NEW: A jury of 9 people has been selected for the E. Jean Carroll trial, and starting at 3:10, her team will present their opening. That doesn’t mean the morning was uneventful, however. 1/
The prospective jury was awash in registered voters, and most of those in the courtroom voted in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Yet few of them admitted to the kinds of strong views that would raise concerns among lawyers or even, despite being asked where they get their news, offered much detail.
Instead, many claimed to be “news agnostic,” that they get news “anywhere or everywhere” or consult both the WSJ & NYT for varied perspectives. It was like the jury version of Katie Couric asking which newspapers Sarah Palin read, and Palin said, “All of ‘em.”
No one said their political views, party affiliations, campaign donations, or volunteerism would prevent them from being fair to both sides. Only one person admitted they would have difficulty being fair given their awareness of Trump’s other legal cases and investigations.
And neither of the two people who admitted they think Trump has been treated unfairly by the legal system was chosen as a juror,
But mostly, what stuck with me was the lack of excuses. In most cases, prospective jurors will come up with some reason, any reason that they should be excused, from caregiving responsibilities to financial hardship to admitted biases.
Here, on the other hand, it almost seemed like no one wanted to leave. FIN.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
