Former President Donald Trump's legal team does not believe that he is going to get a fair shake as the first-ever criminal trial against a former president is underway in Manhattan.
Attorneys for Trump have sought multiple times to have presiding Judge Juan Merchan recuse himself. They want Judge Merchan to recuse, or otherwise be removed from presiding over the trial, citing a leftist firm that his daughter works for, that has worked with his political opponents' campaigns, and due to comments Merchan made in the media that appear to be extrajudicial.
As previously reported by RedState:
The daughter of the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s New York hush-money trial has two significant Democratic clients who have raised over $93 million in campaign donations by fundraising off the criminal case. These clients, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Senate Majority PAC are clients of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm where Loren Merchan, the daughter of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, is president.
Trump's lawyers have also filed motions seeking a change of venue, requesting that the trial be moved to Staten Island instead of impaneling jurors from Manhattan's deep blue political makeup.
Trump continues to make comments calling the litigation against him "election interference," "a scam," and "an assault on America." And recent polling shows that the majority of Americans agree with Trump and his legal team's assertions that the prosecution and trial are unfair, as I reported previously for RedState:
Only roughly three in ten Americans believe that any of the prosecutors bringing charges against Trump are treating him fairly. Meanwhile, A super-minority of about two in ten Americans express extreme or very high confidence that the judges and jurors in cases against Trump can uphold fairness and impartiality.
Following the second day of the trial on Tuesday, seven jurors have been seated. And some were dismissed after Trump's legal team found posts they had made on social media that the defense argued showed alleged bias. While one juror was excused by the judge upon revelations of a "lock him up," post, another was found to be "credible" in light of an anti-Trump video.
As previously reported by RedState:
He [Trump's attorney Todd Blanche] noted one potential juror had posted a video from the day where Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. In the video, the woman says:
I have to get in the car and spread the honking cheers. There’s an actual dance party on 96th Street.
Trump's lawyers contended the video would have been referring to an anti-Trump rally. The woman had denied taking part in any rally or campaign events during her initial round of questioning. Called in for individual questioning, she said it was a "celebratory moment" in the city and that she could be impartial.
After scolding Trump for his behavior towards her, Judge Merchan said that he found her "credible" and refused to strike her for cause. Trump's attorneys then used one of their peremptory challenges to remove her from the case.
Let's recap: The potential juror said that Trump's election loss was a "celebratory moment" in the city and that she was compelled to "spread the honking cheers" while noting a "dance party" in the streets. Yet, while Trump's team and the majority of Americans do not think jurors are likely to be impartial, this woman and Judge Merchan felt that her behavior was that of a dispassionate juror.
Not only is partiality on display, but the juror's justifications, accepted by Judge Merchan as "credible," are that while she is impartial (or "can be," rather), it was the city that was celebrating. These arguments play directly to the basis of Trump's requests for a change of venue: That the city itself poses a problem to neutrality and his right to a fair trial.
Moving outside the courthouse and into the media circus, co-host of "The View," Sunny Hostin, had some kind of Freudian slip on-air, fearful that a juror who is only merely pretending to hate Trump would be permitted to join the panel. As RedState previously reported:
So Hostin piqued the interest of [Joy] Behar, who asked: "How do you sneak on a jury?" She added: "You have to be called to a jury."
Hostin was on it:
Well, you lie. You lie. You say, “I hate Trump. But I can be impartial.' And I this and that. And then, all of a sudden, that’s the person who won’t vote to convict.
Do you suppose it crossed the nitwit's mind that saying "I hate Trump" and "I can be impartial" was a mutually exclusive claim?
If we boil down the near-incoherence blended with accidental truth-telling in Hotsin's commentary, we are left with the concept of an activist juror. Unlike jurors who don't recognize their own bias, others do understand that they aren't operating fairly and have ulterior motives.
For example, perhaps the man who posted to "lock him [Trump] up" imagined that he could still perform the duties of the jury with fairness, and that would make him ignorant of his prejudice. But, if he knew he wasn't impartial and concealed it with a goal in mind, he would more accurately be described as an activist juror.
The issue with activist jurors who bring their own personal biases, agendas, or strong opinions into the jury room, influencing their decision-making process based on factors outside the evidence presented in court, is that it jeopardizes the pursuit of justice and, in this context, violates a defendant's basic rights.
This kind of activism in the jury box is hardly new, as the Washington Post reported on the growing phenomenon known as jury nullification back in 1999, writing:
The phenomenon takes all forms. In upstate New York, an African American man refused to join 11 other jurors in convicting black defendants of cocaine charges, saying he was sympathetic to their struggles as blacks to make ends meet. In rural Colorado, a woman refused to convict in a methamphetamine case and caused such disruption that she forced a mistrial and was convicted herself of obstructing justice. And just last year in Montgomery County, jurors in two separate trials of developer and politician Ruthann Aron objected to her even being prosecuted on murder-for-hire charges in the first place.
In all of these cases, the jury box turned into a venue for registering dissent, more powerful than one vote at the polls and more effective at producing tangible, satisfying results.
Recognizing that these jury decisions function as ballots by weighing broader social issues, and also serve as forums for expressing dissent, this juror activism unequivocally embodies a form of civil protest.
Frighteningly, juror and judicial activism can compromise the integrity of the justice system and the wider judicial branch, deciding the fate of cases and defendants based on social attitudes and gusts of the wind.
Furthering the damage of rogue jurors, in Trump's historic trial, potential pursuits of personal or political agendas risk dismantling the foundations of another branch of government by influencing the composition of a democratically elected executive branch.
Recent polling shows that there is a partisan divide on the question of Trump's fitness to serve as president if convicted. While Democrats overwhelmingly (80 percent) believe it would render him unfit, 60 percent of Republican voters maintain that he would still be suitable for office. This means a significant Trump-leaning faction can be swayed by the outcome of the ongoing criminal trial, up to 40 percent of the GOP's voting base.
In Trump's case, the stakes extend far beyond individual sentencing or setting wider legal precedents. The presence of potential activist jurors poses a significant threat to the fundamental functions of two branches of government and the bedrock principles of American democracy. Their actions could undermine the authorized powers granted by public consent, making their potential impact more detrimental than any alleged wrongdoing by Trump in this or any other criminal case.
Ultimately, Trump isn't who is on trial here, it's the public's adherence to the American philosophy and foundational principles of governance that are being weighed and decided upon.
Read More:
New Poll: In the Court of Public Opinion, Trump's Verdict Is In
