Legal Analysts Discuss What Stands Out About Panel

After three days of trial, 12 New Yorkers have been selected to serve on the jury that will determine the outcome of Donald Trump’s hush money case, and legal experts told Newsweek that there are a number of surprises in the panel selected to serve on the case.

The former president is facing 34 felony counts in connection to allegations that he falsified business records in order to conceal a payment made to an adult film actress during the 2016 election. The payment was allegedly made so that the woman, Stormy Daniels, would stay quiet about her affair with Trump. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denies ever having relations with Daniels.

The charges, brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, are a first for the United States. No former president has ever been put through a criminal trial, and Bragg’s indictment is the first of four that Trump is facing while campaign for reelection in November.

Legal experts told Newsweek that one of the biggest surprises regarding the 12-person panel is that two of the jurors—Seat 3 and Seat 7—told the court that they are attorneys.

“Lawyers are often excused by one side or the other because of a belief that other jurors may unduly defer to them, and so you essentially end up with a jury of one,” Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and legal analyst, told Newsweek in an email.

“In this case, though, I can see how each side might think a lawyer could be good for them,” she continued. “From the prosecution side, perhaps a lawyer would be helpful in working through some complicated jury instructions.

“From the defense perspective, perhaps a lawyer would ensure that the jury holds itself to the standard of finding proof of each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Neama Rahmani, an attorney and the president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm, also said that attorneys “are always risky” on a jury, noting that they could have the ability to sway the entire panel.

“And lawyer jurors in a case like this are especially bad because the State is relying on a tenuous legal theory that the false business records were to further or cover up a campaign finance violation,” Rahmani said. “Lawyer jurors may see right through that argument and return guilty verdicts on misdemeanors only.”

Matthew Barhoma, a Los Angeles defense attorney with Power Trial Lawyers, also noted the pool size of potential jurors appeared “seemingly modest” when considering the “notoriety and potential divisiveness surrounding the subject” of the case.

Nearly 200 potential jurors faced questions about whether they can be fair and impartial before a panel was selected, including a 42-question survey and inquiries from both sides of the case.

“Empaneling a jury for the trial of former president Donald Trump is no small feat,” Barhoma told Newsweek. “His prominence and the attendant public perceptions pose a formidable challenge in identifying jurors free from preconceived notions.”

The composition of the jury could also play a role in the panel’s assessment of Trump’s case. Of the 12 jurors seated, seven are men, and Barhoma said that “the absence of female perspectives may influence the dynamics of juridical assessment, potentially tilting favor toward the former president.”

“Nevertheless, each juror underwent rigorous examination by legal representatives from both sides,” Barhoma added.

All potential jurors were asked about their professions, favorite news sources and their previous political history, among other topics. Rahmani noted in his email to Newsweek that Trump’s defense did “a masterful job researching the potential jurors’ social media,” which played a role in getting some potential jurors removed from the case during questioning.

“That’s saved them valuable peremptory challenges,” Rahmani said. “But if the jurors say they can be fair and impartial, and there is nothing on their social media or other publicly available information that says otherwise, they can be seated on the panel.”