He knows ir only takes one. Such a pervert; of justice as well as everything else.

Bragg's people are in there too.

and the Judge has say in this too.

I literally went through the same process this past Monday here in Philly with voir dire - called in from the jury assembly room to sit in the courtroom with the judge, Assistant D.A., and defendant (and his attorney) getting clarifying answers to my responses on the jury questionnaire. I got picked (ended up 2-day criminal trial). We had 14 (12 + 2 alternates).

The fact that a jury in NYC found him liable for the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll should tell you that no, he doesn't always get the "one" (or any for that matter).

He might have to change the rules and re-boot the whole jury selection process.

...restrict the press from any access to identifiable info other than public records.

I’d like to know too. When they finally have the full jury I’m thinking they will be sequestered for their safety since the press seems intent on sabotaging Dump being held accountable

I'm pretty sure that the prevailing view here on DU is that the trial itself should be public and reported on.

As for the voir dire, 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."

Thank you. Sounds like there might be some extraordinary circumstances here.

Could they?

What a shame that people selected for this jury are getting harried like they are going to hear a case against an organized crime boss.

Watters is a twin to Trump--selfish, vindictive etc.


Fox News host Jesse Watters on Tuesday broadcast extensive biographical details about Juror No. 2 -- her neighborhood, occupation, education, marital and family status, and what industry her fiance works in.

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

Link to tweet

So no. The "press" ( of which Faux Snooze is not part of since it's "entertainment" ) will not obey the Judge's "demand".

Not that I think the press is the major problem here, but it would take away some of Donald's ammunition.