who likes MSNBC, Fox News, the New York Times, and Daily Mail as news sources
That description of the foreman worries me. Clearly faking it to appear impartial. You can’t watch MSNBC and also read the Daily Mail without short-circuiting.
ETA I see zenicetus made this point already
This trial will go way too fast for Donnie. If all goes well, Trump will be a convicted felon no later than June.
I already have a bottle of champagne and a ton of unpopped popcorn ready to go.
I was gonna post those exact two points!
Personally, given the fact that the Orange Asshole (and draft dodger) suffers from muttering and glaring diarrhea, I think that he should be removed to another room and allowed to watch the proceedings like the overflow press. He could have one or two of his army of lawyers with him to tell him what was happening and how long to lunch. I also think that any violation of the gag order, or causing a disturbance should result in 24 hours detention (1st time), 48 hours (2nd time), and 30 days for a third offense. Hopefully his Maggot followers will restrain themselves, but I doubt it. Therefore, any signs of violence should be met with overwhelming and brutal force.
Not speaking from experience, but I imagine many situations of an immigrant to America devouring news from all stripes just because the option has never previously been available to them.
My understanding that is that each side has 10 peremptory challenges. If they each have used up 6 then there only have 4 left when there is still five jurors and 6 alternatives to seat. I also thought that the foreperson was selected by the jurors after the case rested.
That’s how it worked in the juries I’ve been on here in WA, but maybe NY has a different process. I can see where the judge appointing a foreman at random might eliminate some jury room drama .
I find Blanche’s strategy in voir dire despicable. I loath the orange turd - BUT I would not convict him or anyone of a crime, unless there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So yes, I would withhold judgement until the after closing and review all the evidence. Yes, I would treat him better than he did for the Exonerated Five. But as a lawyer, the last thing I would want to do is pervert justice. He needs to be convicted on the merits.
In CA, the foreperson is selected once the jury goes into the jury room to start deliberations. The point is for the jury to decide who they want to lead the discussion, not to have the state do it. I think Josh is assuming juror #1 is the foreperson, it doesn’t have to go like that.
I am surprised that they are challenging jurors like this, in CA they seat a bunch of people to fill the box and then start questioning and toss people, filling the slots with new people, until they finally have the panel. Each state does things differently though, it sounds like the jurors have to pass through selection and be seated instead of setting up a default slate…this way does slow things down though.
As for juror anonymity…in general the parties do get information about who the jurors are, but that is never to be shared publicly; the jury members can out themselves but otherwise are to be kept private. Anyone who violates that is going to jail, judges don’t mess around with that. The exception is something like a mob trial…you could argue (pretty easily) that full anonymity is required because of how Trump goes after people (and sends his goons after people), but if any juror is harmed that’s going to come back to Trump, and it’s not going to stop the trial, so I think the judge decided that direct violence is a line that Trump won’t cross here. We’ll have to wait and see if that’s correct…jurors will report if someone threatens them or their names are spread publicly, that will happen before anyone tries to attack them. Trump’s goons aren’t like the mob, they will threaten people but most are cowards who wouldn’t go through with actual violence.
In California the jury foreperson is selected when the case rests and jurors go into jury room.
Same as in Washington and Oregon then. Further we do not know who the foreperson is until the verdict.
I think you are correct about the assumption being made by TPM. I cannot imagine that even if it the judge selects the foreperson, that it would happen before the jury is empaneled.
I used to watch Fox and still watch MSNBC. I stopped watching Fox when they made some personnel switches. And since on my cable system they are right next to each other I sometime still check to see what they’re up to.
a schoolteacher who remarked that Trump “speaks his mind,” and a corporate attorney.
That juror will be the sand in the gears.
For what its worth, my better half switches on Fox once in a while just to see what BS the other side is spewing.
My mom always wants to switch to Fox to see what their take on whatever is - so she can be prepared for talking to her cousin, who basically only watches that. When her children are present, though, we howl NO! so she goes back to her usual MSNBC. (Honestly, I can only take that in small doses, as well. Other than Chris Hayes I can’t stand talking heads.)
Daily Mail, though, too. 
I’m finding it harder too. Back in the day there were discussions over policy, strategies, and so forth. Now it’s what did Donald do, not do, or threaten to do, and he’s not even POTUS anymore.
That is how it is done in here in Multnomah County (i.e. Portland Oregon). The one time I served on a jury, I was selected as the foreperson by the other jurors after we went into deliberations.
A MeidasTouch video, hosted by either Karen Friedman Agnifilo or Michael Popok, stated that New York process is that the first juror in is the foreperson.
Edit to add: I think this makes some sense. All of us have been in small groups where “the smartest guy in the room” takes over and others just acquiesce–go along to get along. That doesn’t seem like the best way to do things.
Yes, I went to school in Oregon and practice in Washington. California is the same way so the West Coast does the same thing. The question is how do they do it in New York.
