to watch from another room on a tv with one of his lawyers.

He belongs in jail.

It can’t be that hard for people to figure out who is who.

The judge has done the correct thing by announcing that certain information about the prospective witnesses will no longer be part of the public record.

And once the Trump attorneys know the names of the jury members it will
be public in a few minutes. They have no shame.

So far, no names have been made public.

They are going to be nervous.

100% certain Trump will find a way to make the names public.

Lock him up. He had his phone in court this morning according to cnn.

will have my admiration. They’re going to need to be brave individuals, given that Trump or (more likely) his associates are going to leak their names and drag them through the mud,

Of course any Trump fan jury members are not brave,
they know they are safe from the flying monkeys.

...trump's attorneys will make the mistake of announcing those names publicly, but I strongly suspect they'll leak them to various people.

The jury member names will be leaked one way or the other.

Just what would be the consequences? MISTRIAL, DELAY? These assholes won't care. Seems like the judge SHOULD lay out the penalties, THEN use them.

Threatening members of the jury with their goon squad.

Hopefully they will lose their law licenses and soon.

But you are correct, not many of them who commit crimes for Trump have lost their license.

I have been accused of being a satanic abuse pedophile.

I must have hit a nerve for that kind of projection.

I think our cleanup crew has a special collection just for them.

They do an amazing job.

Yes I think there is a troll reincarnation list.

to selecting jurors is it practice publicizing their job titles????

Defense is questioning whether juror #4 misrepresented his answers to the jury questionnaire. Older Puerto Rican guy who runs an IT business. I’m surprised that the young Irish guy in sales hasn’t been outed.

They shouldn't have published the details they did. I realize it's all part of the public record, but still, what were they thinking?

...juror #1 has a specific accent that could help id them is part of the public record.

This is a world famous trial. Everyone knows about it.

Irish man, Irish brogue, works in sales.
Lives in Manhattan.

Is not working this week and has taken time off.
People talk, friends and family can narrow it down quickly.

...from the court records, it wouldn't be so easy to ID individuals.

would challenge it on 1st amendment basis.

In 1984 the Supreme Court held, unanimously, that there is a presumption under the First Amendment that court proceedings, including the voir dire, be open public proceedings. As Justice Marshall explained in his concurring opinion, "the constitutional rights of the public and press to access to all aspects of criminal trials are not diminished in cases in which "deeply personal matters" are likely to be elicited in voir dire proceedings." Moreover, according to Justice Marshall, while the presumption of openness can be overcome, "prior to issuing a closure order, a trial court should be obliged to show that the order in question constitutes the least restrictive means available for protecting compelling state interests. In those cases where a closure order is imposed, the constitutionally preferable method for reconciling the First Amendment interests of the public and the press with the legitimate privacy interests of jurors and the interests of defendants in fair trials is to redact transcripts in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of jurors while disclosing the substance of their responses.... Only in the most extraordinary circumstances can the substance of a juror's response to questioning at voir dire be permanently excluded from the salutary scrutiny of the public and the press."

Merchan is a good judge who knows the law and has taken the step outlined by Marshall: redacting transcripts and keeping certain information out of the public record.

The MSM wakes up everyday with the MAIN reason, to find out WHO the jurors are. WTF?

I'm thinking eventually they WILL.

Works in health care

Is a nurse

Is an oncology nurse

in healthcare or is a nurse. No reason to specify what type of nurse.

It will be hell for next several weeks.

...but they would be foolish not to take the credible threat of violence by rightwingers against them and their families seriously.

I0’ve served on a criminal Jury. They’re pretty emphatic on that point,

Wife or mother or some relative will call. "Its all over the news and social media, the RW lunatics are trying to identify and intimidate jurors."

So he can hand pick the jury.

you are on the jury??

jurors would be gone the exact days of the trump trial.

It's very tricky.

How many six-week criminal trials are going on in NYC right now? I would bet none. A defendant has to be rich to afford a 6-week trial and how many rich defendants are on trial for crimes in NYC right now?

...but long trials are not uncommon in major cities.

I do criminal defense in a major city and you are wrong.

Fear of violent repercussions is working.

Not good.

If there's anything at issue on social media, describe it in general terms, not verbatim.

Anything too specific runs the risk of narrowing down the guess work.

Any exact verbiage should be withheld from the public record, because it can be just as identifiable as giving someone's name.

with jury selection, let alone placing it in the public record. Or, gender for that matter.

“Social” media is anything but social — a plague on humanity.

Murdoch owns 2 New York City newspapers; the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.

Those two media sources have hundreds of paid informers throughout New York.
It'll be impossible to keep the jurors names secret. Impossible.

This, of course, plays right into Trump's gameplan.

But if Donnie is so innocent of the charges in this "witch hunt", wouldn't he try to get this trial going quickly, present all of his exculpatory evidence that will clear his "good name", and get back on the golf course campaign trail ASAP?

First, I assume you aren't advocating that there be no press reporting on the trial itself.

Second, to the extent you are advocating that the press be barred from the jury selection process, in 1984 the Supreme Court held, unanimously, that there is a presumption under the First Amendment that court proceedings, including the voir dire, be open public proceedings. As Justice Marshall explained in his concurring opinion, "the constitutional rights of the public and press to access to all aspects of criminal trials are not diminished in cases in which "deeply personal matters" are likely to be elicited in voir dire proceedings." Moreover, according to Justice Marshall, while the presumption of openness can be overcome, "prior to issuing a closure order, a trial court should be obliged to show that the order in question constitutes the least restrictive means available for protecting compelling state interests. In those cases where a closure order is imposed, the constitutionally preferable method for reconciling the First Amendment interests of the public and the press with the legitimate privacy interests of jurors and the interests of defendants in fair trials is to redact transcripts in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of jurors while disclosing the substance of their responses.... Only in the most extraordinary circumstances can the substance of a juror's response to questioning at voir dire be permanently excluded from the salutary scrutiny of the public and the press."

I mean the jury selection could be done without the press present.

giving that orange pus job a fine to pay instead of putting him in jail.

She's a real profile in courage

However her friends and family should have kept their mouths shut also.

Just a simple announcement at the end of jury selection as to the gender balance of Jurors and Alternates would suffice.

I also wish that Dump not be allowed to see their faces or find out their names. IIRC Dump's lawyer got the list of names and Dump was allowed to see it? I don't trust either of them.

Yeah, I know there's probably some sort of rule that allows all these things to occur, but c'mon...

Dear Sir or Madam:

It is distressing to learn that MSNBC, along with other news outlets, is providing detailed demographic information about jurors or potential jurors in the Trump hush money trial. This is delaying the trial and undermining the whole idea of not identifying the jurors because everyone knows what Trump and/or his minions will do to them.

I exhort you to stop providing any demographic information about the jurors--not occupation, not nationality, not sex, not the borough where they live, NOTHING. It's your responsibility to protect their identities fully, not give them away.

Sincerely,

Abigail_Adams

for posting the e mail. I will e mail them my thoughts too.

We have unique information about the jurors.

In this case “Juror #2, the Oncology Nurse”.

May as well have been her name.

So, how long would it have taken when work colleagues realized their coworker, an oncology nurse is suddenly away on a “leave of absence”? Put two and two together. If she shared with her friends she had been called to appear, then they can easily surmise she was paneled.

We should have ZERO information about these jurors! ZERO! Especially if any of them had shared with friends or family (other than a spouse or child who they live with) that they had gotten a notice about jury duty! Put two and two together and the person is outed!

Friends and family talk, so it’s hard to keep a juror’s status quiet.

Gosh this is so frustrating.

Someone is suddenly gone for 6 weeks? No explanation? Anyone can figure it out.

That if someone was called for jury duty, in NYC, and they wanted to keep it quiet, they only tell their house mates (roommate, spouse, children) and tell them to keep it quiet. An employed person would need to tell the boss to get time off, and deal with the wage reimbursement thing.

Loose lips sink ships. I covered the absence issue in another post. Sick relative, etc.

Link to tweet

Which makes a claim of jury tampering against them pretty hard to sustain.

one juror to end up hanging the trial.

at least one person is going to try and lie and get on the jury. Will they be sniffed out? Who knows?

that we need to keep in mind that one juror alone can throw the whole thing no matter how damning the evidence.

"every trial" and people need to realize that someone may go to great lengths to get on the jury for purposes of voting not guilty. As it is I see the media basically ignoring this aspect and devoting their focus to whether jurors are found who can be "fair" to the Orange Ruski. Look at how much media time has been given to him nodding off for example. About the most meaningless thing to spend time discussing but it was the lead item for much of the media reporting.

I see tons of comments from many sources on the shallowest of things regarding the trial. People generally need to WTFU and realize that fretting over this or that detail of what Cohen or Stormy might say for example is far less a problem than staying laser focused on the actual task at hand with the jurors. But as usual the media will spend most of their time prattling away filling air time with endlessly repeated memes echoed by "analyst" after "analyst" through segment after segment.

They could actually take some time and educate their listeners a bit about the pitfalls and arguments against requiring unanimous verdicts in lower level felony non-violent cases. Especially involving the wealthy and famous. They could educate their listeners about the insanity of an argument the majority on the SC used in the Ramos case regarding the issue of unanimity. But that would take people with half a f'ng brain to realize the ramifications of Ramos and the stunning insanity of using the very thing the court decried as needing to be rejected while at the same time engaging in that very conduct itself to support it's decision.

But that's alright. No need for increased knowledge. Not when we can fill the air time with what the Orange Ruski is wearing, whether he smiles or frowns, whether he nods off, where are the kids, what does the retired farm couple in the diner in Des Moines think, how many former prosecutors/lawyers/judges we can round up to give us endless speculation about what testimony somebody might give and then hypothetically what impact that hypothetical testimony might hypothetically have on the prosecution/defense/jury and certainly last but not least we'll be treated to the spectacle of countless reporters chasing down Lindsey Graham and MTG for their comments about the latest "development".

Should have done this from the start.

https://bsky.app/profile/joshuajfriedman.com/post/3kqfwknidaa2d

Into our inability to hold them accoutable.

How's the institution of Justice working?

Lock this maniac up.

it might be that those messages and calls made her feel that she was going to be fully identified. Trump's tweets and the violence of some of his supporters could well make her uneasy.

Consider her friends and family KNOW she is an oncology nurse and a resident of Manhattan. She might be the only person they know with both of those characteristics. I would send a message to a friend or sister like this - expecting a response "not me". I don't know how many women oncology nurses there are in Manhattan, but even given it is likely in the hundreds, simply saying she works in Healthcare or even more specifically as a nurse would be far better. The less detailed info provides as much relevant information.

names to the attorneys.

Not sure what you think will keep happening. The information about the juror's was stated in open court and reported by the media -- and not just Fox News. For example, Inner City News has been posting minute by minute descriptions of the proceedings, including the information publicly disclosed about the jurors. In fact the information about the juror that wanted to be excused was published by Inner City News a day before Watters posted the same information. The judge has done the correct -- and constitutionally permissible -- thing by declaring that the identifying information will no longer be part of the public record. But Watters, Inner City News, and any of the probably countless sources that repeated that information are going to be charged with witness tampering.

This should not be public information. They are never going to get a jury with the media giving their information to anyone so they can be subject to threats, intimidation etc. This trial already a joke along with thinking any justice will come trumps way. Bullshit.

The prosecution should demand REAL consequences for the defense team and the defendant himself for jury intimidation. According to many here it is public information and revealing names and private information for those on the jury. If true then that certainly is a joke if trump is ever to be brought to justice.

If and when that happens, the judge should -- and I believe will -- come down hard on those responsible. And if and when anyone communicates with a juror with the intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding -- the applicable standard under New York law, the DA should bring charges.

Games are already being played and even if names are not released people can and will figure it out. The threat of being exposed is enough to intimidate potential jury members as has already happened.

Deifne it any way you wish, but Trump is the head of the largest mob the country has ever known. Some people will be willing to accept that danger, of jury service, others won't. I can't blame them.

The judge will sit a jury, Trump will be tried, that is all we can expect. In a nation with 40% of the population in Trump's camp, it will be very difficult to get a conviction, but it the only system available. My reptilain side would prefer a night and fog solution for Trump, but my other, and better, half knows that that is not who we are.

Lets try to be patient, take our small pleasures from Trump's discomfort and be ready to move on whatever happens.

were the juror occupations publicized???? I thought they usually say how many females and males ?