Those calls came after numerous media outlets reported potentially identifying biographical information about the woman, including her job and the neighborhood she called home. Fox News Jesse Watters highlighted the juror’s details while reading through public pool notes about the selected members. “This nurse scares me if I’m Trump,” Watters said.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the courts don’t immediately arrest and charge this person with juror intimidation/tampering then it’s all over. The fascist mob will figure out who the jurors are and threaten their families en masse because there will be no consequences.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Using terrorism to protect a criminal (again). The Republican Party cannot possibly be redeemed.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t help but contemplate that jurors are concerned about being publicly identified in a case involving a former president. Typically, you would only see that happen in a case involving violent organized crime.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they get one or two of these Jurors KILLED they’re going to get a VERY STERN letter from the Judge!

        • DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are loads of people who believe this and I think that sometimes folks need to remember that’s reality.

          Shithead antisocial people exist - that’s why their must be consequences up to and including violence (if that’s all someone can understand).

              • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                someone made a comment with an opinion you dont agree with, so they are automatically “antisocial”?

                • aibler@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I just made a joke at the expense of someone who jumped straight into suggesting the use of violence. To me, violence is a bit antisocial generally. You’d do great in a comedy club audience.

            • feddylemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              They could be meaning it in a UK kind of way. They have anti-social behaviour orders and such. Slightly different meaning than someone who doesn’t like people.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the goal is to declare this a mistrial. Break as many rules as possible, get thrown in contempt, etc. Because those will be MUCH smaller penalties/fines and will drag out the clock until after the election.

      Whereas grinning and bearing it lets the courts actually try to get some semblance of justice.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So 90% of a jury of his peers fucking hate him, and will conclude he did the crime. Oh my God, sounds like he’s going to jail. You really need to keep churning the group until you find the select few who think he’s innocent of a crime? The obviousness says something.

    And, no, haters, this is not what jury selection looks like. 10 years as a trial lawyer, and never ONCE were any of my selections broadcast on TV. This shit should illegal.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m just a middle aged white guy and I know this isn’t normal because it’s never happened in my life unless the news is talking about jury tampering that already happened.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not usually a fan of jailing the press, but the judge should ABSOLUTELY put out a warrant in this case.

      Jury intimidation cannot be tolerated in the slightest.

    • geekworking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. The judge has to excuse you, so you need to have a reason that the judge accepts.

      Getting outted by the media in a case where any know jurors will certainly get threatened and possibly harmed is a pretty good reason.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No no no. This is just witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Oh, and stochastic terrorism, yes. So, yes.

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You guys just don’t understand! Any media organization not tampering with the jury pool is just a leftist rag!

        Why is there no unbiased news?!?! All I want is an unbiased news source that covers the news conservatives care about - like where I can find these jurors to threaten!

        • boreengreen@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If only there were some kind of fairness doctrine, that forced news organisations to make an honest attempt to report both sides.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      fuck them for not crucifying these anchors before lunch.

      they’re not legitimate and neither are the laws they represent. its just thugs with guns and excuses to shoot.

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, they have now made it where the employment and past employment questions stricken from the record and have instructed all media not to report the answers to those portions of the questionnaire. That’s what she felt identified her.

      But I agree in spirit.

      • BigFig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why is the press even in the room or present in any way when that information is being discussed

        • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because generally these things wouldn’t be a problem. Except that trump and his followers have a history of grasping at every straw, defaming anyone they can, and getting people hurt for no good reason.

    • mibo80@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, knowing ahead of time all of this should have been sealed by default. Anytime the defendant/case is this high profile the whole thing should be sealed off to contain this circus.

      • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t matter. Trump will literally call them out himself. And nothing will happen when he does.

        The system is broken. It is not breaking, it is fucking BROKEN.

    • geekworking@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t sound like it was released.

      It seems like stuff from jury selection questions that some court audience members noted. The court already blocked recording.

      They remove the audience, but that’s a double-edged sword since no public transparency even for reporters would fuel all of the conspiracy crap and there would be no information available to debunk. This is Trumps wet dream. Being able to spout pure fantasy with nobody to rebut.

      Best solution would be for the judge to clamp down to say that he will charge anyone who leaks any jury info with contempt.

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The judge may have been anticipating this media circus. Now there’s a clear reason to remove the audience, so it’s safer.

        Trump was going to spout lies and nonsense no matter what, and the people who believe him now will believe him no matter what. My money says the judge just wanted an excuse–and we’ll see a complete lockdown with no audience from now on.