Impartiality is an Impossibility – Jury Selected to Hear Case against Trump is not Impartial

Judge Juan Merchan has seated jurors who openly support President Joe Biden. He has seated jurors who clearly voted for Biden and will vote for Biden again. He has seated jurors who are likely suppressing their animosity towards former President Trump. Merchan has asked all the jurors he has seated if they can set aside their personal biases and judge the “evidence” in the bookkeeping error case against Trump – a case that morphed into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The 12 jurors all swear they can be impartial and judge the evidence without bias. This is difficult to believe.

When it comes to Biden supporters, I have yet to meet any who are neutral or indifferent about Trump. They all seem to really hate the man. In the same way Trump supporters despise Joe Biden, those jurors who voted for Joe Biden, and will vote for him again, hate Donald Trump. I do not believe an impartial jury could be seated in this case against Trump anywhere in the United States.

Judge Merchan had a responsibility to seat a jury that represents a cross section of the “community”. In this case against Trump, the reality is the community is much, much larger than the ultra-liberal Manhattan District. However, even in Manhattan there are Trump supporters who would swear they have the same “impartiality” the Biden supporters claim they can muster when it comes time to reach a verdict.

How many obvious Trump voters are there on the jury? How many people who clearly plan to vote for Trump in 2024 has Judge Juan Merchan seated on the jury? There’s no middle ground. There are 12 jurors. Likely all of them voted for either Trump or Biden in 2020. Likely all of them know who they will be voting for in 2024. None of them are “undecided.” Will 12 jurors who plan to vote for Joe Biden in 2024 be an impartial jury? Will they somehow be more impartial than a jury made up of 12 men and women who plan to vote for Trump in 2024? No, they will not. How did the 12 jurors, selected by Judge Merchan, vote in 2020? Rest assured; Merchan knows.

Impartiality is an impossibility in this case against Trump. Alvin Bragg’s malicious prosecution of the former president Donald Trump is seen one of two ways – as either a favorable, or a treasonous, way to help Joe Biden win reelection. There is no gray area. No common ground. Any talking head in the press or politician who claims otherwise is as dishonest as the day is long. No truly unbiased ruling can be reached in this New York case against Trump because the charges themselves are rooted in venom and bias.

To pretend the politically motivated, deeply partisan Judge Juan Merchan has seated a fair jury is delusional. Merchan and Bragg are on a mission, on behalf of Joe Biden, to thwart Donald J. Trump’s 2024 reelection bid. Trump voters across the country know it. If the jury is not “hung” it was not fairly seated. As previously mentioned, impartiality is an impossibility. The closest Merchan could have come to “fair” was to seat an equal number of Trump and Biden voters. Merchan has failed in this regard.

The jurors selected were picked as the best jury to pass off as impartial and fair while likely to deliver the verdict the Biden regime lusts after – guilty on all charges.

Some additional reading from the Cornell Law School:

Right to an Impartial Jury: Current Doctrine

The requirement of an impartial jury is secured not only by the Sixth Amendment, which is as applicable to the states as to the Federal Government, but also by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and perhaps by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In addition, the Court’s has directed its supervisory power over the federal system to the issue. Even before the Court extended the right to a jury trial to state courts, it was firmly established that, if a state chose to provide juries, the juries had to be impartial.

Impartiality is a two-fold requirement.

First, the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. 

Second, there must be assurance that the jurors chosen are unbiased, i.e., willing to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.