The first week of Donald Trump's "hush money" trial will come to a close on Friday and, after some fits and starts, jury selection is finally nearing completion. Despite moving toward likely opening statements on Monday after filling out the panel of 12 jurors and six alternates, questions about the hands in which Trump's fate now lies — and how they were selected — are justifiably growing.
For one, the math was never in Trump's favor. With almost universal name recognition — from his time hosting "The Apprentice" shows, being a staple of New York society, and then president of the United States — and wall-to-wall coverage of the legal cases brought against him since leaving office, most everyone knows and has an opinion of him. In a jurisdiction where he drew some 12 percent support in the last election, the deck was seemingly stacked against him. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg certainly counted on it.
As was predictable, more than half of the 200-member pool called this week self-identified as being unable to consider the case fairly and impartially.
The first day saw 96 members of the pool called before the judge. When asked if they believed they'd be unable to consider the case fairly, more than 50 raised their hands and were dismissed.
After two already-seated jurors were excused — one who believed her identity as a juror had become public and no longer believed she could be fair and impartial and another who prosecutors believed had given inaccurate answers to questions — another 96 members of the pool were brought in. Again, when asked if anyone would be unable to consider the case impartially, 48 raised their hands and were excused.
That is, fewer than half of potential jurors even thought they could adjudicate claims presented in a trial against Trump fairly — and that was before they'd even faced the 42 multi-part questions laid out by the judge in the trial's juror questionnaire.
Unsurprisingly, the questionnaire turned up even more hostile-to-Trump members of the pool. Some were forced to read their previous social media posts calling him every name in the book. "Oops, that sounds bad," one potential juror admitted of her screeds against Trump that ultimately saw her dismissed.
The courtroom sounded like the green room at CNN or MSNBC at times as potential jurors explained their feelings about Trump and were required to read aloud their rants against a man whose 2020 loss many celebrated.
One prospective juror told the judge "I don't like [Trump's] persona" and "how he presents himself in public." Despite objections from the defense, she was seated as a juror because the former president's legal team had already used up its ten peremptory challenge "strikes" available to each side that allow a potential juror to be dismissed without explanation. Any other objections to a prospective juror's ability to be impartial must be explained and the judge must agree for them to be dismissed.
Judge Merchan, of course, has not remained above the political fray. As Townhall reported last year, the judge evaluating potential jurors' fitness to render a fair verdict in the case has donated to Democrats, including Joe Biden. In addition, Merchan donated to a group dedicated to "resisting Trump and the Republican Party."
In a jury pool where more than half self-identified as being too biased to make a fair judgment based on the facts presented in court, the number of peremptory challenges was simply not enough. With Merchan deciding on the fitness of other potential jurors beyond the ten peremptory strikes, the odds of impaneling an impartial jury shrunk again.
The idea of the right to be judged by a fair jury composed of one's contemporaries originated with the Magna Carta more than 800 years ago. "No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land," the charter declared.
Some 570 years after that document birthed the idea of a fair jury as a right, the ratification of the Bill of Rights brought Americans a similar guarantee for the accused to "enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
An impartial jury is Trump's — and any American's — right. Is that the case in New York where even a juror who expressed personal disapproval of the former president was seated because a judge — one who donated to Trump's 2020 and current opponent along with a group called "Stop Republicans" — believed the juror could be fair? In a case where Trump is under a gag order prohibiting him from speaking about key players in the trial even while they continue to bluster about him?
Like most of the Democrats' attempts to drag Trump down, they've ultimately given more credence to his talk of a "rigged witch hunt" seeking to keep him out of the White House by, seemingly, any means necessary.