A former juror in New York City who served three times believes that the chances of a favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump may not be as grim as some think.
Deroy Murdock, a Fox News contributor and political commentator, writes that his experiences on city juries left him believing that most New Yorkers who serve are “civic-minded” Americans who will give the benefit of the doubt to defendants regardless of their political affiliation. Attorneys for President Trump have conducted extensive investigations into prospective jurors’ social media histories, resulting in dozens of dismissals, including individuals who misrepresented their left-leaning political beliefs.
Through one criminal and two civil trials, Murdock writes, “My fellow jurors were serious, professional and movingly civic-minded. A quiet, solemn patriotism infused our deliberations. Several jurors said that we should respect the justice system because, someday, we might need it to respect us.”
In one case, a woman who sued her physician over a botched abortion was denied a verdict in her favor after the jury ruled that her lawyer failed to prove negligence by the doctor. When one juror insisted that they should “give her something” indicative of a small win, a juror shot back, “That’s not how it works!” one said. “I feel sorry for her, too,” another admitted. “But her lawyer never made her case.”
In one instance, a woman who sued her physician over a botched abortion was denied a verdict in her favor when the jury ruled that her lawyer had failed to prove negligence by the doctor. When one juror suggested they should “give her something” as a small consolation, another juror responded firmly, stating, “That’s not how it works!” Another juror expressed sympathy, saying, “I feel sorry for her, too,” but acknowledged that her lawyer had not effectively presented her case.
Murdock was also involved in a jury trial lasting three days, where a drug counselor’s defamation-of-character claim against his employer was denied. However, it was his third case that may shed the most light on how New York juries perceive prosecutorial misconduct.
“[I]n her closing argument, a criminal prosecutor displayed a CD-ROM of a police dispatcher’s ‘Be on the lookout’ announcement after an armed robbery. When we asked the judge to play that recording, he told us that it was not in evidence. Disgusted by this prosecutorial deception, we instantly and angrily acquitted the defendants. Minutes later, as foreman, I proudly announced our verdict in court,” Murdock wrote.
Murdock asserts that all three trials illustrate why New Yorkers are willing to afford their fellow citizens a fair chance at justice despite consistently electing mostly far-left politicians. Regarding the case against Trump, Murdock contends that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has provided the 12 jurors with ample reasons to doubt the impartiality of the trial. He points out that Bragg indicted Trump on April 4, 2023, four months after the statute of limitations expired for class E felonies. Bragg has justified this by claiming that Trump used the business records in question to commit a second crime, which he has yet to specify.
In the same month, a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission concluded that Bragg lacks the power to prosecute the matter. “The Department has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws,” the memorandum states. “The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement,” the memo also says. Nowhere in this federal rule does it grant local prosecutors the authority to enforce federal election laws. Therefore, Bragg’s case is like a shack built atop a cloud of helium.
In conclusion, Murdock argues that prosecutors are placing significant emphasis on scandalous behaviors that, while sensational, are not necessarily illegal. For instance, the “catch and kill” strategy used to suppress anti-Trump stories by Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer has been employed by other prominent individuals, including Obama Chief of Staff and current Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel, actors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mark Wahlberg, and golf star Tiger Woods. Moreover, whether or not President Trump had a sexual encounter with adult film star Stormy Daniels is irrelevant to the crimes with which Trump is charged.
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.