Trump, the New York jury, and New York City’s voters
In yesterday’s thread on the Trump trial, commenter “Nonapod” observed:
I confess that I find it somewhat mystifying that we can’t count on the integrity and respect for the law of at least 1 out of 12 NYC Democrats. Trump derangement must be severely debilitating among such people, overriding most rational thought.
My response is that, if it was just the population of NY we’re talking about, it actually would be likely that someone on that jury would vote to acquit Trump. After all, in 2020 in Manhattan (where the trial is taking place) the vote for Trump was 14.5%. That’s approximately one in seven.
But if it were to include all of New York, the news would be even more hopeful for Trump. In other boroughs, the tally for Trump in 2020 was better: 17% for Trump in the Bronx, 25% for Trump in Brooklyn, 30% for Trump in Queens, and Trump won Staten Island (New York’s only Republican borough) 61.6% to 37.6%.
And those are Trump supporters in New York, people who actually voted for him and not just people who might be persuaded to not convict him in a kangaroo court trial.
The problem, however, is that the jury is not necessarily representative even of Manhattan, where one in seven people support Trump. It consists of a very carefully selected group of people, and the sample is small. The process of jury selection is a good part of the tactics of winning a trial. I know next to nothing about who these people are, but I know they have been carefully selected. Who knows how it will go? But I do know that if the jury were truly representative of the Manhattan population (and certainly of the NYC population as a whole), Trump would get at least a hung jury.
It has also been my experience that most people’s opinions of a trial are heavily influenced by their political positions, especially in a political trial. That is true of both left and right, although I believe that it’s even more common on the left, because leftists openly state that the ends justify the means and that law is a purely political power play.
Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman Arrested in Phoenix over His 2020 Election Legal Work
https://arizonasuntimes.com/news/trumps-former-attorney-john-eastman-arrested-in-phoenix-over-his-2020-election-legal-work/ralexander/2024/05/18/
Tiny-tyrants spreading out.
I believe that the risk that no juror will stand up to reject this Kangaroo Court may have more to do with justifiable fear than TDS. Given the complete disregard for legal norms exhibited by the Judge and Prosecutors, were I a juror in this case, I would assume that neither my identity nor the “secret” deliberations in the jury room would not be immediately leaked. If I was partly responsible for a hung jury, I might reasonably expect to be dox’d courtesy of the bailiffs and other jurors with no protection from the court. It will not just take a modicum of respect for the rule of law to hang this jury – it will take both moral and physical courage.
“It has also been my experience that most people’s opinions of a trial are heavily influenced by their political positions, especially in a political trial.”
With the trials against Trump, personal fear will play a part. A lone holdout must be concerned about leftist retaliation. If three or more vote for not guilty, much easier to maintain that position.
As said, all fine statistics and odds, but we are talking about a picked jury who knows if the Kangaroo Court didn’t choose 12 fanatical Trump Derangement people. I have a bad feeling the laws stomped all over have no bearing on guilt or innocent.
John Whitten:
Yes.
Hung jury in NYC probably means retrials until he is found guilty. That probably also means new attorney fees.
So much for living under the ‘Beloved‘ Rule of Law…
This isn’t the “rule of law.” This is its deliberate distortion and misuse.
What good is the Rule of Law if it can’t stop “deliberate distortion and misuse”?
John yes that’s how this works, fear that a lone jurist will have there name in public very quickly
Thats the alternative commie paper from arizona headline
12 Angry Men (and women)
That’s like saying our Constitution is no good because its provisions have not always been equally applied. True, but any system administered by humans is sometimes going to be misused. If you, Karmi, can point me to a better system than one which, properly applied, guarantees fair treatment for all, I’d like to know it. Other systems in human history have been entirely dependent by design upon the whims of the monarchy or the ruling class or the ruling clan or tribe.
He does miss the point frequently the system is not designed to acquit the guilty and charge the innocent that is a procrustean construction
Kate
What is the difference in that, and the ‘Beloved‘ Rule of Law that we live under now?
Nothing new here, i.e., who ever controls the law gets to decide who the criminals are.
It should be a Capital Crime for humans to make laws…
Karmi, our system is designed for a moral and ethical people. Unfortunately, three of Trump’s “judges”, the “prosecutors”, the jurors and obviously that loon Carrol are straight up unethical trash.
On one case I was juror for, the defense attorney called a liquor control agent a “lying piece of s***” in open court. I almost fell off my seat to keep from laughing because I was thinking the exact same words.
in bragg’s gotham, in krasner’s mordor (fmrly the first Capitol) in San Angeles, the citizens are in fear, the criminals roam free, the rapists, murderers drug dealers,
Karmi:
The laws are actually pretty well-designed. But corrupt people can make that irrelevant. Any system of law rests on the integrity of the people administering it.
People are people, and there’s no alternative to a system designed by people. It is the character of the people that is what is important. When that character is low, the law is a dangerous tool.
The sheer anarchy of a place with no laws at all, being filled with humans, would be a thing of horror.
🙂 Yeah, I know – fellow commenters all…
However, I fear that we are only just now starting to see the ‘Tip of the Iceberg‘ – and the direction that the Rule of Law is headed.
Democrats have sought to control the Law for decades (Republicans also!), and the DEMs now have a strong grasp on it—strong enough that they don’t fear exposing that control.
Rule of Law – as Republicans and/or Conservatives have known it – may be ‘Under New Management‘ before much longer…
in john carpenter’s escape from new york, the prisoners were isolated on their own, the terrorist band at the opening of the film, who kidnap the President, are very much like the Weather Underground or these Hamas groupies we see now, (carpenter admitted to Robert Rodriguez, his sympathies then, were with those elements) the CHAZ was much like the Duke Isaac Hayes private fiefdom, that Mike Schmidt’s domain in Portland if memory serves, the city whose courthouse was mortared for 90 days straight as if it was Beirut or Sarajevo, and Pelosi Kamala, of course the Shambling figure were fine with this
“leftists openly state that the ends justify the means and that law is a purely political power play.”
The ideological fanaticism rampant on the left has them blind to what awaits, at the end of that path.
Immature ‘adults’, playing with fire, heedless of the danger.
everything is racist, and must be destroyed,
https://www.thecollegefix.com/romance-is-white-supremacy-black-studies-professor-says/
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove
1/2 way through The Prosecutor and the Prey Vyshilinsky and the 1930s Moscow Show Trials
The Stalinists just accused, made up charges, got the defendant to admit the charges, mostly by torture, accused others then shot the defendant in a hour.
The only thing our Stalinists haven’t done yet is shoot the defendants
The Rule of Law as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution is by design slow. It is designed to achieve justice at the end of a process not to prevent injustice at the beginning.
It is sad that DJT is forced to deal with vile and corrupt prosecutors and judges in NY (I am withholding judgment on the current jury but am not optimistic) but that is on the people of NY not the US Constitution or the Rule of Law it enshrines.
If you are in a hurry for justice you are unlikely to get what you want. The Rule of Law is the opposite of the Rule of Men (or a man). The latter is usually much quicker. trials and appeals don’t drag on in China and Iran.
Trump will never go to jail in NY no matter what the jury does for one very simple reason. The moment DJT is jailed he will have standing to seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court under the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment. That is the last thing either the prosecutor or judge want – a real court looking over their shoulder.
As unappealing as the Rule of Law may be to those who crave instant gratification, it is worth noting that the Rule of Law has mustered itself to check Jack Smith in DC and FL and Fannie Willis in GA. Trump is winning and the bad guys are losing because of the Rule of Law and a 6-3 majority of the S Ct that supports it.
“…romance is white supremacy…”
If so, this guy’s a shoo-in for tenure in the English Lit. Department at UCSB…
https://nypost.com/2024/05/19/us-news/sean-diddy-combs-posts-apology-after-release-of-horrific-video-of-him-beating-cassie-ventura/
(And if he’s not interested in academia, he’ll surely be invited to start an advice column on the topic of NON-RACIST ROMANCE in any of the major national papers…)
John Witten
Did the authors of the Constitution design it to cost some defendants tens of millions of dollars to defend themselves? Did they design it so that the defendant could get those tens of millions of dollars and/or years spent in prison back if eventually found innocent?
What about the poor defendant who is found guilty, then spends the next forty years in prison, and at the end of those forty years the Rule of Law finally decides he was innocent.
Well, for the most part, I don’t agree w/ you. 🙂 The Rule of Law is managed by men, BTW. Yeah, our Rule of Law is better than China’s Rule of Law, but maybe our Rule of Law will look different to us after the DEMs gain enough control over it to start coming after firearm owners, which I suspect is one of their ultimate goals…just my 2-cents. 😉
Anarchy is the rule of (the strongest and most ruthless) man.
Be carefully what you wish for.
Gods of Copybook Headings.
And Rule 303.
Karmi:
There is no way around the fact that all legal systems are subject to error and flaws, including serious ones. And yet legal systems are necessary. No getting around that, either. You speak (if I recall correctly) as a person who was harmed by the legal system, and you are hardly alone in that. All we can do is work to improve things. Anarchy is of course not the answer. But I have studied law, philosophy of law, and comparative law, and I’m not aware of a better legal system although there are elements of other legal systems that we might adopt for improvement.
To take one example, should the government be able to retry someone if that person’s jury was hung and a mistrial declared? At present, the person can be retried over and over, incurring expense each time whereas the government has deep pockets. What is the remedy? Allowing only one trial? Two trials and then no more? I tend to think some limit should be placed.
Or what about increasing the penalties for prosecutorial misconduct?
And so forth. To paraphrase Churchill, our legal system is the worst except for all the others that have been tried.
Neo:
It is probably too late for changes now, i.e., the DEMs ain’t gonna give up any of their control over the Rule of Law, and in fact, they will be going even harder after more control over it.
IMHO, DEMs have planned (for a long time) on turning firearm owners into criminals—under the Republicans own ‘Beloved‘ Rule of Law. Hopefully I am wrong…
Karmi:
I agree that Democrats are trying – and often succeeding – in using law to accomplish political ends they can’t accomplish at the ballot box. The only way it can be stopped would be for Republican candidates to get enough votes to overcome “fixing” or voting fraud. And then they would have to reform the system – particularly the voting system – state by state, or by a constitutional amendment. I also am pessimistic about the prospects of anything remotely like that. Once the camel gets its nose in the tent …
Neo
🙂 🙂 🙂 Yeah, that durn camel! Someone once told me that The Law is like the swing of a pendulum, so maybe it’s in the upward swing for DEMs right now.
John Witten at 3:09 pm made some good points, and along the lines of our Founding Fathers, i.e., America has a great foundation…jeez, can’t find the words to express myself here. Anyway, America has a great foundation…
I agree with Karmi to the extent it’s The Rule of Man– which by our natures will be flawed. And different cultures and philosophies will have different perspectives as to what is acceptable behavior. The best we can hope for is equal application of the law.
What we’re seeing is societal capture by the Cultural Marxists. If the overriding value is Diversity-Equity-Inclusion and there is no underlying value of honesty or integrity (at least when it comes to those we disagree with) we see what is beginning to occur in our legal system. I read recently a poll where as the education of leftist/progressives is higher, there is a greater proclivity to cheat to achieve their goals.
How do we get out of this? It’s taken 50 years to get to this point (more like 70 years this revolution has been waged). Like most revolutions it may take the complete collapse of the economy/social order.
The CM/DEIsts created a chimera we are descending into.
Is it a coincidence that Islam and DEIism share a value that considers deception honorable when applied to the infidel. Those that don’t bow at the alter of Woke are the new infidel.
Neo: “Allowing only one trial? Two trials and then no more? I tend to think some limit should be placed.”
FWIW I would vote for no more than two such hung jury trials. If the “due process” is that flawed or the evidence is so weak that it cannot survive two trials, then that strikes me a enough to call it quits.
Do you or others know of any cases involving two or more hung jury trials? I don’t recall hearing about any myself… but that is not my area.
R2L:
Here’s an article on the whole question. The first case mentioned is one in which there were two hung juries and then a third trial in which the defendants were acquitted.