strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Not every denizen of a place perfectly reflects the overall opinion held by people of that place. For example, if 80% are so biased as to be unfit to serve on Trump's jury, that leaves 20% of the population that is not unfit (for that reason).If almost everyone you could grab off the street comes in believing Trump is guilty then he by definition can not have an impartial jury. If 50% said "guilty" and 50% said "innocent" that would be better, but frankly even that would be a miscarriage of justice because it's innocent before being proven guilty, not the other way around. Proving your innocence is nearly impossible, so no. You are fucking wrong.
It is reasonable to worry about the composition of the jury. It is not reasonable to declare that no jury of DC citizens can fairly evaluate the trial.
edit: I mean, you know there's a fairly extensive weeding-out process, right? I don't know too much about it, but I think there's no limit to the number of people they can exclude "for cause" (such as insuperable bias).
Last edited: