New York Times editorial board member Jesse Wegman argued in an op-ed published Sunday that a criminal jury is likely the "best answer" to achieving accountability for ex-President Donald Trump for his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Wegman credits his recent rewatching of the 1957 film "12 Angry Men" for invoking this thought.
He notes that in the film "two jurors nearly come to blows while deliberating over a first-degree murder case on a sweltering summer afternoon in New York City. After they are separated, one of the other jurors, a soft-spoken watchmaker played by George Voskovec, steps forward to break the awkward silence," saying, "This fighting — that's not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility. This I have always thought is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are, what is the word … notified! That we are notified by mail to come down to this place to decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have never heard of before. We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons we are strong."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?
Wegman writes:
I've been thinking a lot about '12 Angry Men' lately, and the seriousness with which it takes the jurors' humanity and the importance of their role. It has felt especially powerful over the last week, as Donald Trump surrendered to authorities for the fourth time in five months and was booked in Fulton County, Ga., on charges including racketeering involving his effort to overturn that state’s 2020 vote for president.
As I rewatched the film the other night, I realized that a criminal jury may well be the best answer to the difficulty in holding Mr. Trump accountable for Jan. 6. I haven't always felt this way. Prosecuting a former president, however justified by the facts, seemed to me like the last-resort option, after the other means had failed.
He emphasizes, "This is what it means to live in a society governed by the rule of law. In the form of the jury, we briefly create a world in which facts and law, rather than prejudices, have a chance to carry the day. It's not a world most of us can inhabit all or even most of the time, but without it, democracy couldn't exist."
Wegman contends that a criminal jury "will not only determine Mr. Trump's fate; it will do so...as one of the purest distillations of democratic self-government. A dozen randomly selected citizens, notified by mail to come down to the courthouse, will decide on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen, who happens to be the former president."
READ MORE: 'Extremely difficult': Experts weigh repercussions if Trump violates Georgia bail
The New York Times' full report is available at this link (subscription required).