How I Would Pick a Jury in the Trump Hush Money Trial

Introduction

The jury selection process in the trial of Donald Trump, who faces 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to payments made to Stormy Daniels, is a critical component of the legal proceedings. Given the politically charged nature of the case, both the prosecution and the defense will strategically select jurors who they believe are most likely to deliver a verdict in their favor.

Drawing from my 30+ years of experience as a California trial lawyer, I thought I’d share a few strategies each side may employ during jury selection.

Prosecution Perspective

Strategic Goals and Challenges

The prosecution, representing the Manhattan District Attorney's office, will likely aim to assemble a jury that understands the gravity of election interference allegations and values transparency in political processes. A key challenge will be overcoming potential biases in favor of Trump, given his significant public profile and the polarized political climate.

Effective Jury Selection Questions

With this in mind, I’d expect the prosecution to ask questions like:

Understanding of Legal Principles: "Can you explain your understanding of what constitutes falsifying business records?"

Political Bias: "How do you feel about the 2016 (or 2020) presidential election, and have these feelings changed over time?"

Media Consumption: "What sources do you frequently use to get news, and how do you think this influences your perception of political figures?"

Opinions on Accountability: "Do you believe public figures should be held to higher standards of accountability compared to private individuals?"

Impartiality Assurance: "Are you willing to base your verdict solely on the evidence presented, regardless of any pre-existing opinions about the involved parties?"

Defense Perspective

Strategic Goals and Challenges

The defense's primary objective is to secure a jury that may empathize with Trump's privacy concerns and view the payments as personal rather than political. The challenge lies in screening out jurors who might harbor negative sentiments towards Trump based on his political and personal background.

Effective Jury Selection Questions

Bias Recognition: "Do you have any strong feelings about Donald Trump that would make it difficult for you to judge the case fairly?"

Understanding of Motives: "In your view, are there ever justifiable reasons for a public figure to seek privacy in personal matters?"

Legal Perspective: "What is your understanding of what makes a business record falsification a criminal offense?"

Family Values: "How important are family values and personal privacy to you, and how does this affect your perception of public figures?"

Evidence-based Judgment: "Can you commit to making a decision based solely on the evidence presented in court, irrespective of any media stories you might have heard?"

Common Mistakes and Expert Strategies

Inexperienced lawyers often falter by asking yes-or-no questions or questions that can be perceived as leading, which do not reveal deep-seated biases or allow jurors to openly discuss their views. In contrast, experienced attorneys use open-ended questions to engage potential jurors in conversation, thereby uncovering subtle biases and building rapport. This engagement helps in assessing the juror's ability to remain impartial and thoughtful throughout the trial.

Examples of Questions Asked by Inexperienced Lawyers

Asking Leading Questions: Inexperienced lawyers often ask questions that subtly suggest the answer they want to hear, such as "You don't have any biases against public figures, do you?" This type of questioning can backfire by alerting jurors to the perceived "correct" answer, thus failing to reveal their true thoughts.

Relying on Yes-or-No Questions: This approach limits the information a juror provides. For instance, asking "Do you believe in the justice system?" only yields a simple yes or no, without context or depth regarding their beliefs or potential biases.

Ignoring Non-Verbal Cues: Novice attorneys sometimes focus solely on the verbal responses of jurors, neglecting non-verbal cues like body language or facial expressions that might provide additional insight into a juror's feelings and potential biases. This is one of the big reasons why I refused to try important matters via Zoom during the pandemic.

Expert Strategies in Jury Selection

Using Open-Ended Questions: Experienced lawyers use open-ended questions to encourage jurors to speak freely about their views and experiences. A question like "What are your thoughts on the role of privacy in public life?" allows the attorney to gauge a juror's attitudes and potential biases more effectively than simple yes-or-no queries.

Building Rapport: Skilled attorneys engage jurors in a dialogue to create a more relaxed environment where jurors feel comfortable expressing honest opinions. For example, starting with lighter questions about general interests before delving into opinions on complex legal issues can open up a more genuine conversation.

Following Up for Clarity: When a juror gives an ambiguous answer, adept lawyers will follow up with additional questions to clarify the juror's thoughts and ensure understanding. For instance, if a juror expresses dislike for political figures in general, a lawyer might ask, "Can you elaborate on that feeling and how it might affect your view of this case?"

These expert strategies are designed to uncover true sentiments and build a jury capable of fair and impartial deliberation based on the evidence presented in the trial.

Ideal Juror Profile

For the prosecution in this case, the ideal juror is one who respects the rule of law, understands the implications of falsifying records, and can remain unbiased despite political undercurrents. Conversely, the defense will favor jurors who prioritize personal privacy, question governmental overreach, and can empathize with the pressures faced by public figures.

Conclusion

Jury selection in the Trump hush money trial is a nuanced art, pivotal to the outcomes of the case. Both sides will benefit from selecting jurors who not only meet their strategic needs but are also capable of engaging with the complexities of the case in an unbiased manner.

In this high-profile trial, the ability of the jury to set aside personal beliefs and focus strictly on the evidence will be paramount to achieving a full and fair verdict.

Mitch Jackson | Lawyer and Private Mediator