The Courageous Jurors Who Convicted Donald Trump
Whether you agree with the prosecution or not, these jurors were courageous
The second the news of Trump’s conviction dropped, the political tribes assumed their positions. MAGA Republicans and financial elites like Elon Musk and even Bill Ackman criticized the verdict. The political left called it a win for democracy.
Almost nobody highlighted the most important part of the story. The role of the jury. One of the few people, however, who did highlight it was President Joe Biden.
This quote from Biden carried a dreadful foreboding:
“It’s reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible for someone to say it’s rigged just because they don’t like the verdict.”
The reality is that many Republicans, even those beyond the typical MAGA fringe of the party, have tied their horse to Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Their personal power and influence over the next four years is therefore directly connected to someone who was just found guilty of 34 felonies.
If you were in their position, you might readjust your moral compass too. Find anything to discredit the verdict. Mudsling to see what sticks: a politically motivated prosecutor, a biased judge, a liberal New York City jury, and on, and on, and on.
There is one dark reality though that hovered over Trump’s trial, and that hangs over every other Trump trial for that matter, like a menacing storm cloud.
Anyone responsible for convicting Donald Trump does so at great personal risk
Primarily the jury. The judge and prosecutor may be dismissed as political operatives seeking career advancement. Jury members, on the other hand, play a more direct role. They make the final call.
Unanimously.
And if you think I am being hyperbolic about their personal risk, simply read what happened after Trump’s guilty verdict was announced.
Threats.
Doxxing attempts.
Which is why the real story here is not that Trump was convicted on 34 out of 34 counts. It’s not that he’s the first former President in U.S. history to achieve this notorious felonious feat. Or that he’s the first presidential candidate who is running as a convicted felon.
It’s that a jury of ordinary Americans, none of whom knew each other previously, sat down together for hours and reached a unanimous conclusion - beyond reasonable doubt - and despite the great personal risk they all must have felt.
This last part is the true story.
We may learn who some of these Americans were one day, but I doubt they will freely come forward until this saga has long passed. The risk is simply too great.
Which is why I am shocked there were no hold outs.
Imagine the conservative celebrations of a “Trump juror”
The incentives were high. One of the twelve jurors in Trump’s case could have made a big name for him or herself. Had they held out and refused to conclude “guilty.” Had they had the smallest “reasonable doubt.” Had they refused to convict.
The celebratory circuit they could have enjoyed across the conservative media landscape would have been massive.
Remember Kyle Rittenhouse?
After being found not guilty for murder, he was celebrated by practically every conservative pundit with a microphone. Rittenhouse became a political campaigning pawn, appearing anywhere and everywhere crowds and donors gathered.
He symbolized conservative resistance to the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. Notably, it was not in spite of shooting three people and killing two of them, but because he took those violent actions that he was celebrated.
The Kyle Rittenhouse treatment would have been given to any “Trump juror” who saved the former President from a criminal conviction. They would have been offered book deals. Maybe even a podcast of their own.
They would have been paraded far and wide, used as a pawn to continue Trump’s massive fundraising grift.
These incentives are why I’m still shocked that twelve random Americans all agreed with each other, deciding on their convictions, not on any ulterior motive.
Most of the jury members were not political
Have you read who the jury members were in Trump’s hush money case? The Washington Examiner summarized their profiles. Many of them claimed to have no opinion of Trump or to even read the news regularly.
In addition to being apolitical, these jurors were not the stereotypical liberals you might find in the city where I live: New York City. One guy was an investment banker (not a very liberal profession), others lived on the Upper East Side (one of the few more conservative pockets in Manhattan), and another was a security engineer with a high school diploma (hardly the profile of a typical east coast liberal elitist).
So to say this “New York City jury” was biased against Trump is an unsubstantiated stretch of reality. Was it more unfavorable than a jury pool from the deep south? Probably. But there is no evidence that this jury was out to get Trump just for the sake of getting him.
In fact, all of the coverage of the trial suggested that the jury took their obligation very seriously. They asked for follow-up information when deliberating. They didn’t fall asleep or close their eyes regularly throughout the trial, unlike the defendant.
It’s safe to assume that at least some harbored preconceived opinions of Trump prior to being empaneled, but by all accounts, they approached their role with duty, reverence, and professionalism.
The Trump jury exemplified a profile of courage
Amidst the threats and incentives for conservative media fame, no juror buckled under pressure. Unlike Trump who was under a gag order (that was arguably violated multiple times), no juror was reprimanded.
And despite the high profile nature of this case, the jury acted in very much the same way juries act in almost every case in America. Assessing the facts. Following the legal instructions from the judge. And then applying those facts to the law without fear or favor.
All twelve jurors agreed.
Read that again.
In today’s hyper-partisan and polarized environment, the fact twelve strangers could agree on the guilt of one of the most divisive people of our times is mind-blowing.
Whether or not you agree with the case or Trump’s guilt, you cannot deny the profile of courage from this jury. They stared down threats and ignored many other incentives. Instead of succumbing to fear, pressure, or their own self-interest, they ruled on one thing.
Their own convictions.
I can only hope more Americans do the same as we near the 2024 election.