The 6A of constitution says "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..." In some circumstances, I think this is no longer possible. Prime example (of course) is Trump being tried in a district where his pool of jurors will be pulled from a population that 85% voted against him. If you're having trouble understanding the problem, consider whether you think Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton would get a fair trial in Roberts County, Texas where 95% of their potential jury pool voted for Trump. Or consider whether you think Trump could be convicted of anything, even if the evidence was incontrovertible, if the trial were held in Roberts County Texas. There are of course methods that legal defense can employ in jury selection to try to root out biased jurors, but those methods are largely dependent on the juror's honesty to questions like 'have you heard of this case, seen it on the news, and do you have an opinion about it?' If someone really wants to get on the jury (assuming they were already selected to potentially serve) its not difficult to answer the questions in such a way that you're sure to be chosen. Not only is it impossible to determine whether they're being honest (which makes the threat of perjury a rather unreliable motivator), but in some cases, like national political spectacles, it will be literally impossible to find 12 people who aren't already aware of the case and haven't already formed an opinion about it, aka impartial. But on the other hand, what's the alternative? Hold any political trial in the most 'neutral' (read: politically divided) districts we can find? The bureaucracy involved in trying to figure that out would prolly add years to a case and dramatically increase the chances of 'hung' juries. Not a good solution. Given that the legitimacy of the power we delegate to governing authorities is fundamentally founded upon the concept that we rule and judge via consensus, which the jury is intended to represent, the right to be tried by an impartial jury is fairly paramount to our entire system of governance. Without an impartial jury, the legitimacy of the law is questionable. But then again, you can't FORCE people to be impartial, either. What are your thoughts? Are there any solutions? Most of us can simply avoid going to places where we don't trust we'd get an impartial jury, but that's not an option for politicians. And while I generally believe that all politicians are crooks, we're not going to fix that problem with biased juries finding them guilty of things they didn't actually do.
A trial by jury is only one level of protection that the legal system affords to those accused of crimes. Now, it's a very important right and level of protection in the American legal system, but it is not the only one; or it should not be the only one. There are a lot of stupid and naive people who simply do not understand how a jury could ever be fallible, "get it wrong", or ever be unfair. In their simple minds, they imagine that a jury is fool-proof. Well, as you pointed out, here is one example where a jury may NOT be likely to be fair and impartial. The public in many parts of the country would be extremely biased and eagerly looking for any possible legal excuse - however contorted or disingenuous - to put a hated political figure like Trump into prison. It's often said that "no one is above the law", "politicians and important people should face the same law as everyone else". But, I do not believe that actually should be true. High level politicians and certain very important or famous people need more protections in the legal system. In this case, Trump may face a trial by jury, but there should be and needs to be more oversight by judges and those above. There are the appellate (appeals) courts, of course, but this additional protection and oversight should begin before the jury trial even begins. (Saying what "should be" doesn't necessarily mean it's actually going to happen though. In my opinion, and this might sound paradoxical to some, treating a former president like Trump just exactly like any other ordinary person would be a form of unfair bias against him)
I can see the rationale in that argument, but its still too close to 'extra rights for the rich (or well-connected, or powerful, or whathaveyou) for me. The same thing could happen to any of us. For example, if I were to go to NY to clean one of their sewers, and someone from a protected minority group assaulted me one my way to the hotel after work, and I ended up killing them in self defense with one of my tools, its not outside the realm of possibility that it becomes a national 'right wing white guy kills another (your favorite at-risk minority group here>>>)_________', and by the time it goes to trial, everyone knows about, everyone has an (misinformed by the media) opinion about it, and oodles of locals (from which my jury will consist) view themselves as social justice warriors hankering for my demise at the hands of the almighty state. Now, this is very unlikely to happen to me... but its pretty likely to happen to someone in the not so distant future (and its arguable it has happened before). Such a scenario makes it quite difficult to get an actually impartial jury. Just protecting Trump (or just politicans, or just famous people) isn't going to reduce the problem of biased juries undermining the perception of legitimacy of the law for the average joe.
Well, I'd love to argue this further with you, but it's off topic, isn't it? You are the one complaining. So you want important people to be subject to the exact same legal procedures and level of protections as anyone else? I think the problem is that you are looking to the institution of the jury as an end-all solution to fairness, when that simply is unrealistic. You are correct that in many cases this is no longer possible. The Constitution says the government should try to find an impartial jury, but obviously there are no guarantees government will be able to. I think you're reading too much of a literal interpretation into the Constitution. In my opinion it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that it does not literally mean having an impartial jury is a right. How is the government supposed to give you a right it is unable (and simply not pragmatic) to give you?
It's a tough situation, but the same problem theoretically exists for black defendants in the South, and they are not invariably convicted, despite "da racism," and those that are convicted are presumably guilty in fact. I'm not convinced that if Trump is convicted in New York, that it will have been because of lack of impartiality on the part of the jurors. One possible alternative would be for the defendant to waive his right to a jury trial and have a judge decide the case, but I am reading today that Trump's judge is a Biden donor. So ... I'd suggest that maybe a retired Appellate judge, acceptable to both sides, hear the evidence and render verdict.
To be entirely fair, the bias against black people in the South is not the same type of bias a former political figure like Trump would be facing. You could definitely point out an analogy, or some similarities, sure, but there are some big differences. The traditional bias against black people only kicks in when there is a crime like stealing or murder. And even in that case only mostly really kicks in when the victim was a white person. The jury isn't out to convict a black person they know to be mostly innocent. Rather the bias is in not giving them the benefit of the doubt when a crime has been committed and they fall under suspicion. The bias against a political figure like Trump would be different. The prosecutor would try to argue that something constitutes a violation of some law, when it's not altogether clear and obvious it is or should actually be illegal, and the jury is eager and very ready to buy any possible legal argument, because they want to find any excuse to put him in prison.
Well, to be totally fair, it's very likely even if he were convicted that ordinary people, such as yourself, would still not know or understand the actual reasons why he was convicted. In complex legal cases, the media usually does a horrible job explaining to the public what the actual evidence was, or what the legal logic was in the conviction. So you probably still won't know.
It has superficial appeal, but it won't work. It would effectively bar citizens from serving on juries if they have voted. Won't survive an equal protection analysis. The system we have is fine. They might need to grant extra peremptory challenges in venues where the defense can show that the pool is disproportionately D or R.
Well, I'm happy to hear how that would work in this one case. Jury selection procedures are products of legislative deliberation. There isn't time for all that before the Trump trial, and, again, I think any new law that would be enacted NY State just to guarantee Trump an unbiased jury in ONE trial would be blocked as unconstitutional. This is all pie in the sky anyway.
