Could I now be an impartial juror on the trial of Donald Trump?

You be the jury. Or actually can you? (Getty images)

A small number of Americans have actually served on a jury, but most of us understand this is an important component of citizenship. Trial by a jury of your peers has a legacy that predates the Magna Carta (1215), and has been universally recognized as the best way to ensure individuals receive fair consideration when accused of a crime.  The notion is that a common sense of fairness, divorced from any power structure or any hope of personal gain, will allow a jury to make a just decision. The right is established for Americans in our Constitution, for civil and criminal cases. 

But serving on a jury is not just sitting in judgment. It requires each juror to put aside a few things we Americans seem to have fallen in love with — our ideologies, our politics, and our personal version of reality. Because the responsibilities of a juror are to hear evidence presented and accepted in court, and to understand the relevant, documented law as presented by the judge. Then, to make a decision based on these things and nothing else. Not your opinion, not your feelings, not “your truth.”

So I asked myself, could I now be an impartial juror on the trial of Donald Trump, champion of “alternative facts,” for falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 election? 

There is probably no one in America, otherwise qualified to serve on a jury, who does not know who he is. And most of us have an opinion. 

This week, a caller to Matt Allen’s WPRO talk radio show suggested Trump’s universal notoriety meant he could never get a fair trial anywhere in America. But the issue is not whether I have followed the news about Trump (I have and do), or whether I have an opinion about him (boy, do I), but whether I could evaluate this case based only on the evidence and the law. 

There is probably no one in America, otherwise qualified to serve on a jury, who does not know who he is. And most of us have an opinion.

I served on a jury about 40 years ago. It was a civil case in New York City; a merchant marine had been injured at sea. We were asked to determine the liability of his employer and the amount of damages to him. The jury was a cross-section of New Yorkers; mostly working or middle class, and a variety of ethnicities. 

There is no doubt that, as designed, we brought our life experiences into the jury room. As instructed, we sought to put prejudices and preconceptions aside. Here is what is interesting: Though we all had instinctive sympathy for the injured sailor, and wanted to do right by him, the evidence presented for the severity of his injury was disappointingly thin. We simply did not believe him that he could never work again. After conversation and debate, where we landed was that the man had a documented accident on the job, and his employer was liable. We decided to award him a sum that seemed proportional, at least to all of us. 

We were so serious, and perhaps naïve. 

When the results were announced, the shipping company lawyers wanted to shake our hands. When asked why, they told us they had offered the sailor twice that amount to settle. 

I still ask myself if justice was done, but I know that we tried to get there. And while it is fair to worry that a single juror with a fixed worldview will ignore the evidence, I think there is a good chance that most juries, including the one picked with unexpected speed in New York last week, will make the same effort. 

The post Could I now be an impartial juror on the trial of Donald Trump? appeared first on Rhode Island Current.