I have a vague memory that this was ruled a right. A right to a public trial. A right to be confronted by your accusers. And a right to a jury by peers.
Somehow that got twisted into the names of the jurors being public information. It depends on the state though, and maybe the city.
Anyone can go to a trial and watch. So the jurors are visible to anyone who wants to see them. A public trial after all. In a big case like Trump, the number of people in the courtroom is limited out of necessity.
There have also been rulings that cameras are allowed in court. There are many well know trials that millions of people watched on TV. This includes shots of the jury.
I have heard of cases where the jurors were hidden behind a barrier where they could not be seen. I think that got challenged in court, but I don't know how the ruling went.
"Surely that opens them up to bribery or intimidation? "
Yes it does. And it's happened before. Although sometimes they are sequestered. They stay in hotels during the duration of the trial, with no contact with the outside. OJ Simpson recently died. If I remember right, the jury was sequestered in his trial, which was a really long trial.
It depends on where you are. Not all states identify jurors.
Many years ago, I was on a jury in New York State. None of us were identified by name at any time, from juror selection through the trial.. We were addressed by our juror number, for example, "Prospective juror 79" (during selection) or "Juror #4" (during trial).
More recently, I know someone who was a juror in Georgia State, and their names were always used, making that information public.
In some controversial and well-publicized trials, the judge may rule that juror's names not be revealed... for safety and security reasons.
Yes, you're right, that doesn't make any sense. I just naturally assume that in order for a system where one is tried by a jury of one's peers, the anonymity of the jurors would be paramount. I don't live in the U. S., so I don't know how their system works, but if this is a feature of it, then it really needs to be overhauled. This is just not acceptable, it's a serious weakness.
Opinion
22Opinion
If I'm thinking of the right trial, this particular case is unusual for keeping them anonymous; it's something usually reserved for mob trials, when they might wake up with a horse's head in their bed. The information made public is general, it could describe a thousand people.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/izE58iNVBwgThis feels like an intimidation tactic, honestly. They did the same thing with Rittenhouse and Chauvin.
@ProbablyClueless What? No.
Are... you serious right now? Why else would they expose the decisionmakers on high profile cases like that? It sure as hell isn't the public's right to know.
@ProbablyClueless Again, what? It's unusual for US jurists to be anonymous, it's generally reserved for cases where there might be interference. Threats against the jurors or their families.
Threats like what happened in the Rittenhouse and Chauvin cases. A trial involving Donald Trump is prime territory for juror intimidation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the jurors should be kept anonymous. At the very minimum, their names shouldn't be printed by the media.
@ProbablyClueless THEY ARE being kept anonymous! Because of potential threats from Trump supporters. Just like in any other mob trial.
@ProbablyClueless A married, childless man from West Harlem (population about 120,000), possibly with an Irish accent? Tell me his name.
Now ever irish American in Harlem is at risk of being lynched
That's not always the case. Much of it depends on state and federal rules as well as a judge's administration of the case.
For instance, in Trump's Stormy Daniels case, his jurors are anonymous for their protection from the MAGA psychos although, in their idiocy, many provided enough information to self-identify.
But, one reason why jurors may be identified is to keep the trial fair. For instance, generations ago (and perhaps even today), if a trial is against a Black guy and there's an all-White jury in the Deep South, the chances of this guy getting a fair trail are not good. (That's what "To Kill A Mockingbird" was about.) By knowing the demographics or background of the jury, the defense may have grounds for an appeal.
So, it all has to be balanced.
It's bait, I think. Like "I dare you to get caught trying to bribe or intimidate the jury" kind of thing. That makes the whole thing a bazillion times easier if they can add jury tampering to the evidence (and charges).
Of course that only applies to low level criminals. For high profile ones like Trump, whose wish to intimidate is understood without him saying anything, and with plenty of mentally unwell followers to grant that wish, that tends to be when a judge will require the jury to remain annonnymous.
England was a shit hole filled with tyrants (not much has changed). As a result in America the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and has the right to confront his accusers that bear witness against him and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have assistance of counsel for his defense so on and so forth. Everything is suppose to be out in the open for everyone to see, not in some dungeon or tower of some king. An innominate jury can be requested but it's usually only for serious criminals like drug king pins that will kill a jury members entire family if they don't get the verdict they seek. Under any normal circumstances, it needs to be public.
Speedy my ass! It took them 5 years to sentence the Parkland shooter. I had already forgotten about him. Then when they give them the death penalty, they let them live for another 25 years before they execute them
Nice try at slurring the UK but it was us that invented the jury service and the USA values of justice like most countries stems from the Magna Carta which we created. The USA are tyrants now with all their illegal wars and you are far from speedy, otherwise people would not spend decades on death row.
And the jury are far from impartial, lots of high profile cases stretching back to 2000 spring to mind.
The USA keep people locked in cages without trial accused of minor offences and you call us tyrants, and if the UK was such a shithole why do so many people migrate here.
@DarkLegacy Yah dude. And officially the jurors are supposed to know NOTHING about the case, but in this day and age, that's practically impossible, especially high profile cases.
Here they reimburse you, but the amount they give you is laughable. Jury duty practically equates to slave labor. They claim it doesn't violate the 13th Ammendment which prohibits Involuntary servitude. They say it's voluntary.🤣 If they threathen you with jail if you don't show up, it's NOT voluntary. I agree. America is piece of shit!
@KostasKouvalis @DarkLegacy It's almost like you little retards didn't even read the question or the answer. You just had a circle jerk with each other in my comments. It was about matters of privacy in the UK vs public trials in the USA. In America you can walk right into the Supreme Court for example sit down and watch a case live in a courtroom so long as you are quiet and follow the decorum. Generally security runs you through a medal detector, but that's about it. Court is open to the public and has been through our history because of the tyranny Americans faced from the British. In contrast in the UK, the press could not even go into county and high courts until 2009. You're a bunch of rambling retards.
@KostasKouvalis Yeah the case is all over social media, here in the UK jurors have been jailed for looking the case up on social media. When i did jury service, social media was only just taking off
@DarkLegacy How did they know they looked it upped?
@DarkLegacy Thanks for proving you're retarded. I just provided you with date based facts and you ignored what I said again and continued your jerk circle. You make your countrymen look like morons.
America loves to do everything by their own book and think they're smarter than everyone else.
But I don't know if that's a normal protocol, but with high profile cases like this, word gets around.
Do you guys have forced jury duty in the UK? How do they select jurors there?
You get called up. Anyone on the electoral register can be selected.
That's how it is here, though you don't have to be on the electoral. They'll call anyone over 18 who doesn't have a felony.
Do they threathen you with prison if you don't show up?
I hate that they conduct the interview in front of everyone and go through your entire family's record. And they're Hella rude here.
In theory yes but nobody is because you can just give a reason you can't attend such as looking after kids or it would affect your work.
I wish it was that easy here. My favorite was the guy's mother who told them he can't attend because he's deployed overseas. They actually told her they don't care, so she replied back telling them to pay for his plane ticket and he'll be there, and she never heard from them again.
Do yours get paid?
@KostasKouvalis I sat on the jury and both my Mum and Dad were called up but got let off. The law is rarely enforced, jurors on the trial i sat on were excused for having booked holidays. The Judge did not even ask for proof. The court reimburse loss of pay but i worked in the public sector so they still paid me.
@KostasKouvalis is he a serviceman, they are exempt in the UK
The Gov here can also tell you to get on the electoral register if you don't when asked you will be fined. It's actually illegal to not be on electoral roll without a good reason like serve learning disability.
Supposedly they check every year by inquiring homes whether they are registered or not, but I don't own a home so good luck doing that for me lol.
And I don't know how true that is since I've never seen it and I never once have been asked to be on it.
Think it's £80 and it's probably a system I would imagine that fines you more you refuse.
You can opt out of the open register but the electoral one you have to be on.
The open register makes no sense and by default your on it if you sign up to be on the Electoral, and what does it do? It can be bought by any person, company or organization.
I don't know why anyone would want that.
Basically an excellent but difficult question. My instinct tells me to be very careful with the identification of jurors in general, but I still have no idea of what would be the best course of action.
On hand there's the matter of the juror's security, privacy, and danger of being bribed or threatened, but on the other hand it may be considered fair for the accused to know more about the people judging them, and on what evidence. In both cases there does not seem to exist a failsafe procedure. Case sensitive maybe?
In this particular case the prosecution needs Trump's team to identify the jury so if it looks like they're losing Biden's pet judge - look it up, he's a well known donor to Biden's campaign and so hardly "impartial" - can shout "mistrial", dismiss them without prejudice and prevent Trump getting out onto the campaign trail for another six to ten weeks.
Now I'm not a Trump fan. I'm not a Biden fan either. This trial is, however, blatantly election interference. The charges are a joke because the evidence is unreliable - I'm not saying he's innocent, but guilty beyond reasonable doubt is highly unlikely from what's been disclosed so far. Any impartial prosecution team should never have gone ahead with this case, but we know the prosecutor is also a Biden supporter.
If Trump's got such a great case, why has he delayed every trial for as long as he possibly can?
How do you know "the evidence is unreliable"?
Cohen already went to prison for the hush payment (willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and... making an excessive campaign contribution... for the "principal purpose of influencing [the] election"), so that crime's proven. The payment therefore wasn't for "legal services", which is why the documents are fraudulent.
There's evidence that Trump's lying when he says it was to protect his family; apparently he plotted to delay payment until after the election at which point it wouldn't matter any more (and he could stiff Daniels).
And that's just public knowledge off the top of my head. The prosecution will have far more.
They are corrupt.
Because the American NEWS is 98% leftist illuminati
and the media is controlled by 6 companies, which i believe all the news is owned by 3
"Just 37 years ago, there were 50 companies in charge of most American media. Now, 90% of the media in the United States is controlled by just six corporations: AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp and Viacom. This means that just 232 media executives are calling the shots for the vast majority of the information we are presented with, controlling a total Big Six net worth of over $430 billion."
I have not been paying too much to it but yeah that seems a bit stupid. When i sat on the juror, the only thing anyone knew was our full names, and that was just to make sure no one knew us that was involved on the case.
The defendant and all lawyers are allowed to know our names of course but they know nothing else. The USA have always had some stupid laws and what with their gun problem, jurors are liable to get bumped off.
I have always thought that trials in the USA are biased especially in high profile cases in the past, no doubt jurors have been bought off.
The reason they're doing it now is because the media knows that Trump supporters are better behaved than lefties. If Trump were a media sweetheart, they would be trying to intimidate the jurors into. The media in this country is extremely unethical, so this is an intimidation tactic they can employ. They did something similar with the Chauvin and Rittenhouse trials
As for finished cases; court records like that are matters of public record.
@ProbablyClueless Do you even understand the difference between a building and a city?
Then show me a picture of a burned down city in the US. (Other than Tulsa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre where 35 city blocks, composed of 1,256 residences, were destroyed by fire by white supremacists in 1921.)
@goaded news.yahoo.com/...r-the-white-house-121746636.html
Oh wow! I genuinely wasn't expecting that the picture I would find was outside of the capitol. That's honestly kind of hilarious
So, like I said, you can't tell the difference between a building and a city. Nor, apparently, could the journalist.
"Nearly 100,000 Gaza buildings may be damaged, satellite images show" (4 months ago)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67565872
You're the one trying to big up some riots to provide cover for people who tried to end American democracy and the rule of law.
Riots happen regularly (including after sports games, for no good reason), no US president has ever tried to hang on to power after they'd lost re-election.
@goaded Trump said there would be an "orderly transition of power" too. www.pbs.org/.../trump-disagrees-with-the-outcome-of-the-election-but-that-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power
OMG. The date of that article is Jan 7 2021!
He'd already tried to end the rule of law and democracy in the US, by hook, by crook, and by violence by then; he'd lost.
"Trump’s acknowledgment came after a day of chaos and destruction on Capitol Hill as a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol building and unleashed unprecedented scenes of mayhem as it tried to halt the peaceful transition of power. Members of Congress were forced into hiding, offices were ransacked, and the formal congressional tally halted for more than six hours."
www.pbs.org/.../trump-disagrees-with-the-outcome-of-the-election-but-that-there-will-be-an-orderly-transition-of-power
@goaded And Trump said the exact same thing on September 23rd. If you watch this clip. www.youtube.com/watch
No. Legal challenges are, well, legal. They're part of the election process and peaceful transition of power and quite legitimate (usually; Trump's frivolous lawsuits got lawyers disbarred). They were talking about what happens if Trump loses, which he did, and he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, and we all saw that he followed up on that on Jan 6.
in a famous case or case or famous person, find 12 people who live in caves or lie about not paying attention to current events.
One would hope they would choose people who know someting about laws and politics.
A jury is 12 people trying to decide which side has the better lawyer.
You answered your own question. The jury system for high profile trials in the USA is bullshit. It does exactly what you say; opens up every juror for harassment, threats, bribery and a lack of safety.
Because Americans don't think things through. What else can you say about a nation that gives everyone the right to carry firearms?
m It does seem strange, no one really knows who the jury are, fairly random selections. Why you would want to name the poor sods on jury duty
The talking heads just need something to talk about. Cuz I have nothing genuine to say on their own
They'll figure it out maybe after 200 years, they still be learning.
Yes. The attorneys have already gone through their social media BEFORE they seat them. It's flawed through n through
They’re really all Brits and all Britt jury here
Yeah that info should be between them and the court only.
Because the media runs everything in the USA.
You do raise some good points!
Because life means nothing
who knows
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
