But that's not what happened. As DT said, they held the hearing in a district that voted against Trump to a huge margin. Trump's team asked for a relocation of the hearing, but the judge and DA refused.gil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:10 pmI understand that you don't like the verdict, but do you agree with my point #2 above? (i.e., that the defense in Trump's trial had the opportunity to question prospective jurors and object to anyone showing bias)D-train wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:20 pmSure, good for them. They did their job unlike the NYC jurors.gil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:42 pm1. Hunter Biden is a convicted felon. No sentencing decision, no matter how much of a hand slap, can remove that stain.
2. The jury that decided the case (any case) is seated only after individual jurors are reviewed and questioned by both the prosecution and defense. I think that means that "extreme" positions such as "I'm out to get the defendant and this is my chance to do it" or "this is a partisan witch hunt and the defendant is innocent no matter what is presented at trial" are not represented on the jury.
3. I hold out the vague hope that a good percentage of the population, hopefully a majority (and hopefully a huge majority), can be "fair and impartial" when tasked with one of the most important citizen's roles in our country.
For the recored, I thought the felony charges against Trump were pretty shaky (based on the legal theory he was charged under) and I predict he will prevail in an appeal. But that is not the same thing as the jury being biased or unfair.
Furthermore, the judge wouldn't allow half of the EXPERT witnesses and told the jury to believe what the DA had to say. Then on top of it, the instructions to the jury were so absurd, no legal expert supported them....basically he told them they had to vote guilty.