Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
The locksmith. The golf hobbyist. The sports podcast listener. The woman who said she once dated a lawyer but clarified that the relationship ended just fine.
Manhattanites spilled into a courtroom Tuesday and were quizzed about their media diet, hobbies and families - all to see whether they can be fair jurors in the criminal trial of a former president, who also happens to be the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
The Washington Post had four reporters in the courthouse. We started lining up outside before 7 a.m. and have spent the day in the courtroom with Trump or in the media overflow room to witness the questioning of potential jurors and report the news in real time. A slew of editors and reporters assisted the coverage - including the other half of this beloved newsletter - from our main newsroom in D.C.
Court will not be in session Wednesday. But we will be back to cover the rest of jury selection on Thursday and Friday.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said opening statements could begin as early as Monday. We'll be there for that, too. And the day after that. And every day until the trial is concluded.
Here are our main takeaways from Tuesday:
• Seven down, seven-plus to go
Things moved briskly in the afternoon portion of jury selection. The judge and lawyers selected seven of 12 jurors. (An additional six alternates need to be selected.)
One of the selected jurors, a middle-aged man who has lived in the city for 40 years and previously lived in Puerto Rico, said he once served on a jury in a civil trial long ago but can't remember the verdict. The IT consultant said he reads some news and enjoys spending time with his family.
Another is a young college-educated woman who lives in Chelsea with three roommates. She's a software engineer who gets her news from the New York Times and TikTok. A third is a lifelong New York resident who lives in Harlem and teaches at a charter school. The woman lives with her brother, a basketball coach, and her parents are retired New York police employees.
The selected jurors did not seem to have a deep knowledge of the case and said they could be impartial as they determine whether the former president is guilty of the state charges against him.
• Trump's attorneys came prepared with social media posts
Trump's attorneys - who have the names of the prospective jurors, although they will remain anonymous to the public - are combing through some of the public social media posts searching for anti-Trump bias. That kind of research is fair game in the jury selection process, but there is sharp disagreement about the significance of such posts.
In one instance, Trump's attorney presented the judge with a prospective juror's Facebook page in which she posted a video of people celebrating Joe Biden's 2020 election victory on Manhattan streets. The woman said she was not participating in the celebration.
Todd Blanche, Trump's attorney, said the posts were "hostile" to his client. The judge seemed skeptical and said he didn't understand how the post could be construed as hostile.
"Where does this refer to your client?" Merchan asked.
Trump's attorneys used one of their 10 challenges to dismiss the juror.
In another instance, Blanche showed the court that a prospective juror posted a derogatory AI video about Trump. The prospective juror had also responded to questions on social media about whether he had been picked for the jury, answering that he was required to return Tuesday. Upon questioning from Merchan, the potential juror said that he sells buttons to raise money for nonpartisan voter mobilization and that he didn't recall watching the video before reposting it.
"My opinion of the defendant outside this room has nothing to do with the merits of this case," the prospective juror said.
Merchan struck that potential juror from the panel.
•
Prosecutors argued voting Democratic does not make an unfair juror
In heavily Democratic and Trump-aware Manhattan, prosecutors repeatedly made the argument that having opinions about Trump and voting Democrat should not disqualify prospective jurors.
"It seems that everyone and their mother has an opinion about this case, and what the right outcome may be, however uninformed that opinion may be," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said. "This case has nothing to do with your personal politics."
Steinglass said everyone knows about Trump, so it would be impossible to find a jury that is a complete blank slate when it comes to the former president.
"Let's talk about the obvious: The defendant in this case is both the former president and a candidate for that office," the prosecutor said. "No one is suggesting that you can't be a fair juror because you've heard of Donald Trump. We don't expect you to have been living under a rock for the last eight years or the last 30 years."
• Trump, sometimes sleepy, was attentive during juror questioning
There were times during the proceedings that Trump appeared to tilt his head from side to side. But for the most part, during pointed questioning of potential jurors, the former president was attentive.
Trump and his attorneys laughed when a prospective juror mangled some of the titles of Trump's books.
"I read the ‘Art of the Deal' and, I want to say, ‘Count be rich … ‘Champion,' or something like that," that person said.
When the prosecutor asked one now-dismissed juror - who had posted years ago that Trump should be "locked up" - whether he still believed the former president should be looked up, the man answered "no." Trump craned his neck toward the person and smirked.
During the questioning of another potential juror over a social media post, Merchan chided Trump for muttering during the back-and-forth.
"I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom," Merchan added.
•
Question Time
Q. What happens if a juror lies? For example, what if a juror says they are not politically active but actually are?
A. If a juror lies on a questionnaire or in open court, they are committing perjury. Most juror forms require prospective jurists to swear that their answers are correct to the best of their knowledge, according to Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at American University, who has written a book about jury duty.
Ferguson said that in a high-profile case such as this one, jurors are likely to be heavily scrutinized. While a judge would not research potential jurors online, Ferguson said that the lawyers on both sides have their names and that it's common practice for the parties to verify what they can about the prospective jurors.
"The judge and the parties are well aware that people might try to lie for all the wrong reasons and there will be a heightened care taken to make sure that does not happen," Ferguson wrote in an email.
He said he expects the punishments would be severe if it is revealed that a juror lied about their background or beliefs.
"This trial is a test of the American jury system," Ferguson wrote. "It is a difficult test because of all the politics and passions underneath the case. So any juror that risks undermining the case, risks undermining the jury system and a judge is going to be furious if that should happen. The juror would probably get more jail time than the former president."