Trump Indicted by Manhattan District Attorney

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Reporters often seem to lack a sense of balance and common sense.

[N.E. Brigand]

Reporters often seem to lack a sense of balance and common sense.

Agreed. Just because they have the First Amendment right to report on what potential jurors say about themselves in open court doesn't mean they should do so. Although in some cases, it may be that the dissemination of information about the jurors is deliberate. On Tuesday, Fox host Jesse Watters, after listing some information about her, said, "I'm not so sure about Juror No. 2." And now she's been allowed to leave the jury.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We're back to seven. Seems a long way around to get back to where we started. Hopefully we can pick up a few more before the end of the day (and keep them!).



Think Trump is going to freak out when they run of peremptory challenges (which is going to be very soon)?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now up to 9, and Trump is OUT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES!!!!!!11

Even though it is only half of the total, the rest should go a little quicker since Trump can only challenge for cause. [ETA: prosecutors still have 2 more peremptory challenges.]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We now have a full jury of 12 jurors, and only need 6 alternates. [eta: we are going fast now, already have the first alternate]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We should be able to finish picking the alternates in the morning and move on to the Sandoval motion, with the trial on track to begin with opening statements on Monday.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Monday and Tuesday will be short days because of Passover. They will go through lunch and end at 2 p.m.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This made me laugh out loud.



Needless to say, writing that the defendant "actually is the devil" is in fact good cause to dismiss a juror.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Jury is selection is now complete with a fully jury of 12 jurors and 6 alternates. On to the Sandoval hearing (presumably after lunch).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Apparently, a man set himself on fire outside the courthouse shortly after jury selection ended. It would be premature to say what his motivation was. Reportedly, he was still alive when he was taken away in an ambulance.

[N.E. Brigand]

This made me laugh out loud. ...

Needless to say, writing that the defendant "actually is the devil" is in fact good cause to dismiss a juror.

There's a pretty good play (and film) whose protagonist argues to the contrary:

William Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

But in the end, it does More no good, because he is executed after a colleague (played by Aragorn in the 1966 movie!) gives false testimony in exchange for whales.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But in the end, it does More no good ... .

Or does it do no more good?

[N.E. Brigand]

Apparently, a man set himself on fire outside the courthouse shortly after jury selection ended. It would be premature to say what his motivation was. Reportedly, he was still alive when he was taken away in an ambulance.

CNN was airing live outside as it happened. The two-minute video at this link should not autoplay, but be warned that the first thirty seconds clearly show the incident before the camera turns and stays with the reporter, Laura Coates, as she narrates in full Edward R. Murrow in wartime-London mode. Some others are comparing it to reporting on the Hindenburg. (There was no shooting, despite what she says at the start.) Some later reporting indicated that the man had flyers alleging some sort of cryptocurrency conspiracy.

[Jude]

But in the end, it does More no good, because he is executed after a colleague (played by Aragorn in the 1966 movie!) gives false testimony in exchange for whales.

Now, that makes for an interesting mental image.

[Sunsilver]

But in the end, it does More no good, because he is executed after a colleague (played by Aragorn in the 1966 movie!) gives false testimony in exchange for whales.

Wait - what?? Viggo was 8 years old in 1966!

[N.E. Brigand]

But in the end, it does More no good, because he is executed after a colleague (played by Aragorn in the 1966 movie!) gives false testimony in exchange for whales.

Wait - what?? Viggo was 8 years old in 1966!

He had to be replaced by Mortensen in the later film because a year later, an alien burst out of his chest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sunny, John Hurt voiced Aragorn in Bakshi's animated LOTR (and later played the character "Kane" in Aliens, who had a very bad case of indigestion).

[Jude]

Didn't that come out in 1978?

[N.E. Brigand]

Didn't that come out in 1978?

Yes, but in 1966, John Hurt played Richard Rich in the film version of A Man for All Seasons. RIch, who would rise to become Lord Chancellor a dozen years later, in 1535 gave the false testimony against Sir Thomas More that led to More's execution for treason. In the movie (and in the play on which it's based), Rich does this in exchange for a lucrative position. You can watch the crucial scene here. More does not approve of Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn and accordant usurpation of the Roman Catholic Church, but he's been very careful not to say so, and when his silence is argued as a point against him, he points to the tradition by which "silence implies consent." But then Rich testifies that Moore privately told him he held the belief for which he's been accused. The scene proceeds as follows:

More: "In good faith, Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than my peril."

Judge: "Then you deny this?"

More: "Yes! My Lords, you know if I were not the man who heeded the taking of an oath, I need not be here. Now I will take an oath. If what Master Rich has said is true, I pray I may never see God in the face, which I would not say were it otherwise for anything on earth!"

Prosecutor: "That is not evidence."

More: "Is it probable, is it probable that after so long a silence on this the very point so urgently sought of me, I should open my mind to such a man as that?"

Judge: "Sir Richard, do you wish to modify your testimony?"

RIch: "No, my Lord."

Judge: "Is there anything you wish to take away from it?"

Rich: "No, my Lord."

Judge: "Have you anything to add?"

Rich: "No, my Lord."

Judge: "Have you, Sir Thomas?"

More: "To what purpose? I am a dead man. You have your will of me."

Judge: "Then the witness may withdraw."

More: "There is one question I would like to ask the witness. That's a chain of office you're wearing. May I see it?" He inspects the chain. "The red dragon. What's this?"

Prosecutor: "Sir Richard is appointed Attorney General for Wales."

More: "For Wales? Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales?"