"My juror": Trump believed a loyalist on the jury could save him, until the very end
"My juror": Trump believed a loyalist on the jury could save him, until the very end
Award-winning news and culture, features breaking news, in-depth reporting and criticism on politics, science, food and entertainment.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder if others on the jury helped them see the light. Or maybe the nodding and smiling was sarcasm, or even intentionally trolling Trump. Fun to think about.
The thing is, you can sometimes get through to these Trump supporters if you can deprogram them from their echo-chamber... That requires very long conversations, an expose of facts, dismantling of their fallacies, and keeping them away from right-wing propaganda and peer pressure for an extended period of time.
... Which just so happens to be what jurors go through.
That's a nice wholesome take. Reminds me of this man:
Thanks for sharing, hadn't read this before!
Doing this right now with my in-laws who are from India and deeply Modi-fied.
Six weeks is all it would take to undo years of brainwashing from every direction? I doubt it.
It could very well be a case of “Never meet your childhood heroes”. Trump probably acted like a spoiled brat and the juror saw it first hand.
Trump did; it's a matter of public record. He violated court instructions about blabbing to the media ten times, and was held in contempt by the judge twice.
He repeatedly make false and misleading statements about the trial, the judge, the witnesses, and even the jury on social media and to the press in the entrance hall of the court building itself. The idiot just couldn't stop himself.
Had he been a regular citizen instead of a former president, he would have almost certainly done jail time just for his behavior during the trial.
*smelled
That's a good point.
Six weeks plus 11 people worth of peer pressure all getting increasingly pissed off at you for wasting their time with your obstinate dumbassery, I guess.
There was an article around here this week, and I didn't read further about it, saying it only takes a few days off FB to get people to turn around on conspiracy theories.
I guess lies take constant reinforcement?
Six weeks in a different environment is a long time. Talk to people about their first six weeks on a new job; or at boot camp; or even summer camp.
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
Instead, I believe they're presented with all the facts and arguments, then determine based on that information whether or not the the prosecution's claims hold up.
So its more of a "based on the facts you have been presented with, do you think the defendant did X", rather than "should the defendant be punished for this crime?"
Most Trump supporters understand that he's a criminal, but believe that his actions are in service of the greater good. So in a situation like this the distinction between "do the facts line up" and "should he be punished" is an important one.
I was on a jury in Texas in 2019 and we were tasked with both.
First part: Based on the facts you have been presented, do you think defendant did X?
If yes
Second part: You have determined that defendant did X. Now determine the punishment
That second part was by far the more difficult of the two
The judge gets to decide the sentence here.
The judge that Trump has insulted & threatened for the past 7 weeks.
I know. The original post sounded pretty universal so I was giving an example of how some states do it differently.
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause 'reasonable doubt'.
yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury's decision significantly. For example, they're not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.
None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn't make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it's blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)
Close, but jury instructions are very particular.
"This is the exact law and how it works. Did the defendant run afoul of this law?"
A competent judge and prosecutor forces the whole show to stay exactly in those bounds.
It's... complicated, but sort of yes.
A jury isn't strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called "jury nullification"). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because "everyone knows they did it", or something like that. Or because they did something and they can't exactly prove that or another charge.
And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.
I don't think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.
Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state's laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.
I’ve had some progress with a local trumpet, but he has too many friends pulling him back for the effects to last long.
He snaps out of it when I point out how capitalism (billionaires) is often the problem, or how the Rs block immigration reform. He’s been able to see some truth now and then. But later he turns his TV on and it’s all Hunter Biden’s fault for him again. Also for some reason we’re all gonna eat bugs lately.
The bugs thing is cause they dont understand synthetic meat. Its based off of an older conspiracy from the 90s though.
Yeah, I just said “you mean lab grown meat? if tasteslike hamburger and doesn’t have to be full of antibiotics (and methane) I’m for it.”
He actually liked the idea of no antibiotics (fits with his doctors bad mindset).
Fact is, sustaining an increasing population is going to involve using insects as food.
If that's what actually happened, I wonder if those things stick when he re-enters civilian life to go back to having Fox News blaring 24/7.
That's exactly the kind of thing a New Yorker would do. "Oh, yeah, sure, I'm on your side, buddy, we got so much in common."
Hahahaha, I very much want to believe this is what happened.
It’s my head cannon, don’t care if it’s true
I seem to recall seeing an infographic (uncertain of its provenance) indicating that one juror listed the NY Post as a frequent news source. That guy's presence on the jury certainly had me concerned.
The infographic I saw said one juror got their news from only Truth Social and Twitter.
I live in New York. I saw the Post's headline yesterday. "Injustice!"
There was one juror who got their news from Truth Social and Twitter so I am guessing they were not trolling.
I would tell you I got my news from God if it meant I could put a nail in Trump’s coffin ;)
One of the jurors followed Trump on truth social, it was maybe him?
Sometimes i flip on fox just to see what the monkeys are up to today.