Trump's E. Jean Carroll rape trial jury kept anonymous in wake of 'hush money' chaos

11 April 2023

A federal judge is refusing to ease restrictions regarding the public release of jurors involved in the case for E. Jean Carroll "even enough to confidentially share their identities with the attorneys," a new report confirms.

According to Law & Crime, Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has insisted that he cannot "issue such an order in 'good conscience,'" especially in light of Trump’s continuing attacks on the jurist presiding over the former president’s criminal case."

The latest report comes nearly two weeks after Kaplan's remarks made on March 23, 2023. At the time, Kaplan made it clear that it was imperative to protect and conceal the identity of jurors for their own safety. In his six-page ruling released on Monday, April 10, Kaplan expounded on his stance.

"The likelihood of such difficulties since the Court made those findings only has increased," Kaplan wrote in a six-page ruling on Monday. "That is so in view of Mr. Trump's public statements, characterized by the media as attacks against the New York State judge presiding over the recently filed New York State criminal case against Mr. Trump and the threats reportedly then made, presumably by Mr. Trump’s supporters, against that judge and members of his family."

In his footnotes, Kaplan referenced some of the events that have transpired in Manhattan over the last week and "multiple reports about threats pouring into the chambers of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan in the wake of Trump's attacks," the news outlet noted.

The judge went on to reinforce his desire for anonymity.

"The overriding goal is the selection of fair and impartial jurors who can perform their duties free of unwanted media attention, free of inappropriate influence attempts, and free of any fear of harassment or retaliation, regardless of the outcome of the case," the ruling states.

It adds, "In light of that preeminent goal, I cannot in good conscience grant the request that these parties' 'legal teams' — or even their attorneys of record only – should have the names of the otherwise anonymous jurors."

He also cited statistics that highlight public distrust in legal professionals to further explain his perspective.

"There are empirical studies indicating that the public, in general, does not have a high regard for the trustworthiness of lawyers," the ruling states. "And it is not speculation to conclude, as I do, that at least some members of the jury in this case, if told that their identities would be confidential from everyone except the lawyers for (let alone 'legal teams' of) these parties, likely would not feel confidence that their identities would remain known only to the lawyers or legal teams."

The case is scheduled to go to trial on April 25.

Law & Crime's full analysis is available here.

From Your Site Articles