Thread by @TylerMcBrien

It’s another beautiful morning at 100 Centre St in Manhattan, as the press gathers for Day 2 of jury selection in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump.

I’m here covering it all again for @lawfare. Follow this thread for updates 🧵⚖️

And to catch up on everything you missed on Day 1, check out my thread from yesterday ⬇️

https://twitter.com/tylermcbrien/status/1779831631831867395

When we adjourned, only 32 of the first panel’s 96 prospective jurors remained in the courtroom, most of them having self-identified as unable to be fair and impartial, or saying they couldn’t serve for other reasons.

Today, we’re set to begin at 9:30 a.m.

As always, we’re only able to take you into the courtroom with this play-by-play, in-depth coverage thanks to your help.

If you enjoyed following along yesterday, or are looking forward to today, we hope that you’ll consider donating to @lawfare givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

A topic of hot debate yesterday was whether the former president dozed off in the courtroom.

Right now at least, he seems to be awake.

8:51 a.m. Trump's motorcade has arrived at the courthouse.

As we wait for Day 2 to start, a question from yesterday was whether Trump's presence at the trial was his right or a requirement.

It’s both. He has a a constitutional due process right, but it’s also a requirement under NY’s rules of criminal procedure (CPL § 260.20)

This came up when Justice Merchan read out the “Parker warning”—some were confused why the judge would threaten arrest for not appearing without informing the defendant of his ability to file a motion to avoid having to appear.

As @AnthonyMKreis points out, “default rule is compulsory attendance and the arrest warning is standard.” @rparloff tells me that the purpose of that warning in to let the defendant know that if he absconds, the case can go on w/out him and when he’s caught he won’t get a do-over

@AnthonyMKreis @rparloff The judge can excuse the defendant, but as @nkorpett tells me, the judge will be careful about it because the rule’s requirement is designed to protect a constitutional right. So waiving that right must be “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.”  Hence the Parker warning.

@AnthonyMKreis @rparloff @nkorpett For more on Trump’s right or requirement to attend his other trials, read this piece from Dan Richman, or listen to @nkorpett discuss it with him on the @lawfare podcast

lawfaremedia.org/article/the-la…
lawfaremedia.org/article/does-d…

.@qjurecic rightly points out to me that these rules exist to protect a defendant's right to hear the case against them, confront witnesses, etc. But Trump is kind of turning that on its head by implying in this post and others that it’s unfair for Merchan to require his presence

9:20 a.m. Joshua Steinglass, Susan Hoffinger, and Matthew Colangelo arrive for the prosecution.

9:30 a.m. Trump takes his seat as Todd Blanche and Emil Bove for the defense mill about.

Susan Nechceles is here too, removing documents and a mouse from her bag. Trump is the only one seated at the defense side, looking forward, scowling slightly.

*Necheles, apologies for the typo.

Per the pool, Trump winked at one of the court officers and mouthed “how are you?” as he walked in.

Trump aide Jason Miller is seated in the back row of the courtroom.

Trump is starting his day much like he did yesterday: by posting polling numbers on social media.

It seems the polls were on his mind. As pool reporter Ximena Bustillo notes, he told journalists "the voters understand, what you have to do is look at the polls" when asked about two simultaneous questions about concern over voters.

He also told reporters in the hall: "I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense of accountant and I didn't know mark it down as a legal expense. That's exactly what it was."

At 9:31 a.m. prospective jurors started going through security.

Trump is chatting now at the defense table with Bove and Blanche, who is smiling and laughing as he hands Trump a document—likely the jury questionnaire.

Trump's eyes are closed once again. Surely this won't help the sleep allegations.

9:45 a.m. all rise, and Justice Juan Merchan asks everyone to be seated. Parties are introduced.

Merchan apologizes for starting late, explaining that we're waiting on three jurors—two of them were in the box (Seat 2 and Seat 8).

The juror in Seat 10 was feeling sick, with flulike symptoms, but no COVID was detected. No objections to excusing her.

Merchan sounds a bit peeved by the delay—he ended yesterday with a reminder to the jurors to be on time.

We hear Merchan say that two out of the three missing jurors are now here. Video is temporarily disabled in the press overflow, but hopefully we'll get underway shortly.

The jurors are walking into the courtroom. Apparently we don't have those two missing box jurors—Seats 2 and 8—so they'll be replaced, and Merchan says they will sit in the audience if they eventually show up and can then be used in the next round.

At 9:56 a.m., Merchan says good morning jurors, welcomes them back, apologies for the late start, and pleads with them to please arrive on time.

Hold the phone: Seat 8 juror from NoMad will now be shuffled to Seat 10, because yesterday's Seat 8 juror has now arrived.

It's musical chairs in the jury box so far today.

B354 from NoMad is now in Seat 10, resuming with the questionnaire, the podcast question. If he gets bored every once in a while, he'll listen to Barstool Sports.

All his friends and close friends are mainly finance and accounting professionals—another unsurprising reminder that we're in Manhattan.

@katherinepomps Merchan thanks the juror from Texas for his candor, and excuses him now.

B311 takes her place at Seat 11. Before he begins, he says has a wedding to attend on June 6—his best man.

I guess it's wedding season. 💕

Next up is a Chelsea resident of 5 years who grew up in Orgeon, another attorney.

If the parties want to strike for any reasons related to employment in the legal, accounting, or finance fields, we're going to have a tough time filling a Manhattan jury.

Trump has the jury questionnaire in his left hand once again, and he's following along as the prospective juror from Chelsea reads out his answers. He's leaning back in his chair, looking down his nose at the paper.

A pool reporter notes that Trump has looked at each juror who enters or leaves the box, and thus far his gaze follow each dismissed juror up until the point when they exit the well.

"I believe the law applies to everyone," the prospective juror has said twice now while answering the questionnaire.

She's excused anyway over concerns about missing work.

Merchan asks jurors that if they do have an answer like that, not to wait until the end of the questionnaire to say so.

"I'm proud to say I have some friends who are lawyers," he says, and a close friend has a son who is a DA here in Manhattan, but assures Merchan he can remain impartial. He was left with a generally favorable impression of the legal system after his daughter's sexual assault.

We have our first Trump reader. He says he read "The Art of the Deal," and "I wanna say 'How to Get Rich?' Are those not correct?" Trump smirks and nods slightly.

The juror's granddaughter asked her to go to a pro-choice rally in 2017, but "I don't know if it had anything to do with Mr. Trump."

She also says, "If you look at my Facebook page, there's a lot of things on there that I didn't ask to be put on there," like Occupy Democrats.

Finally, the jury box is full, and the attorneys will have 30 minutes per juror—as was established yesterday—to ask them questions.

As a reminder, some questions are off limits, such as party affiliation and whether the juror likes Trump or not.

Steinglass rises first for the prosecution and introduces himself and co-counsel at the podium.

"I'm sure many of you are saying to youself, 'How am I being considered for this case?'" He assures them he's not trying to pry into their lives, but rather to pick a fair jury.

"Let's start with the obvious," Steinglass says, talking about Trump the president and candidate. "We don't expect you to be living under a rock for the past 8 years or the past 30 years." He says we don't care who you're voting for—instead, it's about whether Trump broke the law

"Can you promise to do that? To follow the judge's instructions on what we have to prove to find the defendant guilty? In other words, does anyone feel that because of the defendant's position we have to prove more than the law requires?" Steinglass asks.

He's reiterating this point, underscoring this question—he cold calls B133 to ask how she feels about this. She says that she doesn't think it matters what her political beliefs are or toward the defendant. She's going to liste to the facts of the case.

Trump watches on.

Steinglass asks if anyone disagrees with B133, but no one speaks up.

B330 now has the mic, she says she's a public servant who built her entire career on trying to serve the city she lives in, and that this is an extension of that. Steinglass is nodding along, and thanks her.

Steinglass presses B330 about an answer yesterday she gave about campaign finance limits.

"I'm not actively pursuing those opinions" she says, but elaborates that it's unfortunate how much money goes into campaigns, which discourages great potential candidates.

Now B146 has the mic, Steinglass presses him now on campaign finance limits. He agrees with B330 about her answer on campaign finance, but he assures Steinglass that it wouldn't affect his ability to be fair "because it has nothing to do with this case."

"Bc of the particulars of this case, it doesn't have anything to do with my political inclinations, or however I feel about the defendant," B146 says.

Steinglass: "That's a perfect example, bc this case isn't about whether you like Donald Trump, it's about the rule of law."

Steinglass doesn't expect jurors not to have heard about the case or have discussed it w/ friends, but does expect an open mind. Media doesnt yet have access to evidence jury will see. Everyone and their mother has an opinion about this case and what the outcome should be.

Steinglass to the jury box: Unlike the opinionated masses, you're gonna have two things they don't: 1) access to evidence and testimony and 2) judge's instruction on the law.

On the publicity point, one juror says that she often spends time off the grid (which Steinglass says sounds nice), and blocks out a couple days a week as "no news days."

B285 has the mic in the front row now. She says she has no concerns about being fair and impartial.

Per the pool: Blanche, sitting just a few feet from where Steinglass is standing at a lectern, is staring intently at him as he addresses the jury box, occasionally taking notes.

Steinglass is now talking about inconsistencies that may arise between witness testimonies, and says this should be expected. He's making a baseball analogy—how people can dispute an umpire's call. "Minor discrepancies and unimportant details like that don't speak to the truth."

Steinglass is now talking about the "baggage" that some witnesses may have, who include a "tabloid publisher, an adult film star, and a former lawyer for Mr Trump named Michael Cohen who has pled guilty for several federal crimes including lying to Congress."

Some of these witnesses were given immunity in this case in order to get them to come clean, says Steinglass.

He asks whether jurors will "shut their ears" to witnesses after learning this about them. No one voices conerns.

Steinglass is now using another hypothetical, of "Jack and Jill" robbing a bank. His voice is accessible, almost welcoming in a teacherly way. He's nodding a lot, cracking a few jokes, and overall trying to come across relatable, it seems.

The case is neither a referendum on whether you like Trump, nor is it a referendum on whether you like the witnesses. "Can you separate believability from likability?" Steinglass asks.

We're now getting into some of the legal techincalities, as Steinglass explains the concept of "accessorial liability," and asks if anyone has a problem with that, giving yet another analogy: "let's say your husband hires a hitman."

Bove and Trump are in conversation, as Blanche remains laser-focused on Steinglass and the jury box.

Steinglass is now talking about determining Trump's intent in making or causing the false entries in his business records. We can't get in someone's head or read their minds. But jury's are called on to discern intent, because intent is an element of so many crimes.

What were Trump and his cohorts doing or saying as the truth began to come out? What was the context in which they were taking place? Steinglass offers another example—someone honking at you as you cross the street—to help figure out intent.

Merchan cuts in and asks whether Steinglass is just about done.

Steinglass reminds the jury that it's his burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump's guilt in this case.

If he does that though, he's asking whether people will be able to render the verdict of guilty—it's his last question.

Steinglass is done, and Blanche asks for a "very quick sidebar." Perhaps it has to do with the hitman analogy—a pool reporter notes that some of Trump's attorneys looked annoyed when Steinglass made it.

12:05 p.m. Merchan calls for a very quick, 10-minute recess.

Merchan is now discussing Trump's right and wish to be present at sidebars. Apparently Trump has changed his mind since yesterday, and will now waive his right to be present at sidebars.

Trump re-entered the courtroom at 12:13 p.m., giving a thumbs up to pool reporters who asked how it's going.

Jurors are now returning to the courtroom as well.

"Welcome back jurors, and thank you for being so prompt," Merchan says pointedly.

Blanche is now at the podium, introducing himself, co-counsel, and his client, Donald Trump.

Blanche immediately goes after Steinglass's many analogies and examples and says: "This isn't a baseball game. This is extraordinarily serious."

"We all know that every one of you know President Trump," Blanche says, from before Trump was president, during, and since. Blanche is asking for people's "opinion" on Trump. He starts with B288, asking her opinion of Trump.

B288 doesn't have an opinion of Trump, "not in this courtroom...He will be treated like anyone else, and no one is above the law." Blanche asks about her opinion outside this case, walking into this. "I didn't even know I was walking into this," she says, and Blanche laughs.

Another juror now says: "Obviously I know about Trump bc I'm a female, and he has targeted females" she says. Says that she has heard "he doesn't treat females correctly, stuff like that."

Blanche is now questioning the juror who's a fellow prosecutor, though in a different borough. Juror says it "boils down" to whether he can listen to the laws given by the judge. "Up to this point, [Trump's] proven innocent," he adds.

The prosecutor-juror has friends in law enforcement who are fairly pro-Trump, but he doesn't follow national politics that much.

Now B113, who said yesterday no one is above the law, not the president, not a janitor, has the mic: "What I think about [Trump] outside this room" has no bearing...If we were sitting in a bar, I'd be happy to tell you, but in this room how I feel about Trump is not important."

Blanche presses him gently on this, but the juror is holding firm that his opinion of Trump doesn't matter. He adds, "I'm a Democrat, there you go," but his job is to judge him as a defendant. [^Correction to above, I'm not sure if it's B113.]

Blanche seems satisfied, so we move onto another juror who is an attorney. He says, "I was a big fan of The Apprentice when I was watching in middle school at the time," which gets a chuckle from Trump.

We're jumping around quickly now, as the mic changes hands again. This juror says she tries to stay in the middle ground, sees a lot "on both sides," and tries not to make friends or enemies over politics. Blanche reassures everyone that he's not asking about their politics.

All the jurors so far seem to be very reluctant to give their opinion of Trump, per Blanche's repeated question, saying it's not relevant in this courtroom or in this case.

"I agree with the others in separating the politics and the person," says one juror.

"Feelings are not facts," says the juror originally from Mexico, who later became a U.S. citizen. He adds: "I'm very grateful to be an American, and that happened the first year [Trump] was president."

"I find him fascinating," says another juror. "He walks into a room and just sets people off." Trump smiles and chuckles to himself.

"Um, alright, thank you," Blanche says and the press laughs.

Now jurors are opening up a bit more about Trump. "Trump has been a notable figure in real estate as a developer, there's very little we probably agree on policy wise, sometimes I get frustrated with it," says one woman in the jury box. But she says she can set those aside.

You're gonna hear evidence from a really long time ago, like tweets from 2015-16 says Blanche, which will bring up memories from the time. The juror says she's "very very skeptical" of what's on the news, and that she was on Twitter for two days, and gave it up.

"I didn't sleep last night thinking about, could I really do that," she says about being fair and impartial. Blanche seems satisfied, and she passes the mic.

To the next juror, Blanche says he knows it's difficult setting your opinion aside but—"I don't think it's difficult, not to cut you off," she says, cutting Blanche off. She says she likes how Trump speaks his mind, but she doesn't have a strong opinion on him either way.

Blanche is running out of time but now asks whether anyone is getting the news of Trump's charges here for the first time—one juror, B374, says this is the first they're hearing of it.

Trump is quite engaged now, looking at each juror in the box as they answer Blanche's questions. The prosecution takes notes.

"I can't judge him. I've heard about the other cases, but I just feel like he speaks his mind, he stirs the pot—you can't judge him because he speaks his mind," says one woman.

"I wanna say some things, but my mother said be nice," she adds, and Blanche chuckles.

Blanche reminds jury that burden of proof is on the prosecution, not Trump. "We could literally sit here and do nothing." But, he asks if jurors can accept burden from now until the end that Trump is innocent. (I assume the rest of that is "until proven guilty" but he doesnt say)

The next juror doesn't have a mic for some reason, so Blanche asks him to just shout, so we can't hear it in overflow. "I don't think I could've said it better myself," Blanche replies to his answer, and the press laughs painfully at the irony.

Blanche is finished, and Merchan asks the jurors to step out while counsel reviews their notes to make their decisions. He says it'll be "a few minutes."

While we wait for counsel, pool reporters to the rescue: the juror without a mic was an older white-haired woman speaking animatedly, who said “If he decides not to speak…that’s your right, you can’t presume that makes him guilty," while waving her hands for emphasis.

It's quiet here in press overflow, only the sound of typing, a few hushed conversations, and the jangling of keys on the belts of the officers' walking around monitoring the courtroom for any prohibited activities, like selfies, eating candy, and the like.

In the pool, @eorden reports that just before Trump exited the courtroom minutes ago to deliberate with counsel on jury selection, he pointed his finger to call aide Jason Miller over to the aisle, and the two huddled briefly.

@eorden Merchan and counsel are back, and the judge wants Blanche to promise that they'll be done by 2:15 p.m. after lunch. There are still 6 jurors in the first panel who need to enter the box, and Merchan still wants to at least start on the second panel before we adjourn today.

@eorden 18 jurors are back in the box, and the other 6 are back in the gallery. Merchan is excusing the jurors for lunch, to be back at 2:15 p.m. sharp.

Anyone wanna buy me lunch?

In all seriousness, thanks to everyone who contributed to our trial coverage for @lawfare, and for everyone else, we hope you consider donating too. Though I'll still be able to eat lunch, we can't do this without your help. givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

2:15 p.m. on the dot, and Merchan and parties are back.

Blanche rises to put an issue on the table before challenges. He says there are a number of jurors whose social media posts are contrary to the answers they gave.

Merchan seems put off by this diversion.

To note: the jurors are not yet back in the courtroom, this is just a conversation between Merchan and counsel for the two sides, including Trump.

Merchan wants to proceed with challenges. For 1-12, no challenges from Steinglass, but Blanche starts with Juror 1.

Blanche's challenge to Juror 1: she has "a series of extraordinarily hostile facebook posts," according to Blanche, and Merchan asks to see them.

Merchan reviews them, and then says, sketpically, "I'm not sure... did you hand me the right thing?" It appears to be two screengrabs, Merchan says.

One screengrab depicts a group of people saying they want to get in a car to spread the honking cheer, Merchan is confused, Blanche adds context that it was around the time that Trump lost the election, apparently. Steinglass stands and calls it "ridiculous"

Merchan says calmly to Blanche, "Show me the bias."

Blanche says this is someone who thought it significant and important enough to take and post video of a celebration at Trump's defeat—Merchan, still confused, wants to play the video so he gets the context.

"How can you confirm this is the juror's account?" Merchan asks, and Blanche says something about open source. "So by name?" Merchan asks, but Blanche says no, just the information provided and the face.

A reminder that this is an anonymous jury, but as @rparloff pointed out on yesterday's @lawfare podcast, nothing in this case prevents counsel from researching prospective jurors using open source information lawfaremedia.org/article/the-la…

Merchan says we can't conclude that this is an anti-Trump celebration, nor that she was definitely there.

The juror in question is now coming in, and Merchan will allow the sides to ask her questions re: the social media posts.

Before she comes in, Merchan warns that he doesn't want this to be a cross-examination—only have her clarify what this is and explain why it is or isn't consistent with what she said. It's not another opportunity to voir dire her.

She's back in the courtroom. Blanche asks her about the Facebook post circa 2020 election. She went to move her car for alternate side parking (a very NY answer), and when she saw people dancing it reminded her of the 7pm cheer for service workers during COVID (another NY answer)

Blanche now asks about the caption—get in the car to spread the honking cheer, it's a full on dance party—she repeats that she just thought it was a celebratory moment in NYC, that was it.

She reads the subtext—whether or not she has bias—she says she understands implicit biases exist, but regardless of her thoughts about anyone or anything political, that the job of a juror is to understand the facts of a trial and to be the judge of those facts.

She leaves, and Merchan says that Trump was muttering audibly, speaking in the direction of the juror while she was at the podium. Merchan's voice raises a bit, he wants to make it crystal clear that he won't tolerate anything of the sort.

Blanche whispers to Trump, who nods, then Blanche turns back to address Merchan re: his challenge to the juror in question.

Steinglass is up, and says "notwithstanding the impropriety of trolling the internet," he clarifies that the standard is a "highly unfavorable" view of the defendant, which Steinglass passionately argues she did not convey.

Merchan cuts him off. "We're not going to go back and forth, this is not going to turn into an appellate argument." He's going to hear each side quickly then rule.

Merchan: "I don't want a juror on this panel who lies to us, who misleads us as to his or her views" about Trump. Merchan seems satisfied with the jurors' answers to both. Trump looks at Merchan with an inscrutable expression.

Her voice, her demeanor, all lent to her credibility in Merchan's eyes. This is the "unequivocal assurance" Merchan needs to deny the challenge, should he so choose.

Challenge for cause is DENIED for Juror 1.

Next challenge? Blanche is going incrementally: Juror 2.

This time for conduct during the time of Trump's conduct alleged in the indictment. Juror 2 either tweeted or retweeted: "Get him out, and lock him up"

Steinglass wants to bring in Juror 2 for clarification but expresses confusion as to how the defense is determining whose Facebook account this is, and how the research is conducted.

Merchan will bring Juror 2 in, but he goes back to Blanche's question: "What is your opinion of Trump?" which Merchan calls "really problematic," even though he didn't stop it in voir dire, because there were no objections from prosecution.

"What is your opinion? I really don't know what that's asking," Merchan tells Blanche. But Blanche says it's broad by design to identify an opinion or bias independent of the facts of the case.

Juror 2 is back in the courtroom. Blanche asks about the facebook post (correction: not Twitter), which he shows the juror. Juror confirms it's his account. He doesn't remember the post, but confirms that it must have been him because it's his account.

It's a bit difficult to hear the juror, but he says that he did post it at the time, but firmly reiterates his belief that he can remain unbiased.

We can't hear the questions, counsel must not have a mic, but juror says he can "put all prior feelings aside." Merchan thanks him and he steps out.

Merchan now reads the post: "Good news!! Trump lost his court battle and his unlawful travel ban!!! Get him out and lock him up" Merchan mentions he'd be fine with it if it ended at travel ban, but the desire to lock him up convinces Merchan to GRANT the challenge for cause.

With Juror at seat 2 dismissed, Blanche moves onto his next challenge. You guessed it, Juror 3.

It's Juror B330, and Blanche pulls up screengrabs from her husband, not her, all of which he says displays anti-Trump bias. One post has Obama and Trump with the caption: "I don't think this is what they meant by Orange is the New Black"

As Merchan reads a description of that post into the record, he says "Apologies, I don't mean to offend anyone."

Trump doesn't look amused. He's looking down at the table, but my view is blocked by the computer monitor in front of him.

Blanche begins to argue his side, but Merchan cuts him off, impatiently. He doesn't want to have a full-blown argument for each juror.

Steinglass agrees, and says "people post political humor all the time—it's not a window into the soul." He takes issue with the use of social media posts in general, especially ones from as long ago as 2016.

Merchan is less inclined to allow a challenge for a 8+ year old post by a juror's husband: "Honestly if this is the worst thing you were able to find about this juror...then it gives me confidence that this juror can be" fair and impartial.

That challenge is denied.

Onto Juror 6. Blanche again distributes pieces of paper to opposing counsel and Merchann.

Merchan begins to describe what's on the paper: appears to contain 3 posts, first says "want to beat trump 2024? help fund local groups" another with a Biden/Harris poster, third is a photo of Trump with a caption that says "Trump indicted in documents case"

Blanche adds context about a 1m30s AI-generated video from March 27 in which Trump says "I'm dumb as fuck"

Also posts from yesterday in which the juror said on social media that he can't discuss the case, and answered "I have to go back tomorrow" to a question "Did you get picked?"

Blanche takes issue with this juror not giving his views, but Merchan again goes to his criticism of the open-ended nature of Blanches's voir dire question: "What is your opinion?"

The juror, B113, is coming in for further questioning.

The juror confirms it is his account. He clarifies that he sells buttons to raise money to support a PAC that supports grassroots "bring out the vote" organizations that don't support a specific party. E.g. Movement for Voters

"It was just something that I reposted," in response to the AI video I think, Juror reiterates his opinion outside this room has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Blanche asks if he watched it, juror says he's not sure, he maybe just reposted it bc it's funny

Merchan thanks him, and he steps out. Merchan reminds counsel to please use the mic becasue the press overflow can't hear when they don't. The press applauds, myself very much included.

The challenge for cause is successful—juror in seat 6 is gone.

Steinglass wants to strike Jurors 7, 8, and 11 for cause.

Merchan asks about any peremptory challenges for 1-12, and the parties deliberate amonst each other briefly.

Blanche says he moves to strike Jurors 1, 3 (B330), 5 (B113), 10 (B158).

Our count so far, according to Merchan:

Seat 4 becomes Juror 1 and foreperson.

Seat 5 becomes Juror 2.

Seat 12 becomes Juror 3.

Back to Blanche, challenging Seat 16 for cause. Sheets have been distributed, and Merchan, with apologies again for these attempts at humor, describes a caption: "Trump invites the Thai boys to the White House, and the boys request to return to their cave."

These posts are 6+ years ago, and Blanche gets ahead of Merchan's question by saying that some of the evidence in the trial will be from around then as well.

She's back, and Blanche is showing her the posts, reiterating that they're "several years old." She confirmss it's her page but does not remember posting it. She says there's very little political content on her page these days because it got too vitriolic.

Blanche wanted to follow up on her earlier comment about sleeping on it, she clarifies that wasn't about impartiality, but rather the "seriousness...there's a lot more weight on this than on other trials...this is like a big deal in the grander scheme of things."

CORRECTION (sorry it's a bit hard to hear):

Seat 4 becomes Juror 1 and foreperson

*Seat 9* becomes Juror 2.

Seat 12 becomes Juror 3.

https://x.com/tylermcbrien/status/1780314129200263460?s=46&t=G_8uQ34IDrvrFy9lofZOCg

Blanche returns to his argument that opinion and politics are central to the task of jury selection. Merchan asks if there was anything else on Seat 16's page that was satirical, but maybe not related to Trump? Blanche takes a minute to check.

Merchan isn't convinced. He thinks the posts are fairly categorized as satire, and doesn't come close to the other juror's posts about locking Trump up.

Challenge for cause is DENIED for B128, seat 16.

We have three more jurors:

Seat 14( B89) is Juror 4.

Seat 17 (B74) is Juror 5.

Seat 18 (B297) is Juror 6.

Merchan is calling in the first 6 jurors to be sworn in. He's going to ask them to plan to return on Monday, but subject to change. To recap:

B-400
FOREPERSON - Juror No. 1

B280
Juror No. 2

B381
Juror NO. 3

B89
Juror No. 4

B74,
Juror No. 5

B297
Juror No. 6

The video is disabled, but we hear Merchan has welcomed the jurors back in, and he asks them to listen for their number because this time it'll be a little different.

"This will be your permanent seat for the duration of the trial," he says.

The first six jurors have been sworn in.

Halfway there—well, a third the way there including alternates. Seems quick, no?

Before the jurors come back in, Merchan asks Blanche to confirm that the media they're accessing is public media—Blanche says yes.

The second panel is here and sworn in. Merchan introduces himself and apologies for the waiting, and assures them that their time is not wasted. He's going to excuse them now and ask them to return Thursday morning, at which point they can can start right at 9:30 a.m.

We're back at the questionnaire stage.

Merchan calls into the box:

Seat 1 B262
Seat 2 B270
Seat 3 B352
Seat 4 B269
Seat 5 B364
Seat 6 B344

These jurors have been watching for a while, they should know how it all works—we hope.

B262 says right away that she's a medical director and full-time doctor who is concerned about fulfilling her duty to her patients. She worries about being present. No objections, excused.

He offers a "full disclosure w/r/t social media," at some point when he was "learning Twitter" he "followed the president," but clarifies that he wasn't "using" Twitter, just "learning about it."

We have our second Trump reader! "The Art of the Deal, a long time ago," he says.

He wraps up the questionnaire but offers another "full disclosure, whatever it's worth," he lives on the UES, and by nature of that there are people he knows who know Trump, though he doesn't know him personally.

He says he knows guys who "have committed crimes"—he laughs—"that's the best I can tell you."

"I'm a little nervous here, the spotlight," he says.

"Take your time," Merchan says.

"I love law enforcement," he says. "I just like it."

Last but not least, we have Seat 6 B344, who begins, "As much as I would love to serve for New York and one of our great presidents," he cannot give up my job for 6 weeks.

He is excused without objection. Now onto voir dire for the remaining panelists.

This will take at most an hour, but it seems unlikely each side will take the full 30 mins for voir dire with so few panelists.

Susan Hoffinger takes the podium for the prosecution.

Hoffinger asks as a start whether there's anything they've heard thus far that causes jurors cause for concern about being fair and impartial. Seeing none, she turns to B352, who was in real estate.

He clarifies that he knows people who "directly" know Trump. Hoffinger asks what he has talked to them about re: Trump, but he says he tries "not to talk about politics at all" in business or with friends.

Hoffingr asks if he has any views of Trump's reputation in the real estate industry? He's mumbling, but says he has seen Trump's work, and is aware of it, but no further opinion. She asks about his opinion of The Art of the Deal, which he simply calls "entertaining."

"Do you think there's anything about being in the same field as Trump that would cause" him to be unfair?, Hoffinger asks. He's unequivocal: nothing whatsoever.

Now to B269, the lawyer, Hoffinger asks about his profession. He says he's a civil litigator, so he knows virtually nothing about the law at issue in this case, and assures her that he can follow the judge's instructions.

Now to B364, who replies, "Uh oh."

Hoffinger asks about his friends who have been convicted of crimes in the past, and brings up Michael Cohen, who pled guilty in 2018 to a number of crimes.

Anything about that fact that would prevent a fair shake to that witness? He replies that if you plea bargain or plea deal, it can mean one of two things: you're looking out for yourself, or you're telling the truth. Because of that, he'll have to really listen to him.

"I was a corrections office in New York City, so I've heard it all," he says, after Hoffinger asks if he can listen with open ears to Cohen's testimony.

Bottom line: B364 assures that he can give a fair listen and not prejudge.

Now onto B269, a similar question about Cohen. Will the juror be prejudiced against his credibility given his past admissions of guilt? No.

Then to B352, same question, same answer.

Correction to the timing of voir dire: Merchan apparently told the parties they only have 15 mins a side, per pool reports.

This reporter at least, is thankful for that particular order.

In addition to witness testimony, Hoffinger mentions there will be quite a few documents in this case, and "documents don't lie." Anyone have an issue with spending a lot of time with documents, spreadsheets, emails, texts?

B364 says he likes to read textbooks and "how-to's" so he actually enjoys reading long documents.

With that, Hoffinger is done for the prosecution.

Blanche steps up, and apologizes for being the last person to talk to them after a long day.

He starts with B352, the real estate developer, and asks if he has a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Trump, what he "brings into this courtroom"? Juror responds that this is a "pretty loaded question"—there are things he disagrees with, things that were done well.

But he refuses to categorize his opinion as favorable or unfavorable.

Now to B364, same question about particular views of Trump outside of this courtroom, even before he was a candidate for president. "Oh boy," he says, saying rhetorically that he's a New Yorker. "Going back to Central Park," he says apparenntly referencing the Central Park Five.

Blanche now reiterates the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All jurors say they understand.

Now onto a question about social media posting: one juror posts about his kids, one juror calls himself a "repost king."

To the repost king, Blanche says "I appreciate that."

The jurors have been asked to step outside while the attorneys review their notes.

At the buzzer, we have our seventh juror:

Seat 4 (B269) is Juror 7.

Merchan again says to this one additional juror now that he's hopeful that by Monday morning, "We'll be ready to go." He gives the boilerplate instructions and says, "I'll see you Monday, thank you."

5:37 p.m. and we are adjourned for the day.

Hey, 7 out of 18 ain't bad. See you all Thursday morning.