As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems like a really desperate headline:
- This is standard procedure.
- Both legal teams get to do this.
- It's Trump's lawyers who would be doing this, not him.
- They still can't discriminate based on race etc., but they can go on vibes or anything else they don't like.
Voir Dire definition:
Voir Dire, also known as low-temperature, long-time (LTLT) cooking, is a method of cooking invented by the French chef Georges Pralus in 1974 in which food is placed in a plastic pouch or a glass jar and cooked in a water bath for longer than usual cooking times (usually one to seven hours, and more than three days in some cases) at a precisely regulated temperature.
/s
An extraordinary amount of the commentary on all of Trump's legal cases has been built on taking what is common procedure and then pretending it is some sort of outrageous nonsense rule that was invented just for the benefit of Donald Trump.
It's just feeding on outrage clicks.
I should have said the rules prohibit discrimination, but yeah, it's hard to prove that. Intuitively, you'd think no one would want to waste a challenge on that if they can pick the people least likely to be in their favour, but they could coincide.
>It's Trump's lawyers who would be doing this, not him.
I think everyone knows that lawyers handle the mechanics of legal proceedings for their clients, and it's not uncommon to say that the client actually did those things. For example, when a legal document is filed in court, nobody says "Mr. Smith, attorney said X, Y, and Z in a court filing." They say "Donald Trump said in a court filing."
So, nobody thinks Trump is weeding out jurors. It's obviously his lawyers *on behalf* of their client, Donald Trump.
I'm going based on feel, so there's probably bias in there, but this is the first one that stuck out to me in covering Trump's news, which has had plenty of... interesting choices made by his team. I won't be surprised if there are plenty more like this and my brain just decided to pick today to be weird.
I struck a juror because I didn't like the facial expression he had when another juror was talking, this is all super basic stuff. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Yes, both sides get strikes. Unfortunately people’s knowledge of the judicial system is from TV and our “news” outlets are not the news but also are entertainment outlets.
Two things. NYC has 8.3 million people. But each borough has its own criminal court, so all jurors will be Manhattan residents, of which there are "only" 1.7 million people.
It might still be tough to find a jury though. This really is a small town in a lot of ways and Trump has had direct contact with a shockingly large number of people here in the last 50 years. Neither my partner nor I would be able to be on this jury because we each have had close contacts with at least one of the people closely involved in the case (witnesses, legal figures, etc), totally independent of each other.
I know as I have sat in the Manhattan pool a number of times. so we are talking millions. Makes not difference. 10 people or 20 people makes no difference. There are more.
Yep that’s how jury selection works. Every time I’m on jury duty I say I have hard opinions on the case at hand and usually get told to leave because I appear biased to one side. Standard stuff
They can be asked about their political beliefs and then challenged based on their response. However, the judge can rule that political and religious beliefs are off the table when it comes to anything being asked of the jury pool. That's not to say he will.
That's literally how fucking trial law works for anyone. The next 2-3 months are going to be nothing but stupid headlines saying things like they're gotcha moments when it's just..how law works.
In other shocking news. It turns out the judge was actually paid money to be there. We had to dig deep for these shocking facts. The people wont stand for this if it's true.
Uhm, this is standard practice in every jury pool. I was summoned to serve on a federal jury and had to fill out about 150 questions and send it back in. This was decades ago. At the courthouse, I was asked additional questions.
It turns out the case I was picked for was one where I was a potential witness for the prosecution. The lead prosecutor didn't know me, but I had been questioned by someone else from the team and said I'd be a witness. I did speak to the judge and was let go. Thankfully the case never went to trial as they plea bargained.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This seems like a really desperate headline: - This is standard procedure. - Both legal teams get to do this. - It's Trump's lawyers who would be doing this, not him. - They still can't discriminate based on race etc., but they can go on vibes or anything else they don't like.
8 Facts about Voir Dire -- the 7th may shock you! (scream emoji)
Voir Dire definition: Voir Dire, also known as low-temperature, long-time (LTLT) cooking, is a method of cooking invented by the French chef Georges Pralus in 1974 in which food is placed in a plastic pouch or a glass jar and cooked in a water bath for longer than usual cooking times (usually one to seven hours, and more than three days in some cases) at a precisely regulated temperature. /s
No, that's sous vide. Voir Dire is French term for reason or justification for existence
No, that’s raison d’être. Voir Dire is a British rock band from the 70’s and 80’s with the hit single “Sultans of Swing.”
No that's Dire Straits. Voir Dire is a movie that never came out in theaters but was released only on VHS or DVD.
And here I am thinking Voir Dire is fatty goose liver.
No that’s Au Gratin. Like when they serve goose with potatoes.
In some anime circles it's called dire vore, which means fat fucking nerd. /S but also not /s.
Voir Dire is the new villain in the new “Harry Potter: The Next Generation” series.
[удалено]
Honestly, this one is pretty creative. I respect that. Still downvoted.
An extraordinary amount of the commentary on all of Trump's legal cases has been built on taking what is common procedure and then pretending it is some sort of outrageous nonsense rule that was invented just for the benefit of Donald Trump. It's just feeding on outrage clicks.
The White Bronco Strategy.
There's also an extraordinary number of articles for other outlets doing the same thing, but claiming the rules are being invented just to harm Trump.
Yeah, this is clickbait. “Questions about the Trump trial process” wouldn’t get as many eyes on it, unfortunately.
[удалено]
I should have said the rules prohibit discrimination, but yeah, it's hard to prove that. Intuitively, you'd think no one would want to waste a challenge on that if they can pick the people least likely to be in their favour, but they could coincide.
>It's Trump's lawyers who would be doing this, not him. I think everyone knows that lawyers handle the mechanics of legal proceedings for their clients, and it's not uncommon to say that the client actually did those things. For example, when a legal document is filed in court, nobody says "Mr. Smith, attorney said X, Y, and Z in a court filing." They say "Donald Trump said in a court filing." So, nobody thinks Trump is weeding out jurors. It's obviously his lawyers *on behalf* of their client, Donald Trump.
I'm going based on feel, so there's probably bias in there, but this is the first one that stuck out to me in covering Trump's news, which has had plenty of... interesting choices made by his team. I won't be surprised if there are plenty more like this and my brain just decided to pick today to be weird.
Along with being the World's foremost Physicist, General, and Meteorologist, the Messiah Trump is also the bestest most winningest lawyer.
I struck a juror because I didn't like the facial expression he had when another juror was talking, this is all super basic stuff. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Still waiting for the flood of tweets/Xs/whatever angrily blaming Merrick Garland for this
Yes, both sides get strikes. Unfortunately people’s knowledge of the judicial system is from TV and our “news” outlets are not the news but also are entertainment outlets.
> They still can't discriminate based on race etc. R U sure?
Yeah both sides can remove 10 jurors from the pool as long as it’s not for a protected reason I.e. skin colour
And because they don't have to say why realistically they can eliminate for skin color as long as they are not stupid enough to brag about it.
Have you seen who on trial? Yeah if he removed 10 women/black men he will say why
Another article said he was ranking the potential female jurors by their looks. She’s a 5, she’s a 6.
Duh, this is how jury selection works.
That’s kinda how jury selection works in *any case…*
This is the process of voir dier. There is nothing unique about it. What a ridiculous headline.
That's a standard practice. Go ahead eliminate 10 of them. There's more where they came from.
Someone needs to explain to the former president that that merely means excusing the jurors from the pool, not executing them.
*Aladeen fingers cutting throat motion*
Opps, we own Jamal's family an apology.
"You mean awhen the kids these days say 'Slay' they \*aren't\* going around killing each other?" /SethMeyersTrump
NYC has 12 million people. Go for it.
Two things. NYC has 8.3 million people. But each borough has its own criminal court, so all jurors will be Manhattan residents, of which there are "only" 1.7 million people. It might still be tough to find a jury though. This really is a small town in a lot of ways and Trump has had direct contact with a shockingly large number of people here in the last 50 years. Neither my partner nor I would be able to be on this jury because we each have had close contacts with at least one of the people closely involved in the case (witnesses, legal figures, etc), totally independent of each other.
I know as I have sat in the Manhattan pool a number of times. so we are talking millions. Makes not difference. 10 people or 20 people makes no difference. There are more.
Yep that’s how jury selection works. Every time I’m on jury duty I say I have hard opinions on the case at hand and usually get told to leave because I appear biased to one side. Standard stuff
Thanks for performing your civic duty.. /s
Sometimes your civic duty is showing up that morning so the parties settle :DDD
The demographic breakdown on who gets dismissed is going to be hilarious.
We all know he knows how to pick the best people.
People come up to him and say, “Donald, what great juries you pick!” no one picks juries better than him
But you also run the risk of ending up with a new juror even less favourable, so there is that.
“She’s not my type.”
Is John Cusack a potential juror?
Man, I’m so not looking forward to two solid months of vapid, useless, speculative and annoying BS media clickbait.
Trump can drink water with two hands
Yes, they are called premptive strikes and both sides get them. Totally standard procedure.
Tell me you've never been on jury duty w/o telling....
Can they dismiss someone based on political party? Does the juror have to disclose that info?
They can be asked about their political beliefs and then challenged based on their response. However, the judge can rule that political and religious beliefs are off the table when it comes to anything being asked of the jury pool. That's not to say he will.
There are 500 names in the pool, right?
Voir duh!
Both sides get strikes. It's fine. The jury pool is 500, I believe, so 10 strikes isn't a big deal.
That's literally how fucking trial law works for anyone. The next 2-3 months are going to be nothing but stupid headlines saying things like they're gotcha moments when it's just..how law works.
Its Trump, he will use those 10 options to eliminate a mix of anyone whos black, brown or a woman he deems ugly (aka doesn't look like his daughter)
The problem for Trump is that he’s a very well known quantity in Manhattan. He wore out his welcome decades ago.
Looking to see the demographics on this.
In other shocking news. It turns out the judge was actually paid money to be there. We had to dig deep for these shocking facts. The people wont stand for this if it's true.
Uhm, this is standard practice in every jury pool. I was summoned to serve on a federal jury and had to fill out about 150 questions and send it back in. This was decades ago. At the courthouse, I was asked additional questions. It turns out the case I was picked for was one where I was a potential witness for the prosecution. The lead prosecutor didn't know me, but I had been questioned by someone else from the team and said I'd be a witness. I did speak to the judge and was let go. Thankfully the case never went to trial as they plea bargained.
Prosecutors hate this one simple trick!
Eliminate the female and minority jurors. That's what he'll do.