• Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 months ago

    Of course it’s reasonable for the court to ask, but the court knowing, and that information being released outside of the court, are two different things. This isn’t the first time we’ve had a defendant that would encourage retaliation against a jury, there’s no way the court system doesn’t have any idea how to protect a jury.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, but the right to a public trial is so important that it’s right there in the Constitution, next door to the presumption of innocence. That means that trials must be as transparent as possible, even to the media. Any unusual act that the judge takes to limit that transparency must be justified. This trial is too important to risk getting its verdict overturned on any technicality.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        “We have a defendant who very publically threatens and abused judges, prosecution, officers of the court, any one who stands up to him”

        … seems pretty fucking justified.

        The American people- and specifically the people in New York are also entitled to a fair trial.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        When I sat on a jury a couple years ago the judge & both attorneys knew my employer as part of the juror selection process. It was one of the questions on the questionnaire we had to fill out. The defense attorney did ask me one or two questions about my job before agreeing to have me as a juror. But there was absolutely no need for that information to go anywhere beyond those few people.