How on earth in 20, 22
did they find a panel of jurors
who are truly impartial
when it comes to Donald Trump?
That's what I was wondering
during this week's
jury selection
for the Trump
Organization tax fraud
trial in Manhattan Supreme Court,
which took three days.
12 jurors were chosen
two of the Trump
Payroll Corporation Defense
Lawyers will join me in just a moment
to answer that question.
Trump himself
isn't personally charged
in this case against
his company,
isn't expected
to show up at the courthouse
unlike his former
chief financial officer, Allen
Weisselberg, who pled guilty
and is expected to be
the state star witness.
But just as he looms over the midterms,
despite not being on the ballot,
he can't help
but be a specter in the courtroom.
Question 29,
the juror questionnaire form
got to the crux of it.
Do you have any strong opinions or firmly
held beliefs about former
President Donald J.
Trump, either positive or negative
that would interfere with your ability
to be a fair and impartial juror?
As lead prosecutor
Susan Hoffman's, you're told the court.
If we were to strike every juror
who had a negative opinion
about Donald Trump,
we wouldn't be able to get a jury at all.
And you have to believe other prosecutors
who may be considering prosecuting
Trump himself
are closely watching this trial,
this process.
When Judge
Juan Mershon first informed
130 potential jurors
about details of this case,
many waved their hands in the air
to request private screening by the judge
and lawyers
about reasons they could not serve.
More than half were then dismissed.
One man was excused after saying
Trump made him, quote, sick to his guts.
Another was gone
after calling Trump a demonstrative liar.
One woman said, He's guilty.
In my mind,
whatever the case is,
anything he does, anything
his corporation does.
Of the 12 selected on Thursday.
Three or a quarter
openly said
they are not fans
of the former president,
but nevertheless said
they could be fair and impartial.
As jurors.
The man who would become juror number
eight said,
Honestly, I used to think he was funny
before he was president.
Then he started acting a little crazy
and narcissistic
That's the only reason
I didn't like him as president.
Not so much policy.
Joining me now are two veteran
Philadelphia lawyers
working for the Trump
Payroll Corporation defense team.
William Brennan and Michael Van Der Veen,
both of whom also represented Trump
during his second impeachment.
With Van Der Veen taking the lead role.
You'll remember him
putting in your evidence.
So I started to be able
to get looking at it.
You need to stop.
There was nothing fun here, Mr.
Raskin. We aren't having fun here.
This is about the most
you're being
you're starting this trial
with a quarter of the jurors
saying they don't like. And I get it.
You represent a corporate entity,
but come on,
they don't like Donald Trump.
How can you win that?
Well, the first
you'll win it
by putting the facts into the case
and putting your defenses on.
But what we did
in the jury selection is we tried to
separate Donald Trump from the company.
If he's not a defendant in this case.
They've investigated his companies
thoroughly.
They didn't
charge him with any criminal conduct.
And and the running of the company
and the folks that were doing
the acting for the company
are the focus of of the trial
and I think will be
what carries the day for us.
Bill Brennan, you've been
quoted in the media
as saying this is a garden variety tax
fraud case,
but still,
won't it become a referendum on Trump?
Michael, that's out of my control.
I've been doing this for 35 years.
This is a garden variety tax
fraud criminal case,
and that's how I'm going to try it.
And we spent a long time
this week trying to select
12 jurors who gave their word
that they'll give us a fair shot.
And I believe in the jury system
and I believe that
when people get into that jury box
in that jury room,
they're their best instincts take over.
And I take them at their word
that they'll give us a fair shake.
You know, we're presumed innocent.
And I think that the you know, we'll
we'll have a fair jury.
Mike Michael Van Der
Veen so if I'm a prospective juror
and I'm asked,
what do you think of Donald Trump?
And I disparage him, in fact,
maybe I even used the word despise.
How does it work?
Am I then asked a question by the court?
Well, you know, Mr.
Smerconish, could you nevertheless
put aside those feelings?
And if I say, yeah,
I could put aside all that, then
then I'm in
Yeah, that's basically it.
And a little bit more expansive to Mike.
What we
what we do
is we really start asking
probing questions about
the specifics
of their feelings or emotions
and talk to them
about weighing the balance.
But what's really most critical
and what we rely on
and what all lawyers
rely on
is once
that jury is picked, seated and sworn in
and they go back
and they listen to the
evidence and deliberate
That door closes.
And, boy, people try to do the best
they can.
They they put aside their prejudices.
They put for the most part,
put aside their biases.
And try to be the best jurors they can.
They follow.
We find that
they follow the judge's
instructions closely
and they try to be the best part
of our system that they can be.
Counselor Brennan.
In the end,
it's a self-certification, right?
You have to
the court has to take the word
of a prospective juror
that they have the ability to be fair
and impartial,
whatever their personal feelings
might be.
So do you worry about a sleeper cell?
Do you worry about somebody
who is just going to say
whatever the hell they have to say
so that they can get on that jury?
Well, Michael, there's always
that possibility.
You're a lawyer you pick juries.
You know that the process comes up.
The phrase comes from the French
voir dire.
It means to speak the truth
and the court and the prosecution team
and the defense team
gets to individually question
each prospective juror.
And we do the best we can.
You know,
it may not be the best system ever,
but it's the best we've got.
So I believe that after a week
of questioning,
hundreds of prospective jurors,
you know, it sets in some sense, Michael,
from the set of jurors, the veneer panel
that we started with I believe we had
the best subset we could have
gotten.
Now, if somebody has a hidden agenda,
it's hidden.
We can't figure that out.
We won't know that.
But I agree with Michael Van Der Veen.
I believe that when 12 American citizens
get into that jury room,
they really do try to do the right thing.
I'm a great believer
in the American jury system,
and I believe that we
will get a fair shake.
And I was thinking as I'm
speaking to the two of you,
you know, maybe a change of venue, but
where are you going to go in the country?
I mean, these same issues
would present themselves
pertaining to Donald Trump
no matter,
you know, if you're in Maine
or if you're in New Mexico.