Donald Trump is accused of falsifying business records involving the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
  • comador @lemmy.world
    134·
    7 months ago

    “I thought STRIKES were supposed to be ‘unlimited’ when we were picking our jury?” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

    State law, a law that’s been around for over a hundred years, limits it to 10 strikes.

    That’s what he gets for thinking again.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      120·
      7 months ago

      Trump always complains when he has to follow the rules. Doesn’t matter what the rule is, he always wants to be the exception.

      It probably comes from the decades of experience he has in not having to follow the rules.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        561·
        7 months ago

        And he’s always been a lying manipulative piece of shit too.

        Exemplifying that here - he actually does get unlimited strikes if there’s a legal reason that juror shouldn’t be there (e.g. if they say, “I’m not going to consider the evidence, I’ve already made up my mind.”) He’s only limited to 10 strikes without having a legal basis for them, but his followers are going to see Trump’s whining and walk away with the impression that his lawyers are forced to spend those 10 strikes on “I’ve already made up my mind” jurors.

        • Volkditty@lemmy.worldEnglish
          49·
          7 months ago

          Trump supporters already have the impression that all the potential jurors are out to get Trump, because their whole worldview necessitates a constant attitude of victimhood.

    • talEnglish
      191·
      7 months ago

      I’m not familiar with New York jury procedure, but I vaguely recall reading that – not specific to New York – typically there are unlimited “for cause” removals, and a finite number of “not for cause”. Like, you can object to someone who isn’t going to actually do a sane job as a juror.

      googles

      Yeah.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause

      Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.

      During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a suitable punishment.[1] An example would be a potential juror in a murder case, where the sentencing options include the death penalty and a lesser sentence (such as life without parole), who states that they “would sentence a defendant to death if found guilty”; such a statement may indicate the person’s unwillingness to fairly consider a life without parole sentence.

      Unlike a peremptory challenge (the number of which are limited by the court during voir dire, and unless a Batson challenge is raised the challenge is automatically granted) there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must state a specific reason (in the example above, the reason would be the juror’s bias against a non-death penalty sentence) and be granted by the trial judge; often both attorneys and sometimes the judge will question the juror being challenged.

      If one attorney moves to strike a juror for cause but the judge rejects the motion, the attorney may still use a peremptory challenge (if they have any remaining) to strike the juror, and on appeal may raise a claim that the motion should have been granted but, because it was not, the attorney had to either use a peremptory challenge or seat a biased juror.