Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan took a startling turn on Thursday when two jurors were abruptly excused, demonstrating the challenge of picking citizens to determine the fate of a former president who has promoted attacks on the integrity of the jury and the justice system alike.
One juror told the judge overseeing the case — the first criminal trial of a former American president — that she had developed concerns about her identity being revealed. That fear, she added, might compromise her fairness and “decision-making in the courtroom,” prompting the judge to excuse her.
The precise reason the judge dismissed the other juror was not immediately clear, but prosecutors had raised concerns about the credibility of answers he gave to questions about himself. Asked outside the courthouse whether he believed he should have been dismissed, the man, who declined to give his name, replied: “Nope.”
The dismissals, the latest twist in a trial sure to be full of them, underscored the unprecedented trial of Mr. Trump, who is on charges that he falsified records to cover up a sex scandal. Jurors are risking their safety and their privacy to sit in judgment of a former commander in chief who is now their fellow citizen, a heavy responsibility that could unnerve even the most seen-it-all New Yorkers.
Inside a chilly courtroom on Thursday, as lawyers on both sides scrutinized a new round of prospective jurors, Mr. Trump stared intently at the jury box and appeared to press his lawyers to voice objections. But when Mr. Trump poked one of the lawyers, Todd Blanche, Mr. Blanche shook his head at his client.
Already this week, the judge has scolded Mr. Trump’s comments about jurors, admonishing him to not intimidate anyone in the courtroom.
The two juror ousters on Thursday appeared to rankle the judge, Juan M. Merchan, who has striven to keep the trial on schedule. He said he thought the woman would have “been a very good juror.”
Although the judge has kept prospective jurors’ names private, they have disclosed their employers and other identifying information in open court. Now, however, Justice Merchan has instructed reporters to no longer divulge prospective jurors’ current or past employers, a decision that some media law experts questioned.
Still, jury selection — while bumpy — was moving faster than many had expected. What was once predicted to be a weekslong slog could still wrap up in short order. Justice Merchan had previously signaled that the panel could be set this week and that opening arguments might begin Monday, which is still feasible.
The makeup of the jury and the security of its members will be central to the landmark case. Mr. Trump claims he cannot receive a fair trial in one of the nation’s most Democratic counties, a place where he is deeply unpopular, but still makes moves that could alienate the jury pool.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which accused Mr. Trump of falsifying the records to hide a hush-money deal with a porn star, on Thursday renewed a request that Justice Merchan hold Mr. Trump in contempt of court after he recently reposted attacks on prospective jurors on social media.
The prosecutors have argued that Mr. Trump violated a gag order in the case 10 times, and the judge said he would consider the request next week, when he weighs a related effort to penalize the former president for attacks on witnesses in the case.
Mr. Trump constantly tests the boundaries of the gag order. His political allies, who are not covered by the order, routinely attack the judge and his family. And now, it appears, some jurors might get cold feet.
Jurors are routinely excused by the dozens during selection. Once a trial formally begins, it is common to lose a seated juror for reasons such as illness or violating a judge’s order not to read about the proceeding. But losing two jurors in one day before opening arguments befit a uniquely pressurized trial.
The dismissals brought the number of seated jurors down to five. The final panel will include 12 jurors and as many as six alternates, who will step in if a main juror is excused.
The woman excused Thursday said she had been concerned about news accounts about her; she is an oncology nurse and her employer had been widely reported. Her friends, colleagues and family told her she had been identified as a potential juror, an alarming development that she said prompted her to reconsider whether she could serve.
Moments later, Justice Merchan ordered news outlets not to report the answer to two queries on a lengthy questionnaire for prospective jurors: “Who is your current employer?” and “Who was your prior employer?”
The judge conceded that the information about employers was necessary for lawyers, but directed that those two answers be redacted from the transcript. He warned reporters that “if you can’t stick to that, we’re going to have to see if there is anything else we can do to keep the jurors safe.”
Justice Merchan appeared frustrated by reports that included identifying characteristics of potential jurors that had been aired in open court. He said: “There’s a reason why this is an anonymous jury, and we’ve taken the measures we have taken.”
Justice Merchan also said that he was concerned about outlets publishing physical descriptions of prospective or seated jurors, asking reporters to “simply apply common sense.”
Physical descriptions serve no purpose, Justice Merchan said, adding that he was directing the press to “refrain from writing about anything you observe with your eyes.”
William P. Marshall, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, said that Justice Merchan’s order appeared “constitutionally suspect.” Professor Marshall said that a landmark Supreme Court ruling in a 1976 case, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, struck down a trial judge’s ruling barring the news media from reporting information introduced in open court.
“The presumption against prior restraint is incredibly high in First Amendment law,” Professor Marshall said. “It’s even higher when it’s publishing something that is already a matter of public record.”
Lawyers for news outlets, including The New York Times, were expected to seek clarification on the order.
In early March, Justice Merchan issued an order prohibiting the public disclosure of jurors’ names, while allowing legal teams and the defendant to know their identities.
But before the trial, Mr. Trump’s lawyers requested that potential jurors not be told that the jury would be anonymous unless they expressed concerns. Justice Merchan said that he would “make every effort to not unnecessarily alert the jurors” to this secrecy, merely telling jurors that they would be identified in court by a number.
After the two jurors were excused Thursday, selection continued as lawyers on both sides of the case vetted potential replacements in a courtroom so drafty that even the former president was compelled to acknowledge it, asking reporters, “Cold enough for you?”
Some prospective jurors opted out, acknowledging they might not be fair to Mr. Trump.
One potential juror who was dismissed said he was from Italy and noted that the Italian media had pushed comparisons between Mr. Trump and Silvio Berlusconi, the country’s former prime minister, a media magnate caught up in sex scandals.
“It would be a little hard for me to retain my impartiality and fairness,” he said.
The potential jurors were all questioned about their politics, media diets and views on Mr. Trump. The lawyers were then expected to scrutinize them for any signs of bias, including old social media posts about the former president.
One prospective juror seemed unlikely to have any problematic posts. He disclosed that he only had a flip phone.
“And therefore I do not watch any podcasts,” he says, eliciting laughter from the courtroom on an otherwise tense day
The post Frustration for a Judge as Trump Jury Selection Stumbles Ahead appeared first on New York Times.