I was dismissed because she worked for an insurance company. The case involved a car accident and an unrelated insurance company, but I guess they figured that was enough to make them not want me on the jury.

...but I think the "Trump team" has lost the right to know that information. So has Fox News.

Unanimous Supreme Court decision.

... Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper."

of the current Supreme Court.

over something like this

I also agree with Irish-Dem. So Let's say the judge ruled that They get NO PRIVATE info. What would, could be the consequences of such a ruling? If appealed, what could happen? Just curious as to what the results could be. TY

Obviously, that ship already has sailed in this case. But imagine for a moment that Judge Chutkan wanted to deny Trump and his attorneys access to juror background information in the Jan 6 trial. If that order didn't also apply to the prosecution, the prosecution would be opposed -- and so should we -- if it was denied information that would let it vet the jurors. And if only Trump's side was denied access, there are two likely outcomes: the defense brings an interlocutory challenge that results in the trial being stayed until defendant's right to access to information about the jurors was litigated. If, as is likely, the court ruled that denying the defense but not the prosecution access to such information denied the defendant the right to fair trial, the remedy would be to remand the case to go back to square one -- empaneling a new jury. If the challenge wasn't brought on an interlocutory basis the remedy could be the reversal of a guilty verdict if that is what the jury reaches.

Worse part is IF the defense did leak, it will be almost impossible to prove. I trust NONE of these assholes.

Trump and his attorney should be losing the right to have private jury information.

His hands are tied, because of previous SC rulings. He DID rule that it's not to be made public by news groups, but we,ll see where that leads to. I don't know how that works, BUT i feel the judge would have preferred to NOT give that info. (Don't want to give any appeal opportunities here at all.

They think that is fine I am sure.

With THIS SC.

Without also stripping us of the same rights?

What due process has been afforded to him prior to stripping those rights away?

Their right to live is more important than Trump getting paperwork.

If a US judge thinks Trump getting a piece of paper and personal information
about the jury is more important than saving their lives, we are all really screwed.

The judge will have to live with his decision if anyone gets hurt.

I hope the families hold him personally accountable.

None of that answers my question. The court is not allowed to punish Trump (or anyone) on hypothetical crimes that are assumed will take place in the future.

That's a good thing.

I'm pretty sure a lot of DUers would lose their shit if Cannon refuses to allow Jack Smith access to information about potential jurors making it all but impossible for him to screen out obvious Trumpers.

Because no appellate court is going to uphold an uneven approach where the prosecution can vet jurors but the defense can't. And we should be very concerned if the prosecution is denied access to such information. Imagine what Judge Cannon might do in the classified documents case.

Muck Muck Muck......into oblivion.

their identities are "accidentally" given to Fox or whatever other right wing organization want them? And how long after that before the Jurors and their families begin to be terrorized?

I see this all devolving into a hung jury as trump allies increase pressure on the jury to get them to drop out.

"but that those details did not need to be publicized by the press."? Or did he say the press cannot publicize "those details"? Because there is a big difference between the two.

I fear something bad will happen to these jurors or their families. I consider his decision BS and dangerous. The jury needs to be anonymous in this case. IF anything happens to any of the jurors the fault will be on the judge!

I sat on a jury once, and it was a nightmare because 3 of the jurors persistently drew on their employment experience in deciding the case, even though that was against the rules. The case involved a car accident, and the 3 jurors worked in the insurance industry and were convinced that the injured plaintiff in our case was lying, even though there was considerable evidence, which the rest of us found credible, that the plaintiff was telling the truth and zero evidence to the contrary.

I just hope the judge is prepared and has the authority to slam Trump and his lawyers with severe penalties if any info shared with them is improperly leaked.

I can see where current or former employers may matter, but I don't really see how this would be one of those times unless the person worked for the Trump Org or for one of the hundreds of contractors he's stiffed.

give it to every right wing network.

"I work for the CIA".
"I worked at Area 51"

Believe it or not, they are the minority here.

But, I didn't get asked who I worked for.