Yes, but let’s not get too far from what Trump wanted to keep secret and is still the most damning. TRUMP HAD SEX WITH A PORN STAR WHEN HIS WIFE JUST GAVE BIRTH.
That’s the stuff he wanted to hide and which we should amplify.
Thank you, Jay. You have laid it out perfectly on how deliberations work as I have also witnessed this while sitting on a jury.
You have eased my worries this morning.
Our only way out of the disaster of thought that trump will win this election is to turn our anger and frustration into action. Help those who need to get registered and help them, if needed, to get to the polls, donate money and time where possible, write postcards,etc. We can take this home for Biden and all blue candidates if we continue to stay engaged. 💪🏼💙🗳️
I concur. I’ve sat on one civil and one criminal. Though I was an alternate on the criminal and was excused before deliberations, there wasn’t a doubt in my mind that the rest of the panel would do the right thing. I kept tabs on the docket and five hours later was proven right.
I’ve only ever been on a grand jury, but it’s definitely my experience that people take the job seriously.
I really don’t want us to forget that this is a defendant with a proven track record of summoning violent mobs to attack those who displease him; a defendant who (while not being significantly punished) was in fact cited 10 times for violating his gag order and attacking jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, the judge and the judge’s family, and demanding that others do so; and that one juror already backed out due to fear of exposure and physical harm. And it’s not like there was ever an actual legal or factual defense offered; just a combination of threats and “nihilistic-uh.”
I’ll take your word on the (un)likelihood of a hung jury, but in the event it does happen, I’d like us to be prepared to remind people of this context.
Yes, I too have been worried about the threats against the jurors and wonder if the fear of harm against them and their families may be a factor in their deliberations. But then I think of several Organized Crime Bosses (Gotti, Al Capone) who were found guilty by jurors who presumably were faced with similar threats.
Excellent piece of writing Jay, this topic is on the minds of most Americans this morning. I for one am feeling more reassured about the process having read your assessment. Thank you.
This was interesting to read, love the quip about ..a “New Yorker thing to do! “
Your story of being jury foreman was excellent! I used a similar tactic during my 25 year career. I worked for the Fed gov in a job that often entailed working with groups of 10 individuals or so, all scientists, on long complex projects. So there was always dissension, frustration and some hard feelings toward the one or two who in the end wouldn’t join a consensus. I made sure to include these folks in every lunch and evening dinner and drinks. I also sat next to them at meetings and gabbed casually with them during breaks. It wasn’t always easy initially! But it was amazing how soon we trusted each other enough that we could have civil discussions about our differences. Almost without fail, the dissenter agreed to disagree, sometimes with a few qualifications, and consensus was reached. I became known for diplomacy and folks with all sorts of positions would call to talk.
Isn’t it amazing how treating people with respect and friendliness can be so rewarding, to both parties? It’s such a simple thing. Let go of anger, ego and fear, just a bit and trust will prevail. I wish more folks would see your article….our country needs this example. The lack of civil discourse is in our democracy today is frightening.
Ann22, you express exactly how I feel with these words: "Isn’t it amazing how treating people with respect and friendliness can be so rewarding, to both parties? It’s such a simple thing. Let go of anger, ego and fear, just a bit and trust will prevail. I wish more folks would see your article….our country needs this example." May we all let go of anger, ego, and fear and listen to each other with respect and friendliness, exactly as you say.
I agree…not too old though, it’s really just who he is! It’s probably too late, but what really needs to happen is that we start talking nice to neighbors, Ex friends, estranged family, coworkers, all those we’ve lost since 2016 largely, mostly due to this toxic man. It’s gotta start sometime, somehow. No matter the outcome come Nov, we’d each personally be in better off in our own little lives…right?
“Now it’s up to 12 ordinary people who have given up seven weeks of their lives to sit in judgment of an ex-president, a historic first with the world’s eyes upon them. We wish them well in their deliberations. May they be relatively short and decisive.”
May it be so.
And God bless the members of the jury, each and everyone.
I went through voir dire in a murder trial in Texas. I told them that under no circumstances should someone be put to death by the state. They perd near ushered me out the door at gunpoint.
Thanks for the rational explanation. I recently watched the movie 12 Angry Men, which was my other experience with the American trial experience, so I know good will prevail :-)
Thank you for a rational and reasoned description. The wild and fevered speculations being proferred by MSM are growing tiresome.
Americans as a population tend not to have a powerful sense of history, either world or national. They are typically just fine with the pap that they ingested in public school, and often have only a few atolls of knowledge that poke up out of a sea of ignorance. I choose to believe however that the singular nature of this trial and its likely appearance in history texts going forwards has penetrated the jury's sense of its magnitude and importance. The fact of the trial and its circumstances greatly exceeds the charges themselves, and could be analogized as a very big fish caught with a very small hook.
Trump has largely succeeded in holding every other legal proceeding against him at bay. He has demonstrated his complete mastery of Roy Cohn's legal techniques and revealed just how porous the US justice system is if you have enough money to keep paying lawyers. I do not doubt that a guilty verdict will be appealed as a matter of course, extending Trump's timeline of legal jeopardy out into the indefinite future. Such a verdict however would become an ineradicable brand upon his "brand." After braying "Exonerated!" in the wake of the Mueller investigation and his two impeachments, completely contrary to what the results of those proceedings actually represent, Trump would be tattooed in permanent blue ink with the label "convicted felon" at long last and for all time.
Also, even if Dumpy appealed a guilty conviction, would that case be heard before the election? All these other cases are dragging through the legal system, so why would his appeal be any different? In other words, even if Dumpy appeals a guilty conviction, he'd still have CONVICTED FELON printed on his forehead and back going into the election.
I served on a jury decades ago. It was a clear case: the accused had been barred from possessing firearms and was found with a sawed off weapon of some sort in his house. But even so, the deliberations took time. Knowing that a guilty verdict will probably send someone to prison is a sobering thought. One woman agreed that he was guilty but it took her several hours and a lot of discussion between the jurors before she finally agreed to find him guilty. I was impressed by how seriously the jurors did their jobs.
I did a two week stint of jury service (in the UK) about 40 years ago and I was surprised at how seriously people took their responsibilities. I say on five cases in total (the longest was three days) and there was only one hung jury, ironically the one where I was elected foreman and also the longest. Our system is different to the US system in that the judge, in the case of a hung jury, can accept a majority verdict after s/he feels the jury has deliberated long enough. For a majority verdict, at least ten of the twelve jurors have to agree. The case I was foreman on was split 6-6 and no one has budged after 10 hours and I had to tell the judge that I couldn't see any way for that to change. Your also right that people will tend to go along with the majority. On another case where the jury was split 8-4 the judge also told us he'd accept a majority verdict and we did manage to convince two of the four. We voted to aquit and interestingly, when they saw the defendants reaction, the two who held out told us, “You know, I think we were wrong, he was innocent.” One last case I'll mention, I was the only one who thought the defendant guilty, but it was one of the quickest because this wasn't going to be Twelve Angry Men. I saw no reason to hold out when a majority verdict would be accepted sooner or later, so, reluctantly, I voted with the other jurors.
Just one question, is it usual for the prosecution to present closing arguments last in the US? It's always the defence in the UK.
Thank you, Jay, as always, for your lucid, detailed and informative explanations. 🙏🏼
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, explained that the New York rules call for the Defense to be the first to make closing arguments, followed by the prosecution. There is no rebuttal. This, apparently, is unique to New York.
The process in most jurisdictions is that for closing arguments the prosecution goes first, then the defense and then the prosecution gets to rebut. The reasoning there and in NY is that as the burden of proof is on the prosecution they get the last say. I will always treat Jay Kuo, Joyce Vance and Chris of Law Dork as well as some others as my experts but as I didn’t see them comment specifically on this I checked with the American Bar Association website.
Thank you for your detailed answer. As I said, in the UK the defence always closes last. I'm not sure whether the prosecution can rebut here, when I did jury service it didn't happen, but of course that doesn't mean it never does. 🙏🏼
Jay - if you’re ever in Austin, I’ll buy you lunch. Thank you for the class act you demonstrate and the excellent digging in you do for us. Somehow I feel not only smarter after reading your work but also ‘cleaner’. You are appreciated.
Thank you, Jay. I feel as though you just talked me off a cliff! Now we’ll see what happens. What a strange and difficult world these umpires are living through… we all are!
"We wish them well in their deliberations. May they be relatively short and decisive." ✅
And safe.
Nice job explaining
Yes, but let’s not get too far from what Trump wanted to keep secret and is still the most damning. TRUMP HAD SEX WITH A PORN STAR WHEN HIS WIFE JUST GAVE BIRTH.
That’s the stuff he wanted to hide and which we should amplify.
Everything else isnt as harmful with voters.
Based on what I’m seeing, this doesn’t seem to be too harmful either. Our fellow citizens seem to be oblivious to so much.
Thank you, Jay. You have laid it out perfectly on how deliberations work as I have also witnessed this while sitting on a jury.
You have eased my worries this morning.
Our only way out of the disaster of thought that trump will win this election is to turn our anger and frustration into action. Help those who need to get registered and help them, if needed, to get to the polls, donate money and time where possible, write postcards,etc. We can take this home for Biden and all blue candidates if we continue to stay engaged. 💪🏼💙🗳️
I concur. I’ve sat on one civil and one criminal. Though I was an alternate on the criminal and was excused before deliberations, there wasn’t a doubt in my mind that the rest of the panel would do the right thing. I kept tabs on the docket and five hours later was proven right.
I’ve only ever been on a grand jury, but it’s definitely my experience that people take the job seriously.
I really don’t want us to forget that this is a defendant with a proven track record of summoning violent mobs to attack those who displease him; a defendant who (while not being significantly punished) was in fact cited 10 times for violating his gag order and attacking jurors, witnesses, prosecutors, the judge and the judge’s family, and demanding that others do so; and that one juror already backed out due to fear of exposure and physical harm. And it’s not like there was ever an actual legal or factual defense offered; just a combination of threats and “nihilistic-uh.”
I’ll take your word on the (un)likelihood of a hung jury, but in the event it does happen, I’d like us to be prepared to remind people of this context.
Yes, I too have been worried about the threats against the jurors and wonder if the fear of harm against them and their families may be a factor in their deliberations. But then I think of several Organized Crime Bosses (Gotti, Al Capone) who were found guilty by jurors who presumably were faced with similar threats.
There is that; thanks for the reminder.
Excellent piece of writing Jay, this topic is on the minds of most Americans this morning. I for one am feeling more reassured about the process having read your assessment. Thank you.
This was interesting to read, love the quip about ..a “New Yorker thing to do! “
Your story of being jury foreman was excellent! I used a similar tactic during my 25 year career. I worked for the Fed gov in a job that often entailed working with groups of 10 individuals or so, all scientists, on long complex projects. So there was always dissension, frustration and some hard feelings toward the one or two who in the end wouldn’t join a consensus. I made sure to include these folks in every lunch and evening dinner and drinks. I also sat next to them at meetings and gabbed casually with them during breaks. It wasn’t always easy initially! But it was amazing how soon we trusted each other enough that we could have civil discussions about our differences. Almost without fail, the dissenter agreed to disagree, sometimes with a few qualifications, and consensus was reached. I became known for diplomacy and folks with all sorts of positions would call to talk.
Isn’t it amazing how treating people with respect and friendliness can be so rewarding, to both parties? It’s such a simple thing. Let go of anger, ego and fear, just a bit and trust will prevail. I wish more folks would see your article….our country needs this example. The lack of civil discourse is in our democracy today is frightening.
Ann22, you express exactly how I feel with these words: "Isn’t it amazing how treating people with respect and friendliness can be so rewarding, to both parties? It’s such a simple thing. Let go of anger, ego and fear, just a bit and trust will prevail. I wish more folks would see your article….our country needs this example." May we all let go of anger, ego, and fear and listen to each other with respect and friendliness, exactly as you say.
About treating people with respect and friendliness: From your lips to Dumpy's ears. I think he's too old to learn new tricks, though.
I agree…not too old though, it’s really just who he is! It’s probably too late, but what really needs to happen is that we start talking nice to neighbors, Ex friends, estranged family, coworkers, all those we’ve lost since 2016 largely, mostly due to this toxic man. It’s gotta start sometime, somehow. No matter the outcome come Nov, we’d each personally be in better off in our own little lives…right?
The information is, as always, appreciated.
The possibility of a hung jury is getting a lot of discussion in the press and elsewhere.
I believe that what you think you create. So I will focus on CONVICTION! And not obsess about any other outcome.
That’s my story and I am sticking to it!
Mine too! CONVICTION here it comes.
“Now it’s up to 12 ordinary people who have given up seven weeks of their lives to sit in judgment of an ex-president, a historic first with the world’s eyes upon them. We wish them well in their deliberations. May they be relatively short and decisive.”
May it be so.
And God bless the members of the jury, each and everyone.
I went through voir dire in a murder trial in Texas. I told them that under no circumstances should someone be put to death by the state. They perd near ushered me out the door at gunpoint.
Thanks for the rational explanation. I recently watched the movie 12 Angry Men, which was my other experience with the American trial experience, so I know good will prevail :-)
I just re-watched 12angry men, for the 5th time. First time at age 13, and thought it was the best movie ever. Still think that way.
That was my first time. Enjoyed it, too.
12 Angry Men is a good movie, but a terrible example of how juries should (and do) work.
Henry Fonda going to the scene of the crime and presenting his own evidence to the jury that was not brought up during the trial? Never.
It was a joke.
Unless my experiences were with abridged films, I don’t recall that scene.
Jay, your experience and perspective today gives me hope.
This disgusting, dangerous individual has to finally be held accountable.
Furthermore, he cannot ever be returned to the Oval Office!
I also urge you to read The Hopium Chronicles for hope and ways to ensure that Biden and blue candidates win..
Thank you for a rational and reasoned description. The wild and fevered speculations being proferred by MSM are growing tiresome.
Americans as a population tend not to have a powerful sense of history, either world or national. They are typically just fine with the pap that they ingested in public school, and often have only a few atolls of knowledge that poke up out of a sea of ignorance. I choose to believe however that the singular nature of this trial and its likely appearance in history texts going forwards has penetrated the jury's sense of its magnitude and importance. The fact of the trial and its circumstances greatly exceeds the charges themselves, and could be analogized as a very big fish caught with a very small hook.
Trump has largely succeeded in holding every other legal proceeding against him at bay. He has demonstrated his complete mastery of Roy Cohn's legal techniques and revealed just how porous the US justice system is if you have enough money to keep paying lawyers. I do not doubt that a guilty verdict will be appealed as a matter of course, extending Trump's timeline of legal jeopardy out into the indefinite future. Such a verdict however would become an ineradicable brand upon his "brand." After braying "Exonerated!" in the wake of the Mueller investigation and his two impeachments, completely contrary to what the results of those proceedings actually represent, Trump would be tattooed in permanent blue ink with the label "convicted felon" at long last and for all time.
Also, even if Dumpy appealed a guilty conviction, would that case be heard before the election? All these other cases are dragging through the legal system, so why would his appeal be any different? In other words, even if Dumpy appeals a guilty conviction, he'd still have CONVICTED FELON printed on his forehead and back going into the election.
X-Zachary
Can I restack your comment? I’ve restocked the article, and your comment also deserves a wider audience!
Be my guest.
I served on a jury decades ago. It was a clear case: the accused had been barred from possessing firearms and was found with a sawed off weapon of some sort in his house. But even so, the deliberations took time. Knowing that a guilty verdict will probably send someone to prison is a sobering thought. One woman agreed that he was guilty but it took her several hours and a lot of discussion between the jurors before she finally agreed to find him guilty. I was impressed by how seriously the jurors did their jobs.
I did a two week stint of jury service (in the UK) about 40 years ago and I was surprised at how seriously people took their responsibilities. I say on five cases in total (the longest was three days) and there was only one hung jury, ironically the one where I was elected foreman and also the longest. Our system is different to the US system in that the judge, in the case of a hung jury, can accept a majority verdict after s/he feels the jury has deliberated long enough. For a majority verdict, at least ten of the twelve jurors have to agree. The case I was foreman on was split 6-6 and no one has budged after 10 hours and I had to tell the judge that I couldn't see any way for that to change. Your also right that people will tend to go along with the majority. On another case where the jury was split 8-4 the judge also told us he'd accept a majority verdict and we did manage to convince two of the four. We voted to aquit and interestingly, when they saw the defendants reaction, the two who held out told us, “You know, I think we were wrong, he was innocent.” One last case I'll mention, I was the only one who thought the defendant guilty, but it was one of the quickest because this wasn't going to be Twelve Angry Men. I saw no reason to hold out when a majority verdict would be accepted sooner or later, so, reluctantly, I voted with the other jurors.
Just one question, is it usual for the prosecution to present closing arguments last in the US? It's always the defence in the UK.
Thank you, Jay, as always, for your lucid, detailed and informative explanations. 🙏🏼
Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor, explained that the New York rules call for the Defense to be the first to make closing arguments, followed by the prosecution. There is no rebuttal. This, apparently, is unique to New York.
Thank you so much, that's interesting. And so promptly too!🙏🏼
The process in most jurisdictions is that for closing arguments the prosecution goes first, then the defense and then the prosecution gets to rebut. The reasoning there and in NY is that as the burden of proof is on the prosecution they get the last say. I will always treat Jay Kuo, Joyce Vance and Chris of Law Dork as well as some others as my experts but as I didn’t see them comment specifically on this I checked with the American Bar Association website.
Thank you for your detailed answer. As I said, in the UK the defence always closes last. I'm not sure whether the prosecution can rebut here, when I did jury service it didn't happen, but of course that doesn't mean it never does. 🙏🏼
Jay - if you’re ever in Austin, I’ll buy you lunch. Thank you for the class act you demonstrate and the excellent digging in you do for us. Somehow I feel not only smarter after reading your work but also ‘cleaner’. You are appreciated.
Thank you, Jay. I feel as though you just talked me off a cliff! Now we’ll see what happens. What a strange and difficult world these umpires are living through… we all are!