parental process in place to have books banned from your own student but that is not enough for these parents. The upshot is the first question I ask my phone "bankees" is whether they have had a chance to look at the School Board candidates yet (our Primary Early Voting starts May 2). And many of them say they have not. My job then becomes to educate them about why I volunteer for the candidate I believe has the best experience and qualifications to perform the job!
Thank You for your important service Sandra!!
Are there actually people who know nothing about Jan6 and the other manbaby crimes?
Thank you for your hard work.
You sound very reasonable to me, Deborah.
Jury selection reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, this one with special resonance these days, from the late U.S. Senator and diplomat Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” Btw --- there's a very good PBS documentary on this seminal political figure.
Sen. Moynihan was a brilliant man. Lawrence O Donnell was his chief of staff.
Now that "rhymes" in the best way!
Dale, are you referring to “alternative facts”?
Ah yes, Kellyanne Conway's favorite variety, as I recall. Also preferred by her former boss.
Her ex-husband, George Conway, is on a podcast on the Bulwark network with Sarah Longwell. It’s called “George Conway Explains Legal Stuff To Sarah Longwell.” It’s pro democracy, antiTrump and concerns the legal and civil cases Trump is facing. The first time I watched, George Conway shared that he’d donated a million bucks to Joe Biden’s campaign! I just love that a former Republican and member of the Federalist Society has left the GOP and now stands decidedly on the side of saving our democracy. Way to go, George!!
P.S. Watch the ⏏️⏏️⏏️⏏️ podcast on YouTube.
And she’ll be right back in the White House if the Orange One is elected.
Thanks Dale for the info on the PBS documentary! I just watched the one about William F. Buckley, Jr., fascinating. I'll love to see this one!
I agree completely with Moynihan. Unfortunately, the rightwing propaganda machine has spent years dedicated to the opposite position. The MAWA movement is a result.
MAWA? Make America Weak Again?
That works too, but I was thinking more along the lines that the movement is proudly racist: Make America White Again.
Being a very deep thinker, Trump is unquestionably grappling with the metaphysical distinction between the concept that no one is above the law and his belief that he is the law. Unfortunately, while Trump may be able to mentally reconcile both concepts, he has difficulty articulating the confluence of the two due to the limitations of his fourth grade vocabulary.
*chuckles and adopts a satirical tone*
Ah, the eternal struggle of the philosopher-king! Trump, our modern-day Plato, finds himself ensnared in a metaphysical quandary that would make even the most seasoned scholars scratch their heads in bewilderment.
On one hand, we have the lofty ideal that no one, not even a president with a penchant for gold-plated toilets and questionable hair choices, is above the law. It's a concept that has been enshrined in our legal system since the days of powdered wigs and quill pens, and one that has served as a bedrock of our democracy.
But then, on the other hand, we have Trump's unshakable belief that he is not merely subject to the law, but that he is the very embodiment of it. In his mind, he is the alpha and omega of jurisprudence, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, the final word on all matters legal and otherwise.
It's a dizzying paradox, to be sure, and one that would require a level of intellectual gymnastics that would put even the most flexible of yogis to shame. But alas, poor Trump finds himself stymied by the cruel limitations of his fourth-grade vocabulary, unable to articulate the nuances of his legal philosophy in terms more sophisticated than "Very unfair!" and "Sad!"
One can only imagine the inner turmoil that must be raging within that orange-hued head of his. The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole while simultaneously arguing that the hole is actually a peg and the peg is a hole.
But fear not, dear friends, for even in the face of such existential angst, Trump remains undaunted. He may not be able to express the finer points of his legal worldview, but he can still take solace in the fact that he has the best words, the biggest words, the most beautiful words the world has ever seen. And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
Or (oh wise one, Gloria), he may be in sundown stage of dementia, up and about all night and sleeping in the daytime whether at trial or not. And yes, he will have the ‘best’ words: after all, did he not coin the two-word phrase “believe me”?
I’ve never believed anyone so much as Trump because he says that in a way that no one else ever has before.
xox💙
A group of neuroscientists, psychologists and psychiatrists came together to assess what they have observed re: Trump’s mental status. They wrote that he shows signs of dementia, including symptoms of aphasia (as seen when speaking at his rallies when he uses words that don’t make sense, seem meaningless. He’ll try to say a word but what comes out is nonsensical.) He thinks he is running against Obama at times and confuses which election this is (the year.) He rambles on and sometimes just trails off and puts his head down. It makes sense that sundowning is happening as he stays up quite late writing rage posts on his social media platform. Then he falls asleep in court.
Yes, Mary Ann, John Gartner was one of these psychiatrists and his interview with Jay Kuo was posted on Substack on April 11 ‘The Big Picture’ ‘ Trump’s brain is not OK.’ It was even more poignant to read Joyce’s and others’ reports of Trump nodding off in court. His brain is not OK and he needs medical treatment. The judge should order that.
That makes sense. Thank you. 🙏
WAIT!!!! You called me wise? Ha!
Thank you so very much! You are VERY talented. Your poetical eloquence has beautifully lifted my thoughts into the realm of lofty and not too subtly excoriating sarcasm far beyond what I had strived to achieve. In the future, I will be tempted to first submit my thoughts to you for transposition into the likes of Dryden, Pope and Keats.
I’d be willing to try. 😀
I would like to take you up on your gracious offer. I have found great beauty and solace in the poetry of W. B Yeats, and would like to request that you allow him to serve as your momentary Muse to do a riff on the famous last 2 lines of his poem "Among School Children", of which I am taking the liberty of transposing into the following:
"O heat-oppressed mind , O preening glance,
How can we know the con-man from the con?"
You are clearly in stride and in fine form here Gloria... such a wordsmith extraordinaire 👌🎯
I’m humbled. Thank you.
Philosopher King??🥴🥴 Oh those delusions of grandeur.
L.D. Michaels, I don't know who the former president hates more - himself or the rest of us. He's as desperate as he is because he despises himself, and that explains his obsessive need for attention. Once a favorite of his, Hope Hicks, testifies against him, that will be a show! Those of us who can't stand him are mirroring his estimation of himself. The guy's got a great act going; I'm thinking of Death of a Salesman. When it's this salesman's turn, the 'Wows' will go around the world.
The implosion is coming.
You are very funny. Drumpf doesn't know what the word 'articulating' means,
Joyce, thank you for this thorough insight into jury selection. You have made it much clearer speaking to all the nuances that may happen.
This is really going forward. It seems it has taken forever with all the delays. I am so grateful that we have you to guide us through this journey.
Amen and well expressed Monica.
Thank you 😊
💙
Thanks so much Joyce!! I'm wondering what the chances are they'll sequester the Jury? I know Prosecutors hate doing that because it puts so much pressure on them. But it's an option too since there's so much media attention on this case.
Just a thought. Glad we're all in this together!! ❤️🇺🇸💙
Hi Lisa, My thought as well - to keep them safe from harm, having police protection going to and from their hotel. But unspeakably difficult for a parent of a young child. If it’s six weeks, it’s simply too long for that kind of separation.
Maybe but they did it with the OJ jurors. I forget exactly long that was. It was awhile though. They let the families come visit too if I remember correctly.
Hi. Lisa,
Allowing the families to visit would help to change the scenario. It would help the jurors to see their families to have dinner and bedtime story time, so they would have that physical presence. And if it were a two person couple, they would have that other person to ‘tuck them in.’ But allowing those kinds of visits In this Trump created environment with MAGA followers willing to do the sociopath’s bidding creates a logistical nightmare. Harken back to the social conditions surrounding OJ. OJ. didn’t have a group of crazed supporters at his beck and call trying to find sitting jurors’ residences to make threats and then act them out. That threat looms after the trial, but Judge Merchan did not disclose to the jurors that their identities were protected because he didn’t want to cause that alarm. Unless they were well informed, they wouldn’t know that. Because we’re part of this Substack, we have more information than the average citizen. Another way we differ in our social climate from that of OJ’s trial is the way reporters disclose every piece of information they can get their hands on - and this will be turned into a circus because of the salacious tone. A clown reporter for Washington Post disclosed information on two so far as what their jobs were and the general neighborhoods where they lived. I didn’t read the reporter’s disclosure myself, and there was a disclosure like this was in the comments to another article in the Washington Post. ‘Loose lips’ needs to be a policy for reporters, and if they don’t have enough sense to be discreet, they should be monitored by an editor with some common sense. Trump is already creating his victimized persona: his first daily news conference entailed a whine that the judge wouldn’t allow him to attend Barron’s high school graduation, including that Baron had worked so hard and had always looked forward to both his mother and father attending his graduation. No part of Trump acknowledges that he created the situation that caused the criminal trial. So now Melania has to explain to Barron that daddy can’t be home tonight because he allegedly committed a crime and has to be in.court. What about flying his private jet to Miami after court, attending the graduation and sleeping on the plane going back to New York arriving in plenty of time for the trial. Unless the order from the judge says he can’t leave the city of New York. His privileged and he caused this problem for himself. And now he’s caused problems for citizens who have stepped up to honor their jury duty at the expense of their families. It would be a tough call for a juror, but in the interest of safety, they might up to have zoom calls as do military families.
Not sure but I think if the judge intended to sequester the jury, that decision might have been made earlier. And that’s kind of the purpose of the gag order and the judge’s keeping certain information on the jurors from Trump.
Used to be --- and not so very long ago --- NY criminal trial jurors would automatically be sequestered. But you're right, Merchan would have ordered that by now considering the defendant's history and the notoriety of the trial. He does reserve the right, however, to change his mind if things go sideways in terms of the tenor of Trump's rants --- and particularly if a juror name or two is leaked, despite his order in that regard. Trump is very much like a wounded animal and likewise at his most dangerous to himself and others, so IMO, he was, and is now even more capable of doing anything.
I believe I heard this jury will not be sequestered.
There really is no reason for it.
Is that ever done only once deliberations start ?
I am wondering the same thing, thank you for asking!
That might have to happen.
Thank you, Joyce. I predicted yesterday that we would ave a jury by April 26, looks like we may. With this trial taking place in New York and the next one hopefully in DC I have faith the jurists will be honest, listen carefully, and come to a rational decision. The trial in Florida, not so much. Any citizens of a State that thinks Ron DeSantis is an appropriate governor has a questionable mentality.
New York and DC I trust. Georgia too, in spite of bimbo taylor greene, they do have some bright spots like Raffensperger and Fani Willis
Thank you Joyce, for your sage words, guiding those of us who have not been in front of, or on a jury. I am especially grateful to hear that you have faith in this system. So far, it’s been working in New York with E. Jean Carroll’s case. You must be exhausted, so I hope you are having some time with Bella, Tofu and the chickens, and your family receiving unconditional, love and regeneration. 💙
Valere, I too have faith in the jury system, and it comes from nearly 20 years in the federal system and another 12 in various state courts. This case certainly is different because of the defendant’s sociopathy and constant violation of rules and norms, not to mention gag orders, but the extremely thorough voir dire that this judge is doing is absolutely the best way to ensure an honest and fair jury. As mentioned above, the rest of the jurors will be able to tell if one or more of their number is not deliberating in good faith, and with six alternates, that can be addressed at the appropriate time.
Thank you. Are you indicating that if one is not deliberating in good faith, that individual can be reported and booted?
I have seen it happen albeit not in a situation like this of course, this situation being unprecedented. I have seen situations where jurors have been booted for various reasons, i.e., bullying, smuggling contraband (not drugs but emails about the case) into the jury room, and one time a juror who just refused to participate in deliberations, which may be the closest to this situation as I’ve seen, the juror was excused, and all parties agreed to substitute an alternate. The jury’s then instructed to start their deliberations from the beginning. But I don’t know what the rules in NY are for this situation.
Thank you.
No, relief would probably not be that immediate. Jury deliberations are sacrosanct. Alternate jurors are available in case of illness of a juror, but if a juror is caught breaking the rules, for instance, been seen having lunch with Trump during the trial, the trial judge could boot the juror and call up an alternate, or in the alternative declare a mistrial.
I believe it's at the digression of the judge.
I think you mean “discretion,” right?
I did. Thanks.😀😀
I’ve already commented about the possibility of a Trump supporter weaseling themselves onto the jury to sabotage a conviction. I am heartened by discussion of the possibility of rejection of a juror who does not negotiate in good faith. A clever holdout could probably get around this, but as we all know, MAGAts are not known for their intelligence.
Ironically, on Monday, when summoned (via the county), I had to play my "over age 70 get out of jury free card" (due to my worsening immune disorder). My two previous experiences on a jury were enlightening - like "age of enlightenment" enlightening: How good citizens can respectfully hear and watch, then just as respectfully deliberate and decide (even when most of us JUST KNEW that scrappy teenager was guilty and that fashionably stillettoed shopkeeper was innocent. Not!). After reading Joyce's article and these comments I have hope. Thank You.
Katie Phang, copied in "Seven' wrote:
'There has been lots of talk about the possibility of a stealth juror—someone who pretends to be neutral but who, once seated on the jury, will refuse to vote to convict no matter how strong the evidence is.'
Katie neglected to also write the reverse; a 'stealth juror' could also be one determined to find Trump guilty because he or she 'knows' the former president is guilty of so many crimes against the country and or people he hasn't paid...there are so many crimes he committed this 'stealth juror' cannot account for them all.
Well, we'll give that juror a free pass, but just this once!
joyce, i have two questions: you have used the term “strike” when discussing jury selection. i take it this is synonymous with “seat.” but i guess there’s some reason to use “strike.” what is it?
also, do the alternate jurors know from the start that they’re alternates, or do they find out only when jury deliberations begin?
thanks. you are doing all of us a great sevice here.
In the event Joyce is catching her breath, I'll presume to answer for her. As for the "strike" question: to "strike" a potential juror means to challenge or remove them from consideration. Also, alternates (six in this case) are chosen after regular jurors and do know that are are understudies from the beginning. They hear the evidence just as the other jurors do, but they don’t participate in the deliberations unless they replace an original juror.
thanks. i was referring to this, from joyce’s april 8 substack. “Apparently, jurors will not be asked which Substack newsletters they read. That seems like a glaring oversight. On the other hand, I’d be willing to bet that a surprising number of potential jurors will tick the box to say they don’t follow the news. This never failed to surprise me when striking a jury.” did she mean “juror”?
Ah yes, used in that sense (actually, it is technically the same sense) --- a "struck jury" is the process of selecting a jury from a pool which, of course, does involve "striking" or removing from consideration potential jurors either for cause or via peremptory challenge (no cause).
ok, thanks.
Another question regarding the alternates … Once deliberations begin if a juror appears to be unwilling to budge on their opinion of the outcome, they will not deliberate, can they be struck!
I assume you mean deliberations for a verdict, since jurors are usually instructed not to discuss the case among themselves until then. So, unfortunately no. The judge would send the jury back to try again and could do several times. If a unanimous verdict is not forthcoming after extended deliberation, the jury would be declared as "hung," and the prosecution would have the option to retry the case with a new jury.
Thank you.
Alternates know from the beginning they're alternates.
On another legal podcast I listen to alternates are named only AFTER the jury is seated
Not in New York. They know they are alternates.
In the face of the daunting task before them, the prosecutors in this case have demonstrated an admirable steadfastness and unwavering commitment to the principles of justice. They have navigated the treacherous waters of jury selection with the deft touch of seasoned professionals, undeterred by the looming specter of a defendant whose very name has become synonymous with chaos and controversy.
And yet, even as they confront the myriad challenges inherent in this most unusual of cases, they do so with a quiet confidence born of an abiding faith in the fundamental soundness of our legal system. For all its flaws and imperfections, the American jury remains a bulwark against tyranny and a guardian of our most cherished freedoms.
It is true, of course, that the specter of jury nullification looms large over these proceedings. The siren song of partisan loyalties and ideological affinities may prove too seductive for some to resist. But to succumb to such temptations would be to abdicate the sacred duty with which every juror is entrusted - to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented, free from the taint of bias or prejudice.
And so, as this drama unfolds before us, let us take heart in the knowledge that the prosecutors in this case are guided by a fierce commitment to the rule of law and an unwavering belief in the fundamental decency of their fellow citizens. They will not be cowed by the bluster and bravado of a defendant who has made a career of sowing discord and division. They will not be swayed by the machinations of those who seek to subvert the course of justice for their own selfish ends.
Instead, they will press on, secure in the knowledge that the truth will ultimately prevail, and that justice will be served. And in so doing, they will reaffirm the enduring strength and resilience of a legal system that has weathered countless storms and emerged all the stronger for it.
So let us watch and wait with bated breath as this riveting drama plays out before us. And let us never lose sight of the fact that, in the end, it is not the bombast of the defendant or the histrionics of his enablers that will carry the day, but rather the quiet, steady dedication of those who have sworn to uphold the law and to see justice done.
Maybe she doesn’t want to read your comments either. We are here for a variety of reasons. Some to simply be better informed. A common refrain is to thank the writer but I’m sure Joyce is not reading the hundreds of comments. Others post comments to engage with each other and create dialogue. Still others hope their own blogs are picked up by readers as I hope my blog is. So we have a myriad of reasons and I would caution kindness and forbearance. If you are irritated just move on and read other comments. Maybe we are irritated by you repeating your refrain. But also perhaps you find it therapeutic to post such and if this is so, then I trust it improves your overall disposition.
Judith, please stop. I tend to agree with your take that sometimes there are people who highjack conversations for the purpose of hearing their own voice rather than engaging in the conversation. I agree that people who want to can go to the other substack. I also think it is just as disruptive to keep hammering on about it. Just scroll past. As for this post: it is innappropriate and, well, Trump-like. If that is all you've got to contribute, please take it elsewhere.
Good try but she clearly needs counseling and medication.
Not our call, Bill. Your comment is out of line.
Interesting that two attorneys made it on to the jury so far. There's at least two schools of thought among trial types about having fellow lawyers on juries. A little known, but perhaps surmised fact: trial lawyers are self-entitled to a minimum of two opinions on any one subject... 😊
I'm surprised that two lawyers made it on the jury. But I am unaware of vocations that might be excluded. I know that engineers are easily kicked off; I suppose because they are too practical and will poke holes in logic. I assume in the best sense if lawyers are on the jury, then they will have some interesting viewpoints to consider. If not, it could be deadlocked.
The "pro" is they would think like lawyers; the "con" being, they would think like lawyers.
All too true, but I think the lawyers on the jury will not be able to resist explaining the fine points of the law to the other jurors. While usurping the prerogative of the judge who is the law explainer, it might be instructive for jurors who think this case is merely about a payoff to a porn star.
Amusing as I tried to be, you are, of course, correct. And since we're dealing here with essentially a two-step or phase alleged crime (misdemeanor elevated to a Class E felony) based on a somewhat novel, but reasonable, theory, having an attorney (or two) on the jury could be very useful, especially for the prosecution.
I did think it was amusing. I always appreciate lawyer jokes, unless someone quotes Shakespeare (“First, let’s kill all the lawyers”) without putting it in context. See William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.
I would think that it would benefit the defense having someone who can make sure the jury is clear on what Bragg needs to prove to convict at the felony level.
Yes, of course. But in that way too their education and expertise helps the prosecution --- assuming the defense will keep raising the burden of proof issue anyway --- presuming the lawyers can properly frame and simplify what it (the defense) will try to complicate and confuse further, especially in terms of the applicable laws.
Totally agree Laura. When we are not an attorney, we tend to go off on a tangent or a tailspin. That is what is really great about this Substack having prosecutors and civil rights lawyers, a couple of judges to keep us centered more or less when Joyce is not able to do one on one responses. I can only think it will be helpful and then it’s up to the jury members to sift and weigh the evidence (But the added guidance would only help in my view).
Thanks, Valere. I’m a former state prosecutor and my true calling was criminal appellate work. Not as lucrative perhaps as civil law but far more fascinating. I was never picked for a jury but I’ve picked plenty of them.
Laura, we will be leaning on you plenty in the next six weeks. Gird up your loins, it’s almost like you’ll be back in court again💙
💙
😆
Prosecutors have learned the hard way not to exclude “classes” of potential jurors. First, the assumptions might not always be true, and second, the famous Batson case (SCOTUS) that prohibits cutting potential jurors on the sole basis of race, has been extended, i.e., construed by other courts to include other classes. Following jury selection, the smart defense lawyer will lodge an objection based on Batson, and the judge is required to hold a hearing on the record where the prosecutor bears the burden of explaining why a certain juror was cut. It’s absolutely terrifying. But it’s more terrifying to be writing a brief on appeal following a conviction, looking at a “cold” record where the trial prosecutor screwed up the hearing.
They always ask what you do for a living regardless. A person might consider the logic of the prosecution or defense, either way could torpedo. A person with these tendencies might have a hard time deciding guilt or innocence because of their total belief in their own logic. I have come to believe that most of Engineering 101 is, “Never be wrong.”
And don't forget that there are many kinds of lawyers and they can have very different skills.
Scientists are often tossed from juries.
As are progressive pastors.
Sociology professor. Never been selected! Bawhaha.
Not surprised. Your knowing how society actually works, as opposed to the strictly legal view, would presumably automatically disqualify you. Something along the lines of, the "truth" setting you free.
Exactly!
Actually David, Trial attorneys hire experts for opinion testimony but, only if the expert passes the initial screening by the Gatekeeper, the Judge. Trial Attorney opinions have no evidentiary value whatsoever. Full stop.
The state of New York has its own rules evidence, but, generally Trial Attorneys' argument is not evidence. Judges instruct Jurys on the Law not Attorneys. Jurors are bound by their impartial, common sense.
I concur with the Professor, Jurys understand their duties & it all works out.
I was surprised by that, too!
Thanks Joyce,
Whatever the verdict much will come out that is unpresidential and it’s the verdict at the polls that counts!
I look forward to seeing justice done (with balance and blindfold) & be true to our values!
Jurors represent the Best of Us as a nation. As our service members do! Jurors are our fellow citizens, those we ask & trust to make decisions based on evidence & through their thoughtfulness give us decisions that Will help repair the injury we, our society, and our country suffered.
I don’t live in NYC or even on one of the “coasts” - but I believe we can trust our fellow Americans in NYC to do their service honorably, honestly.
Thanks again, Joyce for being you! And helping us through this moment in time, our living American history lesson happening in NYC.
Thank you Joyce. Being a bit off is just fine. Better sooner than later .Your explainations of the intricacys help so much in keeping it all straight.
I want to say something that may offend others’ sensibilities: I’m actually not confident that Trump is guilty -- because I haven’t heard all the evidence. Because I too believe in juries.
Not always, God knows.
But when I hear people talking about how a jury got it wrong in some prominent trial, I think, “They are the ones who actually heard every piece of evidence and decided the case. Not those who heard only sound bites on the evening news.”
I hope he’s convicted because of what a danger he is. But we haven’t actually heard the evidence yet. We have to just stay tuned.
I think we do have access to one very good piece of evidence: Michael Cohen went to jail on pretty much these charges.
Certainly under the very system he wants to tear apart if he's allowed to get close to the White House again, he enjoys the presumption of innocence for now (not a constitutional guarantee per se, btw). Having said that, and made an effort to inform myself of as much of the vetted, public information available as possible (although not necessarily admissible as evidence in court, I am quick to add) --- even with that presumption and my training --- I am more than willing to find him guilty of at least one of the 34 counts. Haven't decided yet, however, whether I'll go for the federal or state campaign finance law violation, election interference or tax fraud.
I agree with you in principle. If I were sitting on the jury, I would absolutely expect Bragg to prove the election interference before convicting. I can't condemn him for his contempt for the rule of law if I don't follow it myself.
But, for the purposes of discussion, I don't really have a problem with assuming he's guilty. The evidence I've heard and the defense (or lack thereof) presented by Trump tends to point in that direction. That assumption is conditional and made with full knowledge I don't necessarily have all the facts.
I don’t mean I’m without opinions. But let’s hear it all unfold. Of course one strong data point is Trump’s desperate effort to delay the trial.
I appreciate your position but I will be surprised if we learn much that we don't already know.