Former President Donald Trump arrived at a court in New York on Monday, April 15th, to begin the selection of a jury for his hush money trial. This marks a historically significant moment as the former president will be responding to criminal charges over the next few days.
This is the first time in U.S. history that a former president is facing criminal trial, and it is the first of four charges Trump is confronting that has entered the trial phase. Being the presumptive nominee on the Republican presidential ticket this year, he now has to navigate between courtroom appearances during the day and campaigning at night, creating a dizzying “split-screen” effect for observers.
Before the jury selection process commences, there may be legal arguments and court matters to address. Dozens of individuals will be summoned to the court to begin the selection of 12 jurors and 6 alternate jurors.
The process of selecting jurors is arduous and challenging. Judge Juan M. Merchan emphasized the importance of ensuring that “future jurors can assure us that they will set aside any personal emotions or biases and make a decision based on evidence and the law.”
The prosecution alleges that during the 2016 election campaign, Trump attempted to suppress rumors regarding his sexual activities, which Trump has vehemently denied.
At the core of the allegations is that Trump’s company paid $130,000 to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen, on behalf of Trump, made this payment to prevent adult film actress Stormy Daniels from publicly disclosing an alleged sexual encounter with the married magnate a month before the election.
Prosecutors claim that the payment to Cohen was falsely recorded as legal fees to conceal its actual purpose. Trump’s lawyers argue that the payments were indeed legal fees, not for deceptive purposes.
Trump views this case, along with other charges, as a weaponization by Democratic prosecutors and officials, claiming they are scheming false accusations to impede his presidential campaign.
After decades of litigation, this businessman turned politician is now facing a trial. If convicted, he could face up to four years in prison or potentially be acquitted.
Regardless of the outcome, a trial of a former president and current candidate is an exceptionally grave moment for both the U.S. political system and Trump himself. For many Americans, such a scenario once seemed unimaginable.
Trump’s lawyers lost a motion to dismiss the hush money case and subsequently tried multiple times to delay the trial, leading to a series of last-minute hearings by the appellate court last week.
During the hearings, Trump’s lawyers insisted that in Manhattan, where Democrats overwhelmingly dominate, the jury pool had been tainted by negative coverage about Trump, arguing that the case should be moved elsewhere.
One appellate judge rejected the emergency request to delay the trial, while the request to change the trial location was submitted to a panel of appellate judges, who will deliberate in the coming weeks.
Prosecutors in Manhattan countered by stating that much of the public perception stemmed from Trump’s own statements, and questioning would verify if potential jurors could set aside any biases they may hold. Prosecutors asserted that there is no reason why 12 fair and impartial individuals cannot be found among Manhattan’s roughly 1.4 million adult residents.
During the process of selecting the 12 jurors and 6 alternates, dozens of individuals will first enter Judge Merchan’s courtroom. The names of these individuals, in addition to prosecutors, Trump, and their legal teams, are kept confidential.
After receiving basic information about the case and jury service, potential jurors will be asked to raise their hands if they believe they cannot serve or be fair and impartial. Those who raise their hands will be excused from jury duty according to documents filed by Merchan last week.
The remaining individuals will be eligible for questioning. Forty-two pre-approved, diverse questions range from basic background inquiries to the specifics of the case.
One question asks, “Do you hold any strong opinions or firm beliefs about former President Donald Trump or his status as the current presidential candidate, which might affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?”
Other questions include attendance at pro or anti-Trump rallies, opinions on Trump’s treatment in the case, preferred news sources, and potential “biases” related to the individual’s “political, moral, intellectual, or religious beliefs or viewpoints” that could skew their views on the case.
Based on these answers, attorneys can request the judge to disqualify individuals who meet certain criteria for incompetence or impartiality. Attorneys can also exercise “peremptory challenges” without providing reasons to dismiss 10 potential jurors and 2 alternate jurors.
During a hearing in February, the judge pointed out, “If you’re going to strike all the Republicans or Democrats, you’re not going to have any ‘peremptory challenges’ left very quickly.”
The article will be continuously updated.
Responsibility Editor: Gao Jing#