As Donald Trump’s consequential hush-money trial continues, the process of jury selection became more challenging on Tuesday, the second day of jury proceedings. Seeking a fair trial, legal representatives are endeavouring to put together an unbiased group of 12 Manhattans, a considerably Democratic locale, to impartially judge the case against the past US President.
Monday’s selection underscored the complexity of the mission. Approximately half of the 96 potential members were excused after confessing they couldn’t pass fair judgement on the contentious entrepreneur turned politician, who is simultaneously managing a political comeback for the presidency and grappling with four separate criminal trials. By Tuesday, only 32 candidates survived the initial selection from which they began to express their responses to a series of enquiries including their preferred news source and their leisure activities.
An excused juror, who found it challenging to stay impartial as his affinities lay with his Republican family, friends, and finance companions, highlighted the presence of a potential subconscious bias despite his attempts to fair judgment. Predominantly a New Yorker but currently residing in Florida, Trump has been a constant feature in the city’s tabloid media for decades before his success in the 2016 Republican presidential campaign. However, his political success within this democratic city has remained limited.
The Manhattan district attorney, Democrat Alvin Bragg, has indicted Trump with 34 felony charges of falsifying business documents to conceal an alleged hush-money exchange to adult film actress Stormy Daniels right before the 2016 elections. Daniels accuses Trump of a sexual encounter a decade prior, an encounter which Mr. Trump denies.
Trump maintains his innocence and refutes any incident. The onus is on the prosecutors to establish the felony by proving Trump veiled the payment in an attempt to hide an illegal act such as an unlawful campaign contribution. Trump insists that the transaction was personal, and his advocates argue that non-political reasons like the avoidance of familial embarrassment could have motivated the payment.
While standing accused of mishandling classified information and attempting to overturn his 2020 defeat to the incumbent President Joe Biden, from the Democratic camp, in other areas, it could be the silence-money case that proceeds to trial ahead of Mr Trump’s anticipated run-off against Mr Biden in the forthcoming November 5th election.
Despite a conviction, Mr Trump retains the ability to both run for and serve as president, should he win. An Ipsos/Reuters poll, however, suggests that around half of the independent vote and a quarter of votes from his own Republican party may not be in his favour if a guilty verdict is brought forward.
With steadfast denial of guilt in each of the four criminal cases brought against him, Trump has characterised these cases as a strategy crafted by Biden’s Democrats to politically sideline him.
Even though the New York case anchors on incidents that occurred over seven years ago, efforts to hold Trump accountable for his more recent actions are on-going.
On Monday, the court was requested by the prosecutors to penalise Mr Trump $1,000 each for three critical social media posts he made this month about Ms Daniels and Mr Cohen, his ex-problem solver and likely key witness in the trial. This request was made to Judge Juan Merchan.
Due to a silence order by Mr Merchan, Trump is prohibited from making disruptive statements about witnesses, courtroom officers, and relatives. Trump’s legal representative, Todd Blanche, countered that the former president was reacting to their criticisms. Mr Merchan is set to consider these penalties on April 23rd.
Trump expressed on Truth Social, his social media network, on Tuesday morning, his frustration with the gag order which blocks his responses to “individuals on television, spreading falsehoods and hate all day”.
Before entering the court, he voiced his dissatisfaction with his attendance at the trial versus being on the campaign. He stated, “This is a trial that should have never been instigated”.
The rest of the week is anticipated to be filled with juror selection, with the trial expected to run at least until May.
The trial’s picked jury of twelve, plus six standbys, will entertain testimony from both Ms Daniels and Mr Cohen, who shares that he made payments to silence her.
Other projected witnesses consist of David Pecker, previous publisher of the scandal rag, the National Enquirer, who according to prosecutors, published stories to support Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Karen McDougal, a past Playboy magazine model, is also scheduled to appear. According to prosecutors, the National Enquirer allegedly compensated her to remain silent concerning her supposed relationship with Mr Trump.