In America, citizens are guaranteed the right to a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution. It's kind of our thing. Our system may not be perfect, and surely anyone could find examples in our history where citizens were denied that right, but it nevertheless remains an American ideal. Americans are entitled to a speedy and public trial and are judged by a jury of their peers. At the very foundation of this ideal is the axiom that we are all innocent until proven guilty.
Yet, if there's anything that has become obvious about our legal system in the past couple of years, it is far from fair, and those who claim to be the biggest proponents and defenders of "our democracy" don't even want it to be. This year alone, we've seen Donald Trump ordered to pay a nearly half-billion dollar civil judgment for a non-crime with no victim, where the alleged victim testified in his defense, and based on the ridiculous notion that his Mar-a-Lago home is only worth $18 million. He was also found civilly liable for sexual assault by a woman who was involved in the effort to pass a law to allow her to sue Trump, and whose story was lifted from an episode of "Law & Order: SVU."
Trump has repeatedly been the target of partisan prosecutors in partisan jurisdictions with partisan judges, and liberals don't seem to care. They're more concerned about Trump supporters getting on the jury in the New York City trial than they are about liberal activists trying to sneak their way onto the jury.
Interestingly enough, so far on Thursday, two jurors who had been seated were excused. After details about "Juror #2" were released, she expressed concerns about her "ability to be fair and impartial," following pressure from friends, colleagues, and family who'd figured out who she was.
Related: Liberal Activists Are Trying to Sneak Onto Trump Jury. But It’s Trump Who May Get in Trouble??
Another juror, "Juror #4," was dismissed after the District Attorney's office suspected he may not have answered questions on the survey accurately and then failed to show up to court per the judge's request.
By noon Thursday, the jury panel had diminished from seven to five members. This is hardly a good sign for the jury selection process, and it demonstrates the problems that are inherent in trying a former president who is currently running for president. There are arguably potential activists who want to get on the jury to convict Trump or to save him from an unjust conviction with a hung jury.
And frankly, it's obvious, given the partisan judge, the partisan prosecutor, and the partisan jury pool, that the best outcome Trump can hope for is a hung jury, not an acquittal. There's no doubt that there will be plenty of jurors who have already decided they are going to convict Trump. The stark polarization surrounding the trial underscores the difficulty in securing an impartial jury and a fair trial.
A fair composition for the jury would be an even split of Trump supporters and Trump haters who claim to be impartial, but frankly, even with an equal mix, a hung jury is inevitable. All it takes is one steadfast supporter and one staunch detractor to deadlock the proceedings. In such a politically charged atmosphere, this is the most favorable outcome for Trump, which is unfortunate because his opponents can still say he was not acquitted.
