General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome of the jurors on steve bannon's trial don't know about Jan 6?
According to Glenn Kirshner on Morning Joe. Sorry, but that's impossible. I just hope they are not magats pretending to be clueless.
EYESORE 9001
(25,907 posts)Some people want to remain blissfully ignorant of anything in the news. I suppose Im the same way about celebrity gossip. Thing is, when I accidentally hear noises from the boob toob and hear the name Kardashian, Im aware of a family by that name whose sole talent lies in getting mentioned in entertainment media. I may not be able to pick out individuals within that brood, but Im aware there are more than one of them.
hlthe2b
(102,101 posts)or a very disconnected person--possibly homeless living off the grid.
Otherwise, I just don't see it. They are MAGATs most likely. I hope the prosecution can weed them out.
3Hotdogs
(12,319 posts)passes for music) all day and you won't know about J-6 or anything else, either.
We are political junkies. Not everyone else is.
stopdiggin
(11,235 posts)Really not intending snark or derision - but to me, I find this an (unfathomable, mostly unbelievable) level of living under a rock. Don't have to be a 'political junky.' Just have a pulse!
You're talking zero interaction with the world around you. And - need to be stricken from a jury pool on the basis of .... Grossly unqualified?
Meadowoak
(5,532 posts)inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Look how many were shocked and dismayed that the SC overturned Roe. Guess they've all been hiding under rocks too huh? Who could have seen that coming?
jimfields33
(15,666 posts)They may have heard the date but definitely have no clue about what it means. So many people today dont watch news or are aware of politics. Its even worse with streaming. Youll get none of this on Netflix.
msfiddlestix
(7,270 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)had never heard of Q-Anon. I was fairly apolitical in my college years, but still. How could you have not at least heard of the cult by now?
bamagal62
(3,243 posts)They do not watch or listen to any news..at..all. They watch everything on a streaming service, they listen to Spotify. They have to actually go search for news, and they will rarely do that.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)
not really paying attention.
Oh, and ROLL TIDE!
bamagal62
(3,243 posts)I will say that she and her roommate made a point to vote on the last election in PA. They were in Pittsburgh. They even spent half of a day researching the candidates! They are both fans of Fetterman! And, Roll Tide to you too!! (Getting some great players committed this month!! Very exciting!)
MiHale
(9,660 posts)If it gets that far.
mopinko
(69,981 posts)in this case- a. there are not 12 peers of a former presidents around.
and b. it's impossible to impanel an unbiased jury at this point.
therefore- he gets a bench trail. have a 3 judge panel, or however many you want. but there's no way to impanel an unbiased jury.
MiHale
(9,660 posts)Have a wonderful day.
mopinko
(69,981 posts)not even sure if it's possible. maybe nonsense on this jury will point the way.
Solomon
(12,310 posts)mopinko
(69,981 posts)but it remains that even a much wider definition is still not viable.
onenote
(42,530 posts)Nevilledog
(50,979 posts)Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1
Download PDF
As amended through December 8, 2021
Rule 18.1 - Trial by Jury
(a)By Jury. The number of jurors required to try a case and render a verdict is provided by law.
(b)Waiver.
(1)Generally. The defendant may waive the right to a trial by jury if the State and the court consent. If the State and the court agree, a defendant also may waive the right to have a jury determine aggravation or the penalty in a capital case.
(2)Voluntariness. Before accepting a defendant's waiver of a jury trial, the court must address the defendant personally, inform the defendant of the defendant's right to a jury trial, and determine that the defendant's waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
(3)Form of Waiver. A defendant's waiver of a jury trial must be in writing or on the record in open court.
(4)Withdrawal of Waiver. With the court's permission, a defendant may withdraw a waiver of jury trial, but a defendant may not withdraw a waiver after the court begins taking evidence.
I wonder how many other jurisdictions also have those caveats?
Solomon
(12,310 posts)Ani Yun Wiya
(797 posts)Maybe a three judge tribunal on board a Naval vessel.
Would that be an admiralty court?
Ferrets are Cool
(21,102 posts)You would be surprised how "out of touch" many of them are.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)''12 percent of Americans don't know who Mike Pence is:
https://www.newsweek.com/who-mike-pence-12...
Feb 05, 2019 · According to the recent census estimates, that 12 percent means that more than 30,387,000 American adults may not recognize the name of
''
Ferrets are Cool
(21,102 posts)empedocles
(15,751 posts)Novara
(5,817 posts)How could they not be aware that something big happened, even if they don't watch the news?
chowder66
(9,045 posts)They don't follow political accounts.
It's pretty easy to miss if you are not interested.
Half of my friends growing up didn't pay attention to politics at all. I happened to grow up in a household that did and even then I wasn't super plugged in. There are things that went on politically that I found out about decades later because I was busy with school, jobs, surviving, dating, socializing, etc.
I did catch the news periodically though and paid attention to some bigger events. If a newspaper was lying around I might pick it up. It wasn't until I was older that I started plugging in a lot more.
The one thing I did do as soon as I turned 18 was research around each election. I would watch more news (local and national) and talk to those around me that were political. I have voted in all elections with the exception of 3 or 4 local elections due to various reasons. I haven't missed one since around 1995.
can't name the three branches of government. Is that really a serious question?
Catherine Vincent
(34,486 posts)She prob don't know about Jan 6 either. Never discussed it with her. I may next time she's in town just to test her. I know her partner would know.
Samrob
(4,298 posts)One question could take care of that. Like:
Do you think Cassidy Hutchinson is an honest person?
Kid Berwyn
(14,788 posts)Got games n such, too. Whos Pence, again?
Emile
(22,449 posts)prevail. I'm sure they will have enough right wing jurors for him to escape prosecution.
Dysfunctional
(452 posts)brooklynite
(94,294 posts)They said the prospective Jurors didn't know about BANNON and weren't paying attention to the Jan 6 COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
I didn't see or hear it. But that makes more sense.
ecstatic
(32,641 posts)I can understand them not knowing about the select committee or even Steve Bannon. I know because I had to rewind to hear it again, and then Jonathan lamere repeated the point as well.
onenote
(42,530 posts)He didn't say they didn't know about January 6. Just that they hadn't paid "much attention" to what happened, which is a pretty vague standard and not at all the same as not knowing about the event.
kentuck
(111,049 posts)blank slates.
Meadowoak
(5,532 posts)I ain't buying it. These are MAGATS.
onenote
(42,530 posts)They said that they hadn't been following the hearings and hadn't paid "much attention" to what happened on January 6.
Not paying "much attention" - a rather vague standard - isn't the same as not knowing about it at all.
lark
(23,059 posts)RockRaven
(14,883 posts)I guess we'll find out...
DFW
(54,268 posts)How did they arrange that?
onenote
(42,530 posts)to what happened on January 6. That's much different than saying those jurors "don't know about Jan 6".
KIRSCHNER: Many of them said some variation of the same thing: 'Look, I dont have any specialized legal knowledge, but even I know, if I get a subpoena from Congress, I need to comply or Im wrong. Im in trouble.' Several jurors actually came right out and said, 'I think Steve Bannon is guilty.' Not surprisingly, those jurors, particularly the ones who said, 'I have such strong feelings that I dont think I can set them aside and be a fair and impartial juror,' those jurors were excused by the judge. The other thing that Ill say, Joe, is there were just as many people who didnt seem to know anything about Steve Bannon. They didnt know the name. And Im going to say, sadly, many of them said, 'I dont know anything about the January 6th select committee public hearings. I havent watched any and, frankly, I didnt pay much attention to what happened on January 6th.' That was kind of surprising, that people could be so civically sort of disengaged. The problem becomes those jurors easily qualified to sit on Steve Bannons jury. Why? Because they brought no preconceived notions into the trial with them. So, when the jury selection dust settles, first thing this morning, before opening statements, I suspect were going to see a number of those jurors seated who told the court they really dont know anything about this case."
pfitz59
(10,296 posts)A very large population do not follow the news or engage in politics. So yeah, plenty of potential jurors have no idea.
Response to pfitz59 (Reply #40)
inthewind21 This message was self-deleted by its author.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)People commenting on jurors being stupid, lying or attempting to throw a jury based on not know about what was actually said about said jurors knowledge of J6. Hello pot...
C Moon
(12,208 posts)peggysue2
(10,819 posts)He separated them into three groups.
Group 1 knew all about Bannon and his escapades, found him loathsome and would not be able to separate their feelings from facts presented. They were dismissed.
Group 2 had a general idea of the case but felt they could remain impartial in dealing with the evidence presented.
Group 3 had no idea who Bannon was or what he'd done. Many were not aware of the J6 Committee's investigation. Kirshner said these individuals were primarily young juror selectees.
Really? Young or not, you'd need to be living in cave for the last two years. Kirshner sounded pretty appalled. As am I.