Jury selection in former President Donald Trump’s trial was expected to take weeks, but according to a shocking development on Tuesday, that’s not looking to be the case.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that the first seven jurors were chosen to serve in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. The selection process is ongoing to form a panel of 12 jurors and six alternates deemed impartial toward the former U.S. president.

The judge also cautioned lawyers against any attempts to intimidate potential jurors, noting an instance where Trump, the Republican presidential candidate in the upcoming Nov. 5 election, was heard muttering during the questioning of a prospective member.

Trump is confronting 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels, just before the 2016 election. Daniels asserts that she engaged in a sexual encounter with Trump approximately a decade earlier.

Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley added to the anxieties of Trump’s supporters who don’t believe he’ll get a fair trial in a Manhattan courtroom during an interview on Fox News Monday as jury selection began in the ‘hush money’ case.

Turley said he believes potential jurors who may have an ax to grind with the former president or just simply do not like him will lie about being ‘impartial’ just to get on the panel.

“Well, the more cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have been far better off with just one case, the Mar-a-Lago case. That’s based on real law, real precedent, and one can disagree with the interpretations. But it’s not a reach in the sense of this case,” Turley began.

“This case is creating something—it’s creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know, you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired, the statute of limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather curious way. He’s effectively arguing that Trump was filing false business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime. But it isn’t a federal crime; this wasn’t a campaign contribution.

“None of that appears to matter. And that’s why a lot of us are looking at this and recoiling. This is not how the law is supposed to be. New Yorkers appear to like it this way. They elected James, who ran on bagging Trump for anything, didn’t even mention what. And they now are lionizing this district attorney for putting together what many consider to be an absurd indictment,” Turley continued (video below)

He then made his observations about potential jurors wanting to be on the case so they can vote to convict a former president they don’t like.

“The problem is that courts don’t feel comfortable asking who did you vote for, and so they are working around the edges to try to show bias. The most important thing here is to try to isolate the worst of the jurors; those are jurors who just desperately want to be on this jury; many people will want to be and are prepared to lie to do so,” he predicted.

“What the defense counsel has is not their veracity on these forms but their names. Even though we won’t see them, defense counsel can look at social media and see if they are lying,” he continued.

“What is troubling is that in a couple of past Trump cases, they found out after the conviction or after the trial that jurors had lied about their past political involvements. The judges refuse to toss out the verdict,” he added. “So you have to try to stick that landing up front to show that bias. Also, keep in mind you only get ten strikes as a defense counsel, but you can have unlimited strikes for bias. As you bring forth evidence of bias, it is a freebie where you can try to remove some of these jurors.”

WATCH:


Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.