E Carroll Judge Boots Out Trump Voters From Jury Selection

[mudwhistle]

Either the judge is purposely giving Trump a successful appeal or he really is just that stupid.
Add that to jury shopping with bias....you have overturn.

The point of all of this is harassment.
It started with an impeachment over a fucking phone call to Ukraine.
Anyone else would have quit long ago.

 

[Concerned American]

The OP claimed they asked how they voted and rejected them if they didn't answer "No".

Source? Some random guy on the internet.

You really think a Judge with 30 years on the bench is going to do that?

I mean a lawyer that has to be schooled on evidence 101 and who was the lawyer for parking garage maybe? But a 30 year Federal Judge? Highly doubtful without proof.

(And yes, jurors are rejected all the time for being affiliated with a defendant.)

WW

Believing that an election was stolen is hardly an affiliation. You are spouting a lot of democrat BS, but not much in the way of substantiation.

 

[justoffal]

The point of all of this is harassment.
It started with an impeachment over a fucking phone call to Ukraine.
Anyone else would have quit long ago.

Yup...they want him to quit....he won't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The bench has NO challenges under voir dire. Those are reserved for the defense and prosecution from what I can find. If you can find something that says a sitting judge can dismiss under the selection process, I would be interested in seeing it.

Let me correct my previous statement, the Judge and Attorney's can ask potential jurors questions. There is an unlimited number of rejections that can be made for cause. Each side has a limited number of preemptory challenges to reject a juror without having to identify to the Judge their reason.

WW

 

[Concerned American]

Let me correct my previous statement, the Judge and Attorney's can ask potential jurors questions. There is an unlimited number of rejections that can be made for cause. Each side has a limited number of preemptory challenges to reject a juror without having to identify to the Judge their reason.

WW

Again, talk, talk, talk. substantiation. Forgive me if I'm picky about my sources. You are not a credible source.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Believing that an election was stolen is hardly an affiliation. You are spouting a lot of democrat BS, but not much in the way of substantiation.

The substantiation was previously posted in post #109. The question was asked about if the prospective jurors believed the 2020 was stolen. Two persons raised their hands and they were dismissed.

WW

 

[Concerned American]

The substantiation was previously posted in post #109. The question was asked about if the prospective jurors believed the 2020 was stolen. Two persons raised their hands and they were dismissed.

WW

You state the obvious. What you don't substantiate is the law that says the judge has dismissals under voir dire. Source please.

 

[justoffal]

You really think a Judge with 30 years on the bench is going to do that?

Well I gotta tell ya after Fanni....I'm beginning to have some doubts.

Politics may be playing an outsized role here

Jurors are also dismissed for being involved with the plaintiff....in this case they share a common politic.

 

[Vrenn]

Because of this, the verdict can be automatically overturned.

First of all, there are methods both the prosecutor and the defense has to try and guide the towards a favorable outcome either way.

If the Posecutor plays it right, he or she and make sure that there are NO Rump voters because they will generally trip themselves up. Let's face it, we all know it only takes one to dismiss.

 

[justoffal]

First of all, there are methods both the prosecutor and the defense has to try and guide the towards a favorable outcome either way.

If the Posecutor plays it right, he or she and make sure that there are NO Rump voters because they will generally trip themselves up. Let's face it, we all know it only takes one to dismiss.

This judge has already doomed the trial by excluding the statement about the dress.
It's a waste of time from here on out.

 

[Concerned American]

First of all, there are methods both the prosecutor and the defense has to try and guide the towards a favorable outcome either way.

If the Posecutor plays it right, he or she and make sure that there are NO Rump voters because they will generally trip themselves up. Let's face it, we all know it only takes one to dismiss.

So if we were to carry on this line of thought, then any black juror can be dismissed from a trial of a black defendant. After all, it is common knowledge that many black people believe in jury nullification. Just because you think it would sway the jury does not stand under scrutiny.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[AZrailwhale]

Let me correct my previous statement, the Judge and Attorney's can ask potential jurors questions. There is an unlimited number of rejections that can be made for cause. Each side has a limited number of preemptory challenges to reject a juror without having to identify to the Judge their reason.

WW

I’ve been on numerous juries, the only question that I ever heard a judge ask the panel was if their employers paid them for jury duty on potentially long trials. Most judges didn’t even ask that and a few refused to excuse potential jurors who claimed financial hardship due to not being paid.

 

[BackAgain]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

View attachment 890913


The Judge ruling that the 2nd through 7th claims would be tried in a count.

View attachment 890914

Yellow = Ruling finding for the claimant as to the first issue based on request for summary judgement.

Orange = Defendants request for summary judgement (that the claims be dismissed) denied.

So yes. 1 of 7 claims was ruled on.

So yes. Both parties requested summary judgement.

So yes. The other 6 claims would be determined at trial.

WW
.
.
.
.
.
View attachment 890915

DISCLAIMER: Yes I know this is an E. Jean Carrol thread, I was responding to a claim about the Trump Business Fraud trial that the above poster made.

To not derail the thread further after posting facts, I'll leave it there.

W

Again. Bullshit. On paper the judge allowed the trial to proceed on all counts but count 1. But he still didn’t permit any litigation about the key issue: the underlying claim.

Give it a rest.

 

[BackAgain]

I guess you haven't been paying attention.
The fraud trial in NYC Judge Edgeron wouldn't even allow Trump to present a defense before rendering a judgement against him.

What that has to do with my post or whether I’ve been paying attention is unclear.

 

[Clipper]

If they refused to answer....he booted them out.
If they said they voted for Trump...he booted them out.
Only Biden voters are allowed on the jury in the E Carroll trial.

Sorry, cult members are not allowed on juries.

 

[mudwhistle]

What that has to do with my post or whether I’ve been paying attention is unclear.

Best way to figure it out is go back and re-read the thread.
I think most of the crap these judges have been pulling isn't talked about much on CNN or MSNBC, but anyone who finds their news & information elsewhere knows what's going on and that it isn't right.
It really doesn't matter to these people that their fucked up rulings will be overturned.
The whole point of it is that Biden's Administration is orchestrating the whole thing to prevent having to run against Trump or anyone else.
Kamala admitted to it. She says running un-opposed it what they're looking for.
They're going to make up excuses to keep Republicans off the ballot in every election.

 

[BackAgain]

Best way to figure it out is go back and re-read the thread.
I think most of the crap these judges have been pulling isn't talked about much on CNN or MSNBC, but anyone who finds their news & information elsewhere knows what's going on and that it isn't right.
It really doesn't matter to these people that their fucked up rulings will be overturned.
The whole point of it is that Biden's Administration is orchestrating the whole thing to prevent having to run against Trump or anyone else.
Kamala admitted to it. She says running un-opposed it what they're looking for.

Again. Nothing i have said suggests anything else about the desire of the Dims.

You are presuming far too much.

 

[Clipper]

I don't give a shit how rich he is.
This is still wrong.

I guess you think that the rich owe you something.

They don't.

Many of them worked for the money they earned. Only to have assholes like this try to take it from them.

All subhuman Dotard has to do is run another grift pass you rubes & he'll milk enough cash from the sucker's to help damages.

He's probably plotting one right now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again. Nothing i have said suggests anything else about the desire of the Dims.

You are presuming far too much.

Then what's the problem?