• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you keep a Trump supporter off a Jury?

MrWonka said:
I'm not sure if you know what the definition of the word many is. In fact, according to polls, there were more Hillary supporters in 2008 that voted for McCain than there were Bernie supporters who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Many is a bunch. Probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Maybe it doesn't extend into millions but, then again, maybe it does.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that a trump supporter on the Manafort jury tried to keep Manafort from being convicted on all 18 items charged and did eventually lock up ten of the charges so the judge went with mistrial on those ten. The other jurors finally got her to agree to the 8 he was convicted on since the evidence was so overwhelming and not based on anyone's word, but on the documents. So my question is can you keep a Trump supporter off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump?
Click to expand...
both sides get a limited number of objections to jurors during juror selection, so I guess technically yes you could, but not all because the other side may want a Trump supporter on the jury
 
independentusa said:
It seems that a trump supporter on the Manafort jury tried to keep Manafort from being convicted on all 18 items charged and did eventually lock up ten of the charges so the judge went with mistrial on those ten. The other jurors finally got her to agree to the 8 he was convicted on since the evidence was so overwhelming and not based on anyone's word, but on the documents. So my question is can you keep a Trump supporter off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump?
Click to expand...

Obviously you are completely ignorant of what happened but, as usual, you dont let your own ignorance and bias prevent you from starting a stupid thread like this. What we know about the jury deliberations comes from a woman who proudly declared herself a Trump supporter and wanted Manafort to be innocent. She voted guilty on all charges and tried her best to persuade the lone holdout who, by the way has NOT been identified as a Trump supporter. Maybe its dumb liberals who should be kept off juries. Ever consider that?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
both sides get a limited number of objections to jurors during juror selection, so I guess technically yes you could, but not all because the other side may want a Trump supporter on the jury
Click to expand...

That is correct. Each side gets anywhere from 3-6 Peremptory Challenges and they can use them as they see fit. Hence an attorney could choose to use one for a perspective juror for that reason. Once the Peremptory Challenges are exhausted the Judge has much more influence and in truth the Judge has a good deal of influence throughout the process. A Federal Court Judge is a powerful component of a Federal Court trial. Some choose to walk softly and carry a big stick. Some choose to walk loudly and carry a big stick. In all cases, its a big stick.
 
Trump supporter's prohibited from serving on a jury?

Good question.

On the surface, I'd have to say no. Even a Trump supporter shares the same responsibilities as every other American, one being jury duty.

But, in the Trumper world of "alt-facts" and "alt-truth" and an alternate reality that defies facts, evidence, logic and the dictates of reason, coupled with their blaring hypocrisy, I can see how some might consider them unqualified to serve on a jury or decide the fate of another human being.

But what ya gonna do? Can't shoot 'em.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that a trump supporter on the Manafort jury tried to keep Manafort from being convicted on all 18 items charged and did eventually lock up ten of the charges so the judge went with mistrial on those ten. The other jurors finally got her to agree to the 8 he was convicted on since the evidence was so overwhelming and not based on anyone's word, but on the documents. So my question is can you keep a Trump supporter off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump?
Click to expand...

Apparently not:

Peremptory Challenges

No reason is required for a lawyer to use a peremptory challenge to excuse a potential juror. Such challenges allow each side to dismiss jurors who are otherwise qualified, but appear likely to favor the opposing party. However, peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race or class. Lawyers only have a specified number of peremptory challenges available—that number varies from state to state and depending on the nature of the case (a misdemeanor, felony, or death penalty trial).
Click to expand...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html

If I had to guess, I'd say political affiliation was a class.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Not weirder than how so many people who love a person blatantly ignore all the horrible things they've done which go against everything they have historically said they stand for.

Trump supporters at this point are like insecure little girls who started dating a horribly abusive boyfriend. It doesn't matter what their friends and family members do to try and help them see how horrible he is they simply can't accept that reality. Admitting that they made such a horrible mistake in making one of the most important choices of their lives would be so devastating to their ego that they would never recover. So instead they double down on their mistake and desperately try to convince themselves that the horrible things their boyfriend says and does to them are somehow his way of showing her how much he loves them.

I just want Trump supporters to know that when you're ready to admit to the horrible mistake you've made I will try to be as supportive as I possibly can.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they appreciate your concern.
 
MrWonka said:
Ummm... no. The electoral college, the Senate, the whole idea of a Representative democracy, the bill of rights, the judicial branch, the Federal Government itself was all designed out of a fear of rabid populism. They knew they wanted to and needed to make sure all the people had a say, but they were terrified that the uneducated masses would be too easily swayed by a populist demagogue.



Sure, but not demagogues. They recognized the danger of rabid and irrational hate.
Click to expand...
The rabid and irrational hate is coming from the left not trump

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
jnug said:
Each side gets a certain number of peremptory juror challenges. If one side or another uses a challenge to remove a perspective juror then it would take an overwhelming amount of discretion on the part of the judge to overturn that challenge. So what we have been discussing here is a Judge overruling a preemptory challenge. Frankly, I thought that was understood. Its been done but I doubt it would be likely in these circumstances.

Whether a Judge would do it within the court's purview of Juror selection, outside of the peremptory challenges from each side, depends on the trial and it depends on the Judge. I would not put anything past Judge Ellis given the nonsense from his bench. He appears capable of just about anything.
Click to expand...



From what I recall, a peremptory juror challenge still requires a reason. I don't think that the prospective juror is a Trump supporter would hold water. Or?
 
jnug said:
That is correct. Each side gets anywhere from 3-6 Peremptory Challenges and they can use them as they see fit. Hence an attorney could choose to use one for a perspective juror for that reason. Once the Peremptory Challenges are exhausted the Judge has much more influence and in truth the Judge has a good deal of influence throughout the process. A Federal Court Judge is a powerful component of a Federal Court trial. Some choose to walk softly and carry a big stick. Some choose to walk loudly and carry a big stick. In all cases, its a big stick.
Click to expand...

I was in the jury pool for jury selection, I actually wanted to get picked, but my god was it boring. The same questions being asked over and over again.

That's one thing that annoys me about the show Bull (on top of other things like jury tampering) is they act like their side is the only one that can approve a juror. Plus they speak at a side bar, they don't openly say if a juror is approved or not. they also only did 4 at a time until they filled all 4. First time in a court for me, was interesting. Didn't know they turned on white noise for the side bar
 
bluesmoke said:
From what I recall, a peremptory juror challenge still requires a reason. I don't think that the prospective juror is a Trump supporter would hold water. Or?
Click to expand...

What you are referring to is a Challenge for Cause.

A Challenge for Cause does require a reason and the Judge if he feels justified may contest the Challenge for Cause. Peremptory Challenges are those challenges allotted to each side that are beyond being contested or at least should be. I termed a Judge contesting a Peremptory Challenge as a Judge using a very high degree of discretionary control. Another way to say that would be balls of brass! If an attorney felt that a Trump supporter deserved using one of his Peremptory Challenges the attorney can use one that way and there is very little anybody can do about it.

Takes some real nuts to contest a Preemptory Challenge and it is a poor job by an attorney who leaves himself open to criticism for a Peremptory Challenge that he makes. Would have to screw up royally to get his butt in that predicament. But it is not at all unusual for an attorney's Challenge for Cause to be contested. Unless a perspective juror exhibited extreme bias or prejudice, I don't think just being a Trump supporter would get by as a Challenge for Cause.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
It's hard to come up with a context for blowing down someone's door that isn't violence.
Click to expand...

It's along the lines of saying "we'll crush them" or "we'll kick their asses", and I suspect you know that...
 
independentusa said:
The question is if a trump supporter is so tied to trump that they can't be impartial, even if they say they can? It would seem that this was so in this case and I know of others, some in my own family that say they will back Trump no matter what Mueller comes up with as it is all a witch hunt. So evidence or no, they just will believe not what they actually see or hear, they will believe only what Trump tells them. Kind of scary.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Seems you believe that those who dislike Trump would be unbiased but someone who likes Trump would be. Sorry , I don't buy it.

imo, we all have our biases and opinions that can alter ones views.
 
independentusa said:
It seems that a trump supporter on the Manafort jury tried to keep Manafort from being convicted on all 18 items charged and did eventually lock up ten of the charges so the judge went with mistrial on those ten. The other jurors finally got her to agree to the 8 he was convicted on since the evidence was so overwhelming and not based on anyone's word, but on the documents. So my question is can you keep a Trump supporter off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump?
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculously stupid assumption.

If this juror really voted the way he/she did for political purposes, they would have voted that was on all of the counts.
 
MrWonka said:
Because it's pretty ****ing obvious that a registered Republican like Robert Mueller wouldn't be charging high ranking Republicans with crimes unless he was really god damn sure they were guilty of them. Sometimes hatred is valid. Some people deserve hate because they've earned it, and Trump and his filthy followers have earned every drop of hate they have received by their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

How does a conviction on any of the counts in this case affect Trump?

All of these charges stem from action that took place before Manafort was working with Trump.
 
jnug said:
I no longer care to even have faith in the Trump cultists his base or whatever anybody wants to call them. They are as disgusting and contemptible as he is. Fortunately there simply is not that many of them. We are going to have to blow their doors off in November.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the juror talking to the press is a Trump supporter who voted to convict, and it is not clear that the holdout was motivated by politics.
 
independentusa said:
The question is if a trump supporter is so tied to trump that they can't be impartial, even if they say they can? It would seem that this was so in this case and I know of others, some in my own family that say they will back Trump no matter what Mueller comes up with as it is all a witch hunt. So evidence or no, they just will believe not what they actually see or hear, they will believe only what Trump tells them. Kind of scary.
Click to expand...

First, how do you know that was the case with this juror?

Second, if the juror says they can be impartial, how would you know any different during jury selection?
 
Visbek said:
Keep in mind that the juror talking to the press is a Trump supporter who voted to convict, and it is not clear that the holdout was motivated by politics.
Click to expand...

Reality doesn't seem to get in the way of their narrative.

As a side note, I just watched the series that cute little Red Panda in your avatar is from 3 times. I had to show it to my son. He loved it.

Now we can't wait for season two.
 
Mason66 said:
How does a conviction on any of the counts, in this case, affect Trump?

All of these charges stem from an action that took place before Manafort was working with Trump.
Click to expand...

A.) it just goes to show the type of scum that Trump loves to surround himself with.

B.) Manafort was in the meeting with Trump Jr at Trump Tower with the Russians. Once a scumbag like Manafort is forced to deal with the reality that he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison getting him to spill dirt on Trump Jr and or Trump himself shouldn't be that difficult.

C.) It's not just Manafort. It's Cohen, it's head of the Trump organization, it's the head of the Enquirer. Everyone knows at this point that Trump is guilty of every crime he's been accused of it's just a matter of making the case so overwhelming that even Republicans in Congress can no longer deny reality.
 
Mason66 said:
That is a ridiculously stupid assumption.

If this juror really voted the way he/she did for political purposes, they would have voted that was on all of the counts.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. According to other jurors this woman wanted to vote no on all counts, but the other jurors convinced her that the evidence was so overwhelming that she could not do anything but rule for conviction on the 8 she agreed to. Apparently she decided that to vote no on these would look too prejudiced against any conviction and make here look stuppid.
 
MrWonka said:
A.) it just goes to show the type of scum that Trump loves to surround himself with.

B.) Manafort was in the meeting with Trump Jr at Trump Tower with the Russians. Once a scumbag like Manafort is forced to deal with the reality that he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison getting him to spill dirt on Trump Jr and or Trump himself shouldn't be that difficult.

C.) It's not just Manafort. It's Cohen, it's head of the Trump organization, it's the head of the Enquirer. Everyone knows at this point that Trump is guilty of every crime he's been accused of it's just a matter of making the case so overwhelming that even Republicans in Congress can no longer deny reality.
Click to expand...

A. Prove Trump knew about any of this. I seriously doubt he did.

B. You think this is all about leverage? I think this is about Muller justifying his role in this. At least he got a few convictions, right?

C. Nobody knows he is guilty of anything. They might think it, but they don't know.

Good try on that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom