On day three and the criminal
hush money
trial of former President Donald Trump.
One of the seven empaneled
jurors has already been excused
after expressing concerns
that aspects of her identity
had been compromised.
We're getting reports
there may be issues
with an additional juror.
Let's go straight
to CNN chief legal analyst
Laura Coates in New York for the latest.
Laura, what can you tell us?
Don't be fooled by the dreary weather
behind this.
It is hot in that courtroom right now.
The judge concerned
about the anonymity of the jurors.
I'm joined now by Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, catch us up.
There were seven jurors
that had been impaneled already.
We needed 11 more to fill out that 12
plus the six
alternate jurors,
one that's already been seated
is saying she can no longer.
Serve and she's been dismissed.
So now we are back down to six.
They have brought in the 96
panel to come through and get
go through processing once more.
But here's what happened.
We know that this store called the court
and essentially said
that she was worried about
if she could be impartial.
She was worried about
if she was fit to serve.
So she came in this morning.
She talked to the judge.
And essentially this is what she says,
and I want to make sure I get it.
She says that she was excused
after she told the judge
that, quote,
aspects of her identity
have already been out there
in the public.
Yesterday alone,
she said she had friends,
colleagues and family
push things to her phone, questioning
if she was the jury juror.
She went on to say
that she felt intimidated
and she wasn't sure
that you would be able to serve fairly.
But look, this is an overall problem
and we're likely to see this happen
again and again
with some of these jurors and jurors.
And that is why
they're trying now
to take out
some of those identifying factors.
This is going to be
a very high profile case
with a very polarizing figure.
It is something that both sides
are concerned about,
being able
to actually keep that jury pool.
And it's likely
we see Judge
Mershon saying, okay,
we want around six alternates.
We had originally heard
just six alternates.
There's a chance
he's going to want more alternates
because as this case goes on,
we might see more of this.
And, of course,
there's likely to be other jurors
who might now see that this person
has been dismissed,
excused on this very basis
and may now be questioning themselves.
Have I been compromised?
Is my anonymity now
in question for some reason,
that's a very scary proposition.
We need a social media post.
We're already a part of that.
We're able to identify
key defense counsel
and call them to task.
But now you've got this ongoing problem,
this tension between what the media
and the interest
and the public in trying to cover this
case, a historic nature
and also what the jurors
are going to be feeling.
And then you also have
social media post untruth, social.
Just last night,
Donald Trump
posting a quote
that he attributed to Jesse WATTERS
from Fox News.
He didn't directly say it himself,
but this is going to raise questions.
What was said.
Although he didn't
directly say it himself.
But all you have is a little line
underneath that, said Jesse
WATTERS, Fox News host.
He said they are catching undercover
liberal activists
lying to the judge
in order to get on the Trump jury.
There is absolutely no evidence of this
that there's any liberal activist
that has been caught.
Now, obviously,
as we have seen this process unfold,
there have been things
that have come out,
which is part of the jury selection
process of people saying
maybe I can't be fair
or old social media posts.
The judge has ruled on that
in various cases of these jurors.
Did you post in 2020
something about the election?
What news accounts?
What will be reposted on social media?
The judge in some cases
has dismissed these jurors
and other cases and said,
I don't really think that
this is going to impact their ability
to be impartial.
That is all part of the process.
But again,
here you have Donald Trump muddying
the waters.
He is tried time and time again
to make this case
seem as though
it is political,
that it is all about
election interference.
And this is just another way to do this
by essentially
telling his millions of followers
that the jury pool,
without even having a full seated
jury, is already biased against him.
And, of course, he's saying
he'll let you know after the trial
whether it was fair.
And again, having a fair
trial does not mean that an acquittal
is the only result in outcome.
And then you've got this issue,
of course, next Tuesday,
we're going to hear
a hearing on the gag order.
It has not been raised as of yet
in the courtroom
as it stands today by the judge about
whether this is a violation.
You've recently asked President Trump,
former President Trump,
about this very notion.
He does not think that he's
been violating the gag order at all.
Absolutely.
So after they had brought this
to the judge said,
we want a hearing on this.
We think he's violated the
the gag rule, not.
Not from this post, from the.
Prior post
where he was posting about Michael Cohen
and Stormy Daniels reposting articles
that were insulting them.
We asked Donald Trump,
who is Donald Trump?
When I saw him on Friday,
whether or not
he felt he had violated the gag order,
He said no, that there
shouldn't be a gag order at all.
Part of his argument
continues to be, well,
if they are saying things about me,
why can't I say things about them?
So it doesn't seem like he's
going to stop any time soon.
I will also tell you, though,
what's interesting to me
about all of this involving the gag order
that we know from his last trial,
his civil fraud trial,
that when he violated a gag
order and was fined,
he started working with his attorneys
essentially on
how to get all the way up to the line
without crossing it.
Even some of his social media posts
were being vetted by his attorneys.
Now, whether or not
they will go over this, I do not know.
I mean, he said pretty late at night.
So unclear whether or not
he had any approval for this,
but they were trying to figure out ways
for him to get all the way there.
Remember, Donald Trump does
want to spend any money, Right.
And that's all about a fund.
He does want to spend
the thousands of dollars.
You might get fined on that.
So that's what they were trying to do.
But again, the judge is going to decide
whether or not
he actually crossed that line.
Jim, this is such an important
turn of events This morning.
We all woke up believing
that this trial was set to
perhaps even have opening statements
as early as this coming Monday,
with seven jurors impaneled
and only 11 left to go,
including alternates.
And now this morning, a turn of events
where at least one
juror has now been excuse
had already been impaneled.
And we're still waiting
for others to appear.
And of course, the overall
voir dire process to continue
for still 96 others who surely know
about the consequences of today.
Yeah, the
road to opening arguments
has certainly hit a speed bump.
All right.
Laura Coates,
thank you very much for joining me
for all of this is a CNN
legal analyst and criminal
defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
Hey, Joey,
what do you think about this
news about this juror?
What does this tell us about the
selection process
that might be a little
bumpier than we thought?
Yeah, Jim, good morning to you.
Look, trials are about expect
the unexpected.
I think as we continue to move forward,
not being negative,
just being reasonable,
you're going to hit speed
bumps, you're going to hit issues.
That's part of the process, right?
Just like we in everyday life
hit speed bumps.
And so the fact that there's
a juror
who expressed concern is problematic
that you're being excused.
Now you have six.
We'll see what develops today
with respect to the jury
that's selected with regard
to those who say they cannot serve.
And we know
the judge has been very over
inclusive, saying, listen,
if you self-identify as being biased,
I'm going to just remove you.
But then, of course,
we also know, Jim,
that they're down to that.
It's the parties, the prosecution
and the defense
for peremptory challenges.
What does that mean in English?
It means that they can only either
party strike four more people.
So if you go through the panel
and you don't have the ability
to strike people
for a cause
and people don't identify as being bias,
you're going to have a jury
and it may very well
be running on the very same time frame
as it was running before.
So, yes, a hiccup.
To be clear,
something that is not ideal,
but you have to protect the safety,
security of the jury.
That's what the judge is doing.
That's what the jury is doing.
And I think the process
will move forward from here.
Yeah, I've covered some trials in my day.
Jury stuff happens.
I mean, that certainly is the case.
But how often does
something like this happen?
You know, it does happen.
And I think it's more frequent
than infrequent.
You have jurors that express a variety
of concerns, right.
In this case,
this unlike any other case, of course.
So it's unparalleled.
But just in a normal course of a case,
you'll have a jury expressed
some concern.
Something will come up
with the jurors family,
something will go amiss at work,
something someone will get ill.
And that leads to the question,
Jim, of alternate.
And that's why
you have alternate jurors, right?
Not that we're going to
have a jury pool yet, of course,
but that's why
the judge wants at least six,
so that if something comes up,
whether it's an identity breach,
whether it's some other
intimidation concern,
whether it's some unexpected event
that happens in a juror's life,
you don't have to redo the trial.
You can just substitute
an alternate such
that the matter can move forward.
Mr.
Trump can get a fair trial
and the ultimate jury
can reach a determination
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, Joey.
And if you were listening in to Laura
Coates and Kristen
Holmes, a few moments ago,
what do you make of this
truth social post
that Trump put out there
quoting a Fox News
commentator about jurors trying to,
you know,
sneak on to the jury
and so on disguising
their political beliefs?
There's no there's no evidence of that.
It's just something that they're saying.
But does that potentially violate
the judge's orders in this case?
Yes.
So, yes, I was listening
to the coverage
of both Laura and Kristen.
And the reality is, is that
it does violate it. Why?
So the matter is,
is that you can't hide behind anchors.
You can't hide behind
what other people are saying.
You can't hide behind the notion
that it wasn't me.
I'm just quoting someone.
The judge rendered an order.
That order said that
you're not to be sending out posts
as it relates to either
witnesses or jurors or, you know,
so follow the order.
And so what is going to be of interest
to me is by Tuesday, number one, Jim,
how many other times
the former president does this, if any?
And number two, what,
if anything, the judge does?
I think we're beyond the stage
of admonishing someone,
saying don't do it.
I think we have to give an order teeth.
And to do that,
I think there's one or two things.
Economics. Right.
Do you find him or do you put him on ice?
Right. You put him in.
You know.
Yes, it's a former president, jail time.
Joey's saying. Why not?
That's exactly what I'm saying, Jim.
I mean, look.
Yes, I get he's a former president.
I get their Secret Service.
I get this cases like no other.
But if you're going to have someone
completely flouting
the rules of the court,
how else are you going
to maintain decorum?
How else are you going
to maintain respect?
How else are you going
to conduct the trial
if you don't have consequences?
People need consequences to incentivize
good behavior.
Otherwise it leads to bad behavior.
And so maybe it's a
maybe it's a few hours,
maybe it's a half a day,
but it would be of interest to me.
We're not there yet.
The hearing is Tuesday.
How many more times as he does,
does he do this?
What are the universe of issues
considered on Tuesday with respect
to gag order violations
and what the judge does to enforce it?
I think that's very important.
All right, Joey Jackson,
great to have your insights, as always.
Thanks so much.
Thanks.