General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFox News host Jesse Watters on Tuesday broadcast extensive biographical details about Juror No. 2 -- her neighborhood,
He concluded by saying, "I'm not so sure about Juror No. 2."
He claimed last night that "undercover liberal activists" are trying to get on the jury -- comments Trump promoted.
That juror has now asked to be excused, saying people had asked her if she was a juror.
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Scum.
mucifer
(23,576 posts)EXACT days of the trial their families, friends and coworkers will figure it out by the end of the trial.
The media should not be giving hints as to what professions the jurors have.
Hugin
(33,222 posts)Gender is even pushing it.
As long as theyre not in conflict with the
Wait, I just remembered Clarence Thomas and that Cannon lady. Never mind.
JT45242
(2,304 posts)TFG side would not want someone in accounting or auditing on the jury because their claims as to this just being normal SOP would be called BS by an accountant.
Of course, if they burn all their challenges then some people with expertise in the field can make it on.
When I was working on creating a forensic science course for our HS, my grad school instructor informed me that this would almost guarentee that I would never serve on a jury because the side compromised by the forensic science would not want me on the jury. I know chemists who were ousted in voir dire for liability suits.
Hugin
(33,222 posts)And the court. Although, I dont like the gaming which goes on.
What I am addressing is why does anyone outside of the court have any business knowing anything about the individual jurors?
onenote
(42,779 posts)In 1984 the Supreme Court held, unanimously, that there is a presumption under the First Amendment that court proceedings, including the voir dire, be open public proceedings. As Justice Marshall explained in his concurring opinion, "the constitutional rights of the public and press to access to all aspects of criminal trials are not diminished in cases in which "deeply personal matters" are likely to be elicited in voir dire proceedings." Moreover, according to Justice Marshall, while the presumption of openness can be overcome, "prior to issuing a closure order, a trial court should be obliged to show that the order in question constitutes the least restrictive means available for protecting compelling state interests. In those cases where a closure order is imposed, the constitutionally preferable method for reconciling the First Amendment interests of the public and the press with the legitimate privacy interests of jurors and the interests of defendants in fair trials is to redact transcripts in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of jurors while disclosing the substance of their responses.... Only in the most extraordinary circumstances can the substance of a juror's response to questioning at voir dire be permanently excluded from the salutary scrutiny of the public and the press."
Karma13612
(4,555 posts)And the two sides of the trial shouldnt know either.
This is too high profile.
And its too late now, but if I was called to jury duty, I wouldnt tell anyone beyond my spouse.
And hope they can keep a secret. Then, if I was paneled, I would ask my spouse to tell everyone I was called away to a sick friend somewhere far away.
The Grand Illuminist
(1,339 posts)All the coverage from RW media will be spun into OJ Simpson proportions. Making trials harder, and more importantly, much longer to finish.
Deuxcents
(16,353 posts)Anyone know who they are? I dont watch his show but if we had a list, we could protect this
Baitball Blogger
(46,768 posts)What he did was wrong. Give him a taste of his own medicine. Negative public exposure.
maxsolomon
(33,432 posts)Fox is trying to engineer a mistrial.
barbtries
(28,812 posts)that's jury tampering for sure. convince me i'm wrong about this.
it's an absolute abuse of the First Amendment at the very least.
This should be jury tampering!
lindysalsagal
(20,747 posts)jaxexpat
(6,860 posts)Fox regularly pushes that envelope so that the concept of broadcast free speech is pretty hazy in most minds. That is fertile tillage for MAGAism. Such confusion, intentionally spread, is an abuse of the rights granted by the constitution to the extent that, should the pendulum swing toward justice some day, Jesse, along with his mentors, minions and co conspirators may be defending themselves against a charge of treason.
These for-profit political smut peddlers have a lot to account for in a world where promoting the general welfare is seriously considered a top priority. Removal from the public airwaves should be their minimum concern. Hard time would be appropriate for foreign propagandists of any stripe.
barbtries
(28,812 posts)it has been twisted into oblivion. We are supposed to having a civilization FFS.
same with the 2nd amendment. it was never intended to mean any old person could have guns that kill multiple people at one time.
i hate republicans
Warpy
(111,374 posts)I'm sure that person is feeling pretty vulnerable right now. And no, there aren't that many oncology nurses in any specific neighborhood, even in NYC. This type of shit makes me furious, I can't stand bullies.
This is more serious bullying since they put this person's life in danger when some TFG zombie manages to connect the dots and identify him/her.
Waters should be dragged into court, charged, and jailed without bond for the duration of the trial. The judge needs to come down on this like a ton of law books to make sure nobody else gets cute.
Zilli
(190 posts)Jesse is a stochastic terrorist and was steadfastly setting this woman up for assassination or the destruction of her life and her families life. Of course, we live in amerikkka and Jesse will be able to broadcast coded calls for torment/assassination on a daily basis.
Warpy
(111,374 posts)He needs to be fired, at the very least. He's going to become a legal liability sooner rather than later.
onenote
(42,779 posts)Under New York law, "A person is guilty of tampering with a juror in the first degree when, with intent to influence the outcome of an action or proceeding, he communicates with a juror in such action or proceeding, except as authorized by law."
The hurdles that a prosecutor would face in going after Watters is that they'd have to show that the juror saw the broadcast -- i.e., that Watters communicated with the juror with the intent to influence the outcome of the trial.
barbtries
(28,812 posts)but clearly he did manage to get the message to her.
I think it would be good if the judge or the DOJ or the prosecutor's office did something in response. these fucking magats will stop at nothing
Trueblue1968
(17,242 posts)Think. Again.
(8,526 posts)...this would be a problem and banned the media to only public record into on the jurors.
Scrivener7
(51,026 posts)shrike3
(3,816 posts)onenote
(42,779 posts)Several media outlets were reporting the information about the jurors as it was disclosed in court and the threshold under the constitution for limiting press and public access to that information. Given the case law relevant to such situations, the judge did the right thing by responding quickly to limit the inclusion of certain information about jurors in the public record.
However, if you're suggesting that jurors shouldn't have to provide, albeit only for the lawyers and judge, information about their employment history, I would disagree. If a prospective juror worked for Newsmax or for for the RNC, I think we'd all want the prosecution to have access to that information so they could challenge that juror being selected.
Think. Again.
(8,526 posts)...the lawyers and judge, and a perspective juror worked for newsmax, the prosecution WOULD have that info to challenge that juror.
But I don't any reason to put an ANONYMOUS juror's life at risk just so the PUBLIC can know where they work or whether they have a distinct accent or any other identifiable information about them.
eShirl
(18,505 posts)mopinko
(70,268 posts)this shit needs to stop.
Liberal In Texas
(13,590 posts)voir dire and calling Fox Newschannel and saying they suspect this juror or that juror might be a liberal or maybe just fair-minded. Fox is dutifully painting targets on these jurors to get them to quit or if they don't go suggest one of the magats go after them or their families.
This is jury tampering, pure and simple.
onenote
(42,779 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,666 posts)area51
(11,927 posts)Among the things he's done is advocate for a "kill shot" regarding Dr. Fauci.
CrispyQ
(36,539 posts)Very punchable face
Comfortably_Numb
(3,838 posts)like that happened to a douche-nozzle like Watters. What an asshole.
LisaM
(27,843 posts)I mean, really. How can anyone be that way?
ificandream
(9,400 posts)He's been a TV fool since his days at Bill-o's gofer.
rgbecker
(4,834 posts)Not to mention the pay cut, for most, to $40 a day.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)How is this not jury intimidation?
onenote
(42,779 posts)But Watters isn't subject to a gag order and neither Watters nor Trump committed jury tampering as defined under New York law.
retweeting it a violation?
If not, he can get his friends in the RW Media to say whatever he wants and then retweet it.
onenote
(42,779 posts)Was that not clear from my post?
edhopper
(33,639 posts)Clear to me now.
Initech
(100,107 posts)Fuck Trump and fuck MAGA.
grumpyduck
(6,270 posts)but I don't have anything strong enough to do justice to this... individual.
But I so wish someone would take a cheese grater to that smug arrogant face.
IA8IT
(5,566 posts)Kid Berwyn
(14,990 posts)Small minded Bill O'Reilly toady made the Rupert Murdoch big time.
flying_wahini
(6,667 posts)yardwork
(61,715 posts)But these are not normal times.
PCIntern
(25,601 posts)Where does his wife shop for food? Where do his kids go to school? How about the older generation of his family -what about them? Do they go for walks? On what blocks and what time usually?
It works both ways.
Jarqui
(10,130 posts)and send them a message ..
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,480 posts)niyad
(113,602 posts)mn9driver
(4,428 posts)This is insanity.
onenote
(42,779 posts)First, his tweeting public information was not a crime. Second, he wasn't the only, or even the first, entity to report the publicly available information about the juror. Third, the Supreme Court has unanimously held that the First Amendment imposes constraints on limiting the press from reporting on trials, including the voir dire stage. The constitutionally preferred means of balancing the various interests in play is to do exactly what Judge Merchan has now done -- directed that certain information about the jurors not be part of the public record.
lostnfound
(16,192 posts)Because he is swine among swine.
underpants
(182,945 posts)A couple of times.
0rganism
(23,975 posts)Straight up mob-style strong arming the NYC courts.
If the MAGA trolls get away consequence-free with this, how can we expect safe polling places in November? This is a real problem the DNC cannot afford to ignore.
Mike Nelson
(9,973 posts)... guess Jesse Walters took out the first one. Probably, Lara Ingram will be up next. They are going to "take out" jury members.
TeamProg
(6,289 posts)Joinfortmill
(14,479 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,334 posts)should get busy and dox everyone working for Fox News.
Seinan Sensei
(368 posts)And start with Jesse
Cherokee100
(270 posts)Do away with the jury. I volunteer to be the judge.
Martin68
(22,907 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,478 posts)RockRaven
(15,025 posts)this example. They don't even need to be broadcasters. Just spam that shit all over social media. It will spread, fast.
Trueblue1968
(17,242 posts)Get rid of him.
Ping Tung
(737 posts)of a still active crook now standing trial for felonious crimes.
dalton99a
(81,636 posts)krawhitham
(4,648 posts)Sure he added
"I'm not so sure about Juror No. 2."
Only thing he did was put it on TV, all the papers were printing every detail about the Juries that was revealed in court