Trump Hush-Money Trial Juror Shows Peril of Being Identified
Just days after a former federal prosecutor warned that publicizing information about potential jurors in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial could put them in danger, an outed jury member came forward to express concern about being identified.“Juror number two,” a nurse, explained that friends and colleagues were able to identify her based on personal details revealed during the screening and selection process. “I definitely have concerns now … about being in public. Yesterday alone, I had friends, colleagues push things to my phone questioning my identity as a juror. I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision to be in the courtroom,” she said.Judge Juan Merchan, the Manhattan Supreme Court justice presiding over the case, allowed her to be excused. Merchan then took extra measures to protect the identities of jurors, asking journalists not to report on jurors’ places of employment, a detail included on the questionnaires filled out during selection. “There’s a reason why this is an anonymous jury and we’re taking the measures that were taken. And it kind of defeats the purpose of that when so much information is put out there that it is very, very easy for us to identify who the jurors are,” Merchan said.“I’m directing that the press simply apply common sense and refrain from writing about physical descriptions. It’s just not necessary. It serves no purpose,” he continued. “There’s no need for anyone to mention that one of the jurors had an Irish accent. I don’t see how that advanced any interest whatsoever.”Fox News host Jesse Watters had revealed information about the juror, including her and her fiancée’s occupations, during a segment about the trial on Tuesday night. “I’m not so sure about juror number two,” he said.Trump elevated Watters’s segment the following day, claiming that “Liberal Activists” were trying to sneak onto the jury and bias the outcome against him.As critics have pointed out, enough information on the lives of the jurors has already been reported to identify many of them, potentially putting them in danger. Judges presiding over January 6–related cases have faced right-wing intimidation and harassment campaigns. Fears of similar mob-like tactics being employed against jurors, particularly in Trump’s myriad lawsuits, are well founded.Judge Lewis Kaplan warned jurors in E. Jean Carroll’s January defamation suit against Trump to “never disclose that you were on this jury.” If juror number two’s experience is indicative, staying silent may not be enough.
Just days after a former federal prosecutor warned that publicizing information about potential jurors in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial could put them in danger, an outed jury member came forward to express concern about being identified.
“Juror number two,” a nurse, explained that friends and colleagues were able to identify her based on personal details revealed during the screening and selection process.
“I definitely have concerns now … about being in public. Yesterday alone, I had friends, colleagues push things to my phone questioning my identity as a juror. I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision to be in the courtroom,” she said.
Judge Juan Merchan, the Manhattan Supreme Court justice presiding over the case, allowed her to be excused. Merchan then took extra measures to protect the identities of jurors, asking journalists not to report on jurors’ places of employment, a detail included on the questionnaires filled out during selection.
“There’s a reason why this is an anonymous jury and we’re taking the measures that were taken. And it kind of defeats the purpose of that when so much information is put out there that it is very, very easy for us to identify who the jurors are,” Merchan said.
“I’m directing that the press simply apply common sense and refrain from writing about physical descriptions. It’s just not necessary. It serves no purpose,” he continued. “There’s no need for anyone to mention that one of the jurors had an Irish accent. I don’t see how that advanced any interest whatsoever.”
Fox News host Jesse Watters had revealed information about the juror, including her and her fiancée’s occupations, during a segment about the trial on Tuesday night. “I’m not so sure about juror number two,” he said.
Trump elevated Watters’s segment the following day, claiming that “Liberal Activists” were trying to sneak onto the jury and bias the outcome against him.
As critics have pointed out, enough information on the lives of the jurors has already been reported to identify many of them, potentially putting them in danger. Judges presiding over January 6–related cases have faced right-wing intimidation and harassment campaigns. Fears of similar mob-like tactics being employed against jurors, particularly in Trump’s myriad lawsuits, are well founded.
Judge Lewis Kaplan warned jurors in E. Jean Carroll’s January defamation suit against Trump to “never disclose that you were on this jury.” If juror number two’s experience is indicative, staying silent may not be enough.
