On Tuesday morning’s CNN News Central, anchor Rahel Solomon brought University of Miami professor of criminal law Scott Sundby on the show to discuss the selection process for “potential jurors” at the trial for former President Trump’s classified documents indictment. Despite Solomon’s disclaimer that the process was “not at the jury selection phase of any potential trial” yet, they engaged in a discussion of the importance of selecting jurors for the trial based on their “worldviews” and “where [they] get their news.”
Solomon opened the interview with a loaded question regarding the “types of questions” that lawyers involved in the case could ask “to try to figure out who would be a good potential juror.” Taking the bait, Sundby explains how the “worldviews” of the jurors can affect “how they are going to view the facts which they’re actually gonna hear at trial”:
So in terms of the lawyer’s perspective, what they’re really gonna be trying to figure out, Rahel, is, the potential jurors’ worldviews, because what we’ve learned through studies of juries and decision-making is, sort of, how we view the world is also how we derive the facts.
And so they are going to be trying to get insights as to how potential jurors are going to view, is the government engaged in weaponization of the charges? Do people think that President Trump can do whatever he wants, in terms of declassification? Sort of their general views of the whole process is gonna drive how they are going to view the facts which they’re actually gonna hear at trial.
Of course, it’s true that a person’s worldview will affect how they judge a case, but this should not be a limiter for specific people to be able to participate in any particular jury. In fact, our legal system was built specifically in an attempt to ensure a wide range of different kinds of people in the judgment process, in hopes of reaching a middle ground (and thus a more just judgment) among all of these opinions.
However, Solomon and Sundby continued their discussion of the selection of jurors by their worldview, this time branching off into a discussion on how specifically a person’s political leaning could affect their eligibility to be “a good potential juror.” He brought up an example of a juror in the Jean Carroll civil law suit against Trump who many felt should have been disqualified after it was learned turning the trial he reads “a right-wing blog.”
He was essentially stating that the conservative political ideology was an example of a worldview that might be undesirable for this kind of case:
What might be quite relevant is where individuals get their news. What blogs they listen to—or read, what podcasts they listen to.
You might remember in the trial with Jean Carroll, which was a civil trial, but still a federal jury, it came out after the trial had started that one of the jurors actually listened to, what we might call a right-wing blog, and there was a big tussle as to whether that meant he should’ve been disqualified.
Sundby also noted that most people in American have already been exposed to the case, or were aware of it in some way, thus most people have already formed a personal judgment on it. He emphasized the need for any potential jurors to be able to “set whatever you have heard aside and listen to the evidence and…base your decision on the evidence.”
This would remove the possibility of a juror being able to judge a case on the whole of the truth of the matter that he knows, rather than just the information cited in the trial, which was bound to be biased when coming from both sides. It was clear from this interview, however, which side of this bias the CNN would be on. Especially, when considering they once worried about a grand juror hurting the investigation against Trump in Georgia.
This misinformation was brought to you by Sling TV and Wayfair. Contact them via their linked contact information to let them know that this is what they’re supporting.
Transcript of the segment below (click Expand):
CNN News Central
06/13/23
10:51 AM
RAHEL SOLOMON: Welcome back. Now if the case against former President Trump actually goes to trial, the court would of course have to find a jury to hear the case. But that could be a big challenge, given the massive amount—massive amount of attention on this case, and of course its immediate political impact. So how will the courts select twelve jurors who can decide the case based on the facts presented at trial.
Joining me now is Scott Sundby, he is a criminal law professor at the University of Miami, who studies juries. Scott, great to have your insight on a day like today.
To be clear, we’re not at the jury selection phase of any potential trial, just putting that out there. That said, there is a lot of attention on what a potential jury could look like. What types of questions do you think lawyers here would be asking to try to figure out who would be a good potential juror?
SCOTT SUNDBY: So in terms of the lawyer’s perspective, what they’re really gonna be trying to figure out, Rahel, is, the potential jurors’ worldviews, because what we’ve learned through studies of juries and decision-making is, sort of, how we view the world is also how we derive the facts.
And so they are going to be trying to get insights as to how potential jurors are going to view, is the government engaged in weaponization of the charges? Do people think that President Trump can do whatever he wants, in terms of declassification? Sort of their general views of the whole process is gonna drive how they are going to view the facts which they’re actually gonna hear at trial.
SOLOMON: Their worldview, I hear you say, Scott. What about their political views? What about their political leanings? How they voted?
SUNDBY: So, more and more, our political views seem to line up with our worldview. I’m not sure that was always true.
And one thing that we have to keep in mind is that this is a federal trial, and federal judges tend to be much more strict in terms of what they allow the attorneys to ask potential jurors. And so it’s going to be really interesting and challenging for the judge to sort of determine what questions they will allow to go forward.
I’m not sure that a judge would allow a jury to be asked who they voted for. Because a vote doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t hear the case fairly.
What might be quite relevant is where individuals get their news. What blogs they listen to—or read, what podcasts they listen to.
You might remember in the trial with Jean Carroll, which was a civil trial, but still a federal jury, it came out after the trial had started that one of the jurors actually listened to, what we might call a right-wing blog, and there was a big tussle as to whether that meant he should’ve been disqualified.
That’s often done through questionnaires, although a lot of judges don’t like questionnaires. But this strikes me as the type of case where getting a lot of information up front on those types of activities by the potential jurors makes sense.
SOLOMON: Scott, we don’t have a lot of time here, but talk to me about the need and the challenge, for both sides really, to find jurors—potential jurors who can be fair with so much attention on this case and political implications of this case.
SUNDBY: And—and this is why whoever handles this case as the judge has to be remarkably skilled, because they are going to have to deal with a jury pool that, unless you find somebody who’s been lost in the Everglades for the last two years, is inevitably going to have heard about the case.
And that doesn’t disqualify you from serving on the case, what you have to be able to do is tal—say that you can set whatever you have heard aside and listen to the evidence and—and base your decision on the evidence. But, of course, that is a real challenge to try and see whether a potential juror can do that. Oh, sorry.
SOLOMON: No, I mean listen…
SUNDBY: Rahel.
SOLOMON: …we could talk about this for another hour, Scott Sundby, professor. Great to have your insight today.
As we said, we are not at that phase of any potential trial, but fascinating nonetheless. Professor, thank you for the time today.