LOS ANGELES.–Former President Donald Trump’s, 77, hush money trial started in Judge Juan M. Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom with voir dire, the legal process of picking jurors, that can either benefit the prosecution or defense, both have different grounds for selecting jurors. Prosecutors want to know whether a juror would be too timid by the former president to convict him of a crime, even if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard in criminal trials. Defense attorneys want to know if juror have anti-Trump bias, seeking to serve on the jury with the intent of convicting him, regardless of the evidence presented. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have the ominous job of picking jurors based on whether they would serve the objectives of the prosecution or defense. Shouldn’t jurors be picked solely on the basis of whether they can follow the law and reach a fair verdict?
U.S. adversarial justice system, whether criminal or civil, have the same objective: To prevail at trial, regardless of the truth or the facts presented. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass already breached legal ethics telling the jury pool about his theory of the case, not asking whether they can evaluate evidence fairly without prejudice. “This case is about whether this man [Trump] broke the law,” Steinglass said. “Did he falsify business records to cover up an agreement to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election,” said Steinglass, already biasing jurors into accepting the prosecutor’s case. No evidence has been presented to jurors under oath yet Steinglass wants all prospective jurors to accept his theory of the case that Trump broke campaign laws in the 2016 presidential election. Steinglass hasn’t presented any facts yet expects jurors to accept his theory of the case.
Why would Steinglass bring up the 2016 presidential election, when the current case has to do with District Attorney Alvin Bragg charging Trump with 34 bookkeeping violations, usually charged as misdemeanors but, in Trump’s case, as felonies? What’s Steinglass already biasing jurors by lending credibility to election law violations? Steinglass wants to know if jurors have the guts to convict Trump if he can show beyond a reasonable doubt Trump’s guilt. But in asking jurors whether they could look Trump in the eye and convict him, Steinglass wants to prejudice his case from the get-go. “Take a moment to look at the defendant and look inside yourself,” Steinglass told jurors, questioning whether they had the guts to find the former president and 2024 presidential candidate guilty. Why would jurors need to tell Steinglass they’d find Trump guilty if he proves his case?
Bragg’s case is built on cotton candy, lost of air bubbles going through the case, especially over the theory that he paid off Stormy Daniels to buy her silence to help his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If Trump’s attorney tells the jury that Trump decision to pay Stormy that extortion or blackmail demand but for the purposes of sparing his family any embarrassment, how does that related to the 2016 presidential election? There’s nothing Steinglass can tell a jury that speaks to Trump’s motive, when Stormy asked for money, Trump had her paid off as a nuisance demand. Steinglass inappropriately suggested to prospective jurors that Trump tried to “cover up an agreement to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.” That’s a lot of facts that Steinglass made public that has no basis in fact, only his legal theory of the case.
Voir dire is a meticulous process for both the prosecution and defense, not to get objective, unbiased, disinterested jurors, but to get jurors who will accept the prosecution or defense presentation of facts. Why should any attorney cherry-pick from a randomized sample of jurors on the basis of whether they will help in convicting a defendant or, in the case of defense, exoneration? Prosecutors have already asked Judge Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 for violation a gag order on Trump criticizing prosecutors or witnesses. Yet Merchan puts no gag order on possible witnesses, like former Trump attorney Michael Cohen who routinely goes on national TV to call Trump a liar, guilty of all pending charges against him. Imagine that, Merchan finds it OK for Bragg or Cohen to tell the public Trump can’t be trusted but it’s not OK for Trump to question prosecutors or witnesses.
Bragg has already turned Trump’s case into a show trial, with prosecutors already asking jurors whether they have the guts to convict a former president based on violating campaign law. Steinglass revealed for all to see the prosecutions’ one-sided focus on finding jurors willing to convict Trump. Merchan and Bragg willingly embrace their 57-year-old star witness, disbarred, disgraced, convicted felon and ex-convict Michael Cohen. Any prosecutor that uses a convicted criminal as a star witness must be prepared for consequences. What’s a juror supposed to think of Cohen’s testimony against Trump when he’s served time for perjury and a host of felonies including income tax evasion, illegally selling taxicab medallions, wire and bank fraud, campaign finance law violations, etc? Merchan and Bragg should answer their own voir dire questionnaire about what they think of their star witness Michael Cohen? Cohen slams Trump repeatedly in the press but that’s OK to Merchan and Bra?g.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
