Trump's historic date with destiny

Get the Point!

History is being made in a Manhattan courtroom this week as former President Donald Trump faces criminal charges relating to hush money allegedly paid to former paramours during his first run for president in 2016. If convicted, Mr. Trump faces up to four years in prison—and the American people face the serious prospect that a potential President-elect could be incarcerated on inauguration day at worst, or on some form of home confinement or probation at best. 

The Defendant Donald John Trump

So, if you're thinking, "what a mess," you echo my thoughts on this matter—and the other three felony cases to follow in various federal and state courtrooms up and down the East Coast. 

I want my Hobbservation Point readers to know that I have neither the time nor the desire to follow this particular trial gavel to gavel like the NY Times and other major dailies, but I will occasionally post an editorial when an issue arises that allows me to use the knowledge that I developed trying nearly 200 criminal cases in state and federal courts before the pandemic. 

First up this week is jury selection before Judge Juan Merchan, a typically lengthy process when the defendant (or case) has had tons of media coverage. In such instances, prosecutors and defense lawyers are seeking to find 12 jurors who can be "fair and impartial," ones who have not formed any "fixed opinions" about the case even after having heard or read stories in the press. 

While some media outlets predicted that Trump's Manhattan jury selection could take several weeks, as of last night, seven of the potential 12 jurors have already been chosen! While this has surprised some folks, including the Defendant Trump who wrote on social media that Judge Merchan is "rushing the trial," consider Ol' Hobbs not surprised in the least that the selection process is moving fairly quickly. 

In three of the highest publicity cases that I tried back in the day, the 2003 gambling case of former Florida State University quarterback Adrian McPherson, the 2009 Rachel Hoffman murder case involving Deneilo Bradshaw, and the 2016 Casey Cason murder case in nearby Live Oak, Florida, juries in each case were selected in under two days—this, despite hundreds of jurors being called in for questioning that was projected to last at least a week.

A younger Ol’ Hobbs with former FSU quarterback Adrian McPherson following his Court TV televised trial in 2003.

The speed of these selections was not because any of the judges "rushed" the matters through, but the weeding out process actually began the moment that jurors answered questions that were mailed to them in advance, or were posed to them on the first day of voire-dire. These questions always help to root out a vast many jurors who, 1. Cannot serve due to some serious personal conflict with the trial dates or the nature of the case or, 2. Do NOT wish to serve due to any number of reasons that show some level of bias for or against the prosecution or the defense. 

Once the "cannot/do not" folks are excused, which is the equivalent of a roller coaster slowly escalating upwards, the remaining potential jurors are then quizzed more specifically by the parties as to their ability to be impartial in that particular case, a process that often moves rapidly like a roller coaster descending downwards!

Part of the rapid nature of jury selection that I just mentioned is because most human beings do NOT like talking in public, particularly among strangers. This reticence to open up means that lawyers can ask all of the questions that they wish to ferret out bias, but if the potential juror doesn't have a calendar conflict or some other personal conflict with the parties or facts of the case, their one or two word responses, the "uh huh" or "nawl" knee-jerk utterings that are followed up with "is that a yes or a no" by the lawyers, gets rather repetitive and compels the litigators to give what ostensibly is their best educated guess about whether this juror or that one has a hidden agenda—or can be unbiased. 

What is on Defendant Trump's mind at the defense table?

When current or former trial lawyers view the pictures above and below, we see something that lay persons may or may not: fear!

The fear factor stems from any given defendant knowing that no matter how much they profess their innocence in a matter, that such determination is out of their hands once a jury is sworn and the trial commences. 

Anyone who has followed Mr. Trump even casually knows that he often comes across as a brash, confident (if not cocky) sort; even with his fate weighing in the balance in a case in which he has been warned multiple times about making negative comments about the judge, prosecutors, or potential witnesses, Trump is STILL firing away on social media about, you guessed it, the judge, prosecutors, and potential witnesses!

In any ordinary case, a refusal to abide by a gag order would have found the defendant with a revoked bond and sitting in a jail cell until the trial concludes—but the former president is no ordinary defendant, and Judge Merchan has shown an amazing level of restraint by not holding him in contempt and preventing him from continuing his presidential campaign unabated. 

But Trump's facial expressions and even his social media postings during jury selection remind me of multiple regular clients in the past, where even the brightest and most prepared are still extremely unsure and uneasy about what's happening to them in the courtroom. Some defendants sit at counsel's table and nervously tap their lawyer on the shoulder every few seconds asking questions (I always encouraged my clients to write their questions out on the pad, as it was easier for me to read and still listen to opposing counsel or a witness than holding a full convo). Other defendants sit at the table and rock back and forth while praying without ceasing—even aloud; some doodle or draw elaborate pictures on their notepads to pass the time, and in one multiple defendant murder case that I handled in 2018, my client slept through 90 percent of the trial to the very end—when she woke up quite alert and elated that the jury had found her not guilty of being an accessory to first degree murder. 

The late Vicki Strickland (seated next to me) slept through much of her two week trial back in 2018…

Where Trump, already shown napping in court, will fall on the spectrum over the next few weeks remains to be seen, but what I do know is that he knows that neither his former presidential powers or wealth can save him from what one friend of mine who watched parts of a murder trial that I handled over a decade ago called "technical tedium mixed with boredom." Whether Trump will be able to withstand such tedium and boredom without a puerile temper tantrum (or several) remains to be seen in the days ahead. 

Stay tuned…