History was made in New York on Monday morning with the opening of the very first criminal trial involving a former American president, Donald Trump, accused of having falsified accounting documents to conceal the payment of a bribe. wine to a pornographic actress.
This spectacular clash between the populist and the justice system began with the delicate selection of the jury which, in the coming weeks, will have in hand the destiny of the Republican candidate in the presidential election. An exercise complicated both by the impetuous and uncontrollable character of the accused and by the singular and highly publicized nature of this trial.
“The selection of this jury is going to be very difficult, because of the great polarization that has taken place in our country, but also because of Donald Trump himself, who has been leading a vigorous campaign in the press for months to affirm that he should not be prosecuted,” summarizes Valerie Hans, professor of law at Cornell University and a leading authority on criminal trials and jury training in the United States, in an interview. “Of course, the court has several tools to overcome these difficulties. And I remain optimistic that the judge and attorneys will succeed in selecting a fair and impartial jury in this case. »
The process, however, is likely to take several days in order to track down prejudices, political inclinations, biases or ulterior motives in the pool of several hundred New Yorkers summoned by the Manhattan court – and of which 12 people will be carefully extracted in order to decide whether to the guilt (or not) of the ex-president of the United States.
All under the gaze not only of radicalized Republican supporters, but also of Americans as a whole and the rest of the world.
“It’s not going to be easy to find jurors who don’t have feelings about Trump,” said Cheryl Bader, a criminal law expert at Fordham University, contacted by The duty. “The key will therefore be to find people who do not have too strong an opinion on him, who will be able to put aside everything they have heard about this affair, to be able to judge him fairly in a spirit open. »
The exercise is far from being an easy task in New York, where 70% of the 1.1 million registered voters in Manhattan, the borough where the trial is being held, are Democrats. And where the accused is known as the white wolf, for good and bad reasons.
His reputation has been built on the rhythm of the buildings that he has created in the sky of the megalopolis since the 1980s, but also on the extravagance of a life, of businesses, of relationships and of escapades meticulously recounted for favor the presence of his name not only at the top of a skyscraper, but also on the front page of the tabloids. An image that has since been greatly tainted by his four chaotic years in the White House, by his attempt to cancel the 2020 elections, by his connections with several autocrats and dictators, and by several recent convictions by the state justice system.
He was notably found guilty of sexual assault against the writer E. Jean Carroll, and a jury sentenced him at the end of January to pay the latter more than 83 million dollars in damages for defamation. His last presence in a city court, as part of a civil trial, ended last February with another conviction for fraud orchestrated within the Trump Organization. He has since faced an exemplary fine of nearly half a billion dollars.
And “the problem with this case” of bribery and falsification of accounting documents, remarked in an interview Margaret Bull Kovera, professor of law at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, “is that it nor is there any other place or jurisdiction to move it to that would not have been exposed to the same high level of publicity.”
Any bias rejected
In this context, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over this historic trial, indicated that he was going to dismiss all the candidate jurors who clearly indicated a bias or declared that they could not judge the case fairly – all without possibility for the state prosecutors and defense attorneys to “rehabilitate” such a rejected prospective juror, as may be the case in other less high-profile cases.
“This rehabilitation process is not particularly effective, moreover,” adds Mme Bull Kovera, who conducted several research on this strategy as part of his work. “The judge’s decision to dismiss any juror who expresses concerns about their bias can therefore only result in a jury that is going to be fairer. »
Another notable decision: Judge Merchan ordered that the anonymity of the jurors be ensured in order to reduce the risks of harassment, manipulation and intimidation “by Trump ultraloyalists”, underlines Cheryl Bader. The Republican billionaire has become an incredible driver of political violence in the United States since his 2020 defeat.
However, Donald Trump’s lawyers will know their identity, but will not have access to their address. The former US president also had a court injunction imposed preventing him from making public all information on the jurors held by his team of lawyers. Crucial information, both for prosecutors and for the defense, from the forms filled out by the candidates, but also from research carried out online by both camps in order to take the pulse of their values and thus try to instill in the jury ideas that would be favorable to them. “Donald Trump and his lawyers are likely to seek candidates who question authority and seek ‘alternative’ answers to problems while distrusting government,” predicts Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at the University of Dayton. in Ohio, joined by The duty.
The populist camp should favor white men from the working class, less educated or more receptive to conspiracy, sometimes employed in the public service in maintaining order, security or maintenance; State prosecutors should prefer to turn to candidates who are “more educated, who read and listen to more progressive media, but also nuanced thinkers capable of approaching problems from several angles,” believes Cheryl Bader.
Incidentally, the specialist in criminal law, however, minimizes the importance of this “science”, which she considers uncertain: “Even if it is an important phase of a trial, lawyers overestimate their ability to plan a way to vote based on general demographic information and asking a candidate a handful of questions. »
Indeed, for the group of 12 jurors chosen, this decision, this vote, will arrive at the end of several weeks of hearings, evidence, testimony and counter-testimony. Elements which, in the end, undoubtedly remain more decisive in anchoring or undermining the prejudices of a jury – including when it comes to deciding the fate of a former president.